ML20057C576

Forwards Insp Repts 50-528/93-29,50-529/93-29 & 50-530/93-29 on 930621-0709 & Notice of Violation.First Violation of Concern Because of Important Role That Radiation Monitoring Sys Plays in Protecting Health & Safety of Workers & Public

ML20057C576
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	09/08/1993
From:	Reese J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:	Conway W ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR
Shared Package
ML20057C577	List: IR 05000528/1993029 ML20057C576 ML20057C594
References
EA-93-218, NUDOCS 9309290129
Download: ML20057C576 (4)

See also: IR 05000528/1993029

Text

x

.

/

%g

UNITED STATES

j

'

e'e

v-

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

!

.

l

%), E

REGION V

-

1450 MARIA LANE

"% , ," [#'

%

,

WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596-5368

,

.

SEP 0 81933

Dockets 50-528, 50-529, and 50-530

)

'

Licenses NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74

,

EA 93-218

Arizona Public Service Company

P. O. Box 53999, Sta. 9012

Phoenix, Arizona 85072-3999

Attention:

William F. Conway

Executive Vice President, Nuclear

SUBJECT:

NRC INSPECTION REPORT 50-528/93-29; 50-529/93-29; 50-530/93-29

NOTICE OF VIOLATION

EA 93-218

From June 21 to July 9,1993, Mr. R. Bocanegra, Mr. N. Mamish, and

Mr. L. Coblentz of this office conducted an inspection of your Palo Verde

Nuclear Generating Station.

At the conclusion of the inspection, the

inspectors discussed our findings with members of your staff identified in the

enclosed report. The inspectors also held numerous telephone discussions with

members of your staff from July 12-20, 1993.

Areas examined during this inspection are described in the enclosed report.

Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examination of

procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, independent

measurements, and observations of activities in progress.

Based on the results of this inspection, certain of your activities appear to

be in violation of NRC requirements, as specified in the enclosed Notice of

Violation (Notice). Three violations and one non-cited violation were

identified. The first violation involved failure to take corrective action

for a condition adverse to quality relating to the sampling techniques of

secondary steam generator water chemistry. This failure caused the calculated

primary-to-secondary leak rate to be non-conservative by a factor of 5 to 10.

Thus ten days prior to the Unit 2 tube rupture event, the leakage rate for

steam generator No. 2 spiked to greater than 100 gallons per day (gpd), yet

your report for that day to the NRC indicated values of approximately 10 gpd.

We understand that the error was apparently caused by dilution of steam

generator water samples by feedwater. The significance of the error is

exacerbated in that the steam generator manufacturer made you aware of the

potential for dilution in December 1992, but you.nonetheless decided not to

implement the recommendation for measurements involving radioactivity in the

steam generator water,

in your response, please explain why you chose not to

implement * the recommendation.

.

/,,

9309290129 930908

/ V

PDR

ADDCK 05000528-

G

PDR

/

!

,

.

j

'

.

~

2

<

The second violation identified multiple examples of failure to follow

.

approved radiation monitoring system procedures. This violation is of concern

because of the important role that this system plays in protecting the health

and safety of workers and.the public.

Of particular concern is the muffling

to reduce the vol'ume of the ~ local alarm for a radiation nonitor.

This act

indicates a lack of understanding of the purpose of radiation monitor alarms

and an insensitivity to radiation monitor alarms by members of your staff.

In

your response please address the results of your investigation into this

incident, whether you have had other such incidents, and any training you

provided your staff as a result of this incident.

,

The third violation involves the methods of performing leak checks on

radioactive sources. This violation is being cited because it is a Severity

Level IV violation that was identified by the NRC, and thus did not meet the

-

'

criteria of section VII.B of the Enforcement Policy.

Although 10 CFR 2.201

requires a written statement of explanation to this office, this violation had

been corrected and those actions were reviewed during the inspection and

subsequent telephone discussions with members of your staff.

Therefore, no

response with respect to this particular matter is required.

Finally, a violation was identified regarding the requirements of 10 CFR 19.11. However, this violation will not be cited because the criteria of

Section VII.B of the Enforcement Policy were satisfied.

'

With the exception identified above, you are required to respond to this

letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice

when preparing your response.

In your response, you should document the

specific actions taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent

i

After reviewing your response to this Notice, including your

recurrence.

proposed corrective actions and the results of future inspections, the NRC

will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure

compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.

l

.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of

this letter and its enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject

to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required

,

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L.96-511.

Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be glad to

discuss them with you.

Sincerely,

'

/

l

l

Jam'siH. .eese, 'hi f

facilities Radiolo ical Protection Branch

.

Enclosures:

1.

Notice of Violation

2.

Inspection Report 50-528/93-29; 50-529/93-29; 530/93-29

.

y

. - -

,

-

.

-

.

.

.

. _ =

__.

-

_,

4

. -

.

cc w/ enclosures:

Mr-. Steve Olea,' Arizona Corporation Commission

[

James A. Beoletto, Esq., Southern California Edison Company

Mr. Charles B. Brinkman, Manager, Washington Nuclear Operations

l

' Mr. Aubrey Godwin, Director, Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency

Chairman, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors

Jack R. Newman, .Esq., Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.

t

Mr. Curtis Hoskins, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer,

-

Palo Verde Services

!

Roy P. Lessey, Jr., Esq., Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer and Feld

Bradley W. Jones, Esq., Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer and Feld

,

Thomas R. Bradish, Manager, Nuclear Regulatory Affairs, APS, -

t

!

,

I

s

%

$

i

i.

l

.

1

i

1

'

t

!

I

i

-

i

1

4

1

-

-

_

f

g

h

'

'

, _ ,

4

Arizona Public Service Company

Inspection Report 50-528/93-29,50-529/93-29,50-530/93-29

bcc w/ enclosure:

Docket File

Project Inspector

Resident Inspector

G. Cook

B. Faulkenberry

State of Arizona

'

bcc w/o enclosure:

'

M. Smith

J. Zollicoffer

R c negra

1.C

egz

9/y/93

9/ /93

REQUEST

PY

REQUEST COPY

YES /N

YES / NO

-

/ A

00

Y

--M0 lumen ;lf

fvr'

r

NMgis

JR

e

i

RSc ,no

-

'I /7/43

9 /g/g

/j/g /g

/

REQUEST COPY

REQUEST COPY

REQUEST

PY

REQUEST COPY

YES I NO O

YES R NO O YES tJ NO O

YES

No O

/

SEND TO PDR

SEND TO DCS.

YES

NO O

YES

NO 0,

i

.A.

!

.

I

!

280011

reek

!

.-

,

. . . .

,,

,

--

- - - - .

. - - -

--