ML17304A839: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:'pi PiFQJQI( gr Arizona Nuclear Power Project P.O. BOX 52034 ~   PHOENIX. ARIZONAI5072-%34 ~ 0 (.l. f t 102-01069-DBK/TDS7kf! kC December 19, 1988 DONAI.O B.KARNER EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:     Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555
{{#Wiki_filter:'pi DONAI.O B.KARNER EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT PiFQJQI(
gr Arizona Nuclear Power Project P.O. BOX 52034
~
PHOENIX. ARIZONAI5072-%34
~
0
(.l. f t 102-01069-DBK/TDS7kf!kC December 19, 1988 U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:
Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555


==Reference:==
==Reference:==
Letter from G. P. Yuhas, Chief, Emergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection Branch, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Arizona Nuclear Power Project, Attn. D. B. Karner, Executive Vice President, dated December 2, 1988.
Letter from G.
P.
Yuhas, Chief, Emergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection
: Branch, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Arizona Nuclear Power Project, Attn. D.
B. Karner, Executive Vice President, dated December 2,
1988.


==Dear   Sir:==
==Dear Sir:==
==Subject:==
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2 and 3
Docket No.
STN 50-528 (License No. NPF-41)
STN 50-529 (License No. NPF-51 STN 50-530 (License No. NPF-74)
Reply to a Notice of. Violation - 528/88-40-01 File:
88-056-026 S
This letter is provided in response to the routine inspection conducted by Hr.
G. Cicotte from October 31 through November 4, 19&8.
Based upon the results of this inspection a violation of NRC requirements was identified.
The violation is discussed in Appendix A of the referenced letter.
The violation and ANPP's response are provided. in the attachment to this letter.
If you should have any questions regarding this response, contact Hr.
Timothy Shriver of my staff at (602) 393-2521.
DBK/TDS/KLHC/kj Attachments CC:
J.
G.
J.
B.
T. J.
M. J.
T. L.
A. C.
Haynes (all w/attachments)
Martin Polich Davis Chan Gehr


==Subject:==
t
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1,  2 and 3 Docket No. STN 50-528          (License No. NPF-41)
STN 50-529          (License No. NPF-51 STN 50-530          (License No. NPF-74)
Reply to a Notice of. Violation - 528/88-40-01 File: 88-056-026 S
This    letter is provided in response to the routine inspection conducted by Hr.
G. Cicotte from October 31 through November 4, 19&8. Based upon the results of this inspection a violation of NRC requirements was identified. The violation is discussed in Appendix A of the referenced letter.
The  violation    and ANPP's response are provided. in the attachment to this letter.      If you  should have any questions regarding this response, contact Hr.
Timothy Shriver of      my  staff at      (602) 393-2521.
DBK/TDS/KLHC/kj Attachments CC:      J. G. Haynes      (all w/attachments)
J. B. Martin T. J. Polich M. J. Davis T. L. Chan A. C. Gehr


t NRC Document Control Desk                                           102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC Page  1  of 2                                                        December 19, 1988 APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Arizona Public Service Company                       Docket Hos. 50-528, 50-529, 50-530 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating                        License Nos. NPF-41, 51, 74 Station Units 1 2; and 3 .-
NRC Document Control Desk Page 1 of 2 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Arizona Public Service Company Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 2; and 3.-
During   an inspection conducted October     31 - November 4, 1988,     a violation of NRC requirements was:identified.         In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy   and Procedure     for,4RC.-Enforcement Actions,"     10 CFR Part 2, Appendix   C (1988), as modified by       53 Fed. Reg. 40019 (October 13, 1988),       the violation is listed   below:
Docket Hos. 50-528, 50-529, 50-530 License Nos.
A.     Technical Specification 6.8, "Procedures and Programs," states in part:
NPF-41, 51, 74 During an inspection conducted October 31 - November 4,
Written procedures shall     be established,   implemented, and pa.i,ntained covering   the..."
: 1988, a violation of NRC requirements was:identified.
        "i. Offsite   Dose   Calculation Manual tODCM]...."
In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for,4RC.-Enforcement Actions,"
Licensee Procedure 75RP-OZ108, "Radiological Environmental           Air Sample Collection," Revision 0, dated 3-4-88, states in part:
10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C
(1988),
as modified by 53 Fed.
Reg.
40019 (October 13, 1988), the violation is listed below:
A.
Technical Specification 6.8, "Procedures and Programs,"
states in part:
Written procedures shall be established, implemented, and pa.i,ntained covering the..."
"i.
Offsite Dose Calculation Manual tODCM]...."
Licensee Procedure 75RP-OZ108, "Radiological Environmental Air Sample Collection," Revision 0, dated 3-4-88, states in part:


NRC Document Control Desk                                       102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC Page  2  of  2                                                  December 19, 1988 APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION (Continued)
NRC Document Control Desk Page 2 of 2 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION (Continued)
        "1.0   ~Per ose
"1.0
: 1. 1 This procedure provides the requirements   for the   weekly issue and exchange   of particulate air filters and charcoal cartridges as required by the ODCH and the REHP [Radiological Environmental Honitoring Program]...."
~Per ose
        "6. 1.3.4     Flowmeter reading   (If reading is 1.5 CFH no adjustments   are necessary, otherwise adjust to 1.5 CFH)."
: 1. 1 This procedure provides the requirements for the weekly issue and exchange of particulate air filters and charcoal cartridges as required by the ODCH and the REHP [Radiological Environmental Honitoring Program]...."
Contrary to the above, at approximately 12:45 p.m.       HST, on November 2, l
"6. 1.3.4 Flowmeter reading (If reading is 1.5 CFH no adjustments are necessary, otherwise adjust to 1.5 CFH)."
1988, the flowmeter for environmental sampling station Nos.         15 and 14a was returned to service without having been adjusted to 1.5       CFH.
Contrary to the above, at approximately 12:45 p.m.
I This is   a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement IV).
: HST, on November 2, l
: 1988, the flowmeter for environmental sampling station Nos.
15 and 14a was returned to service without having been adjusted to 1.5 CFH.
I This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement IV).


NRC Document Control Desk                                               102-01069- DBK/TDS/KLHC Page  1  of  5                                                          December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01 I.     REASON FOR   VIOLATION On   November 2, 1988, the weekly environmental           air sampling was performed by an ANPP   contract employee.       The   air sampling was performed using procedure 75RP-OZZ08, "Radiological Environmental               Air Sample Collection", Revision 0, dated Harch 4,             1988. During the performance of the   air sampling at predetermined       sites   14a and 15a, the inspector observed   that the flowmeter reading recorded prior to adjustments               was
NRC Document Control Desk Page 1 of 5 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01 I.
: 2. 1 CFH and   2.0 CFH   respectively.     The individual then adjusted the flowrate to obtain       a flowmeter reading at site 14a of 2.0         CFH.
REASON FOR VIOLATION On November 2,
As   discussed   in the inspection report, procedure           75RP-OZZ08 paragraph 6.1.3.3 states; "Flowmeter reading     (If reading   is 1.5   CFH no adjustments   are necessary;   otherwise adjust to 1.5 CFH).
: 1988, the weekly environmental air sampling was performed by an ANPP contract employee.
A   preliminary evaluation conducted         by ANPP confirmed the     inspector's observations that the sample station flowrate             was adjusted to obtain     a flowmeter reading of 2.0       CFH or was left   in the as found condition of 2.0 CFH. As a   result,   ANPP initiated   an evaluation to determine the root cause of the deficiency         and to identify the necessary corrective actions. The   results of that evaluation are discussed in the following paragraphs.
The air sampling was performed using procedure 75RP-OZZ08, "Radiological Environmental Air Sample Collection", Revision 0, dated Harch 4, 1988.
During the performance of the air sampling at predetermined sites 14a and
: 15a, the inspector observed that the flowmeter reading recorded prior to adjustments was
: 2. 1 CFH and 2.0 CFH respectively.
The individual then adjusted the flowrate to obtain a flowmeter reading at site 14a of 2.0 CFH.
As discussed in the inspection report, procedure 75RP-OZZ08 paragraph 6.1.3.3 states; "Flowmeter reading (If reading is 1.5 CFH no adjustments are necessary; otherwise adjust to 1.5 CFH).
A preliminary evaluation conducted by ANPP confirmed the inspector's observations that the sample station flowrate was adjusted to obtain a
flowmeter reading of 2.0 CFH or was left in the as found condition of 2.0 CFH.
As a result, ANPP initiated an evaluation to determine the root cause of the deficiency and to identify the necessary corrective actions.
The results of that evaluation are discussed in the following paragraphs.


NRC Document Control Desk                                             102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION         528/88-40-01
NRC Document Control Desk 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01
        .....Prior. to November,     1987   the contractor had been supplied flowmeters, used to verify/adjust the flowrates at the various sampling sites, which     measured   air flow on   a percentage   scale.
.....Prior. to November, 1987 the contractor had been supplied flowmeters, used to verify/adjust the flowrates at the various sampling sites, which measured air flow on a percentage scale.
The scale range is 0-100% with       100% equaling 2.5     CFH +5%. In November; 1987 the     contractor   was supplied replacement meters which could be permanently       installed at the collection sites.         The replacement meters measured       air flow on   a scale ranging from 0-6 CFH +10%. The   contractor independently evaluated the two devices and determined     that a reading of 2.0   CFH on   the replacement meter equated to   a reading of     60% on the original meter       and would therefore provide     a true measurement of 1.5       CFH. The procedural controls, as previously discussed,       were revised to address       the ~
The scale range is 0-100% with 100% equaling 2.5 CFH +5%.
replacement: meters and-required, the       air flow to     be adjusted to obtain a meter reading     of 1.5   CFH. The intent of the procedure was to ensure   a sample flow   rate through the'collection equipment
In November; 1987 the contractor was supplied replacement meters which could be permanently installed at the collection sites.
                                                                                        'I of 1.5 CFH. Therefore, based upon the unapproved evaluation, the contractor utilized     a flowmeter reading of 2.0 to adjust the sampling site flowrates.       This decision   was   discussed with and
The replacement meters measured air flow on a scale ranging from 0-6 CFH +10%.
            , concurred with by     an ANPP   representative.     Based upon these events, the "root causes" of the identified violation are the failure of the contract organization to           adhere   to established procedural controls and the       failure of the     ANPP   representative to initiate the required evaluations and procedural changes that would have authorized the       contractor's actions.
The contractor independently evaluated the two devices and determined that a reading of 2.0 CFH on the replacement meter equated to a reading of 60% on the original meter and would therefore provide a true measurement of 1.5 CFH.
The procedural
: controls, as previously discussed, were revised to address the
~
replacement: meters and-required, the air flow to be adjusted to obtain a meter reading of 1.5 CFH.
The intent of the procedure was to ensure a sample flow rate through the'collection equipment
'I of 1.5 CFH.
Therefore, based upon the unapproved evaluation, the contractor utilized a flowmeter reading of 2.0 to adjust the sampling site flowrates.
This decision was discussed with and
, concurred with by an ANPP representative.
Based upon these
: events, the "root causes" of the identified violation are the failure of the contract organization to adhere to established procedural controls and the failure of the ANPP representative to initiate the required evaluations and procedural changes that would have authorized the contractor's actions.


NRC   Document Control Desk                                           102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION         528/88-40>>01 II.     CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN AND RESULTS ACHIEVED As an immediate corrective action, an evaluation was performed to determine the effect of using 2.0       CFH   vice the required 1.5     CFH flowrate. The   difference in the calculated activity results is approximately   25 percent in the conservative direction.
NRC Document Control Desk 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40>>01 II.
Additionally, the original flowmeters which           were utilized by the contractor   have been returned     to the contractor for use.       The meters'alibration stickers   have been   specifically   annotated that   a 100%               scale reading equates to     a 2.5 CFH flowrate. A change   has been approved                 to the governing procedure,       75RP-OZZ08,   clarifying the readings required to obtain the appropriate flowrate.
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN AND RESULTS ACHIEVED As an immediate corrective action, an evaluation was performed to determine the effect of using 2.0 CFH vice the required 1.5 CFH flowrate.
I I I. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN TO AVOID FURTHER VIOLATIONS To address   the fact that the contract individual believed he could deviate from established procedural controls based upon             an unapproved technical justification,       a letter was   issued to the contractor from-ANPP on November 10, 1988.       The letter informed the contractor of     this event and emphasized   that   any deviation from procedural controls       was unacceptable. The letter   also provided instructions that whenever                     an individual performing     a procedure has   a question or concern regarding the procedure's     adequacy,   technical accuracy, or requirements         he             shall stop the   activity   and resolve the matter with       ANPP management     prior to
The difference in the calculated activity results is approximately 25 percent in the conservative direction.
Additionally, the original flowmeters which were utilized by the contractor have been returned to the contractor for use.
The meters'alibration stickers have been specifically annotated that a
100% scale reading equates to a 2.5 CFH flowrate.
A change has been approved to the governing procedure, 75RP-OZZ08, clarifying the readings required to obtain the appropriate flowrate.
III.
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN TO AVOID FURTHER VIOLATIONS To address the fact that the contract individual believed he could deviate from established procedural controls based upon an unapproved technical justification, a letter was issued to the contractor from-ANPP on November 10, 1988.
The letter informed the contractor of this event and emphasized that any deviation from procedural controls was unacceptable.
The letter also provided instructions that whenever an individual performing a procedure has a question or concern regarding the procedure's
: adequacy, technical
: accuracy, or requirements he shall stop the activity and resolve the matter with ANPP management prior to


NRC Document Control Desk                                         102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLMC December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION       528/88-40-0l proceeding,   ANPP has   requested   that the contractor brief the responsible personnel     to ensure they understand   and comply   with these instructions. In addition,   a meeting was held by   ANPP on December   1, 1988 with the re'sponsible contract personnel to reinforce the         ANPP requirements   for procedural compliance.
NRC Document Control Desk 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLMC December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-0l proceeding, ANPP has requested that the contractor brief the responsible personnel to ensure they understand and comply with these instructions.
As an additional corrective action,       ANPP has evaluated the other     ANPP procedures   utilized by the   contractor to implement the     REHP. The evaluation identified     no technical deficiencies.
In addition, a meeting was held by ANPP on December 1,
The ANPP   representative     who was made aware   of the procedural deviation by the contractor   and   failed to..take appropriate action has been counseled. Based upon the individual's previous performance, no additional actions are     deemed   necessary at this time. However, the Radiation Protection Standards       section responsible for the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REHP)         will be briefed   on the necessity to properly overview     a contractor's performance   and   to conduct a careful review of the documentation submitted by the contractor placing particular   emphasis on   ensuring procedural compliance.
1988 with the re'sponsible contract personnel to reinforce the ANPP requirements for procedural compliance.
IV. DATE WHEN FULL COMPLIANCE WILL BE ACHIEVED All the corrective actions stated in Sections II         and III have been implemented with the exception       of the briefings to   be given to the contract personnel   and   the Radiation Protection Standards section
As an additional corrective action, ANPP has evaluated the other ANPP procedures utilized by the contractor to implement the REHP.
The evaluation identified no technical deficiencies.
The ANPP representative who was made aware of the procedural deviation by the contractor and failed to..take appropriate action has been counseled.
Based upon the individual's previous performance, no additional actions are deemed necessary at this time.
However, the Radiation Protection Standards section responsible for the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REHP) will be briefed on the necessity to properly overview a contractor's performance and to conduct a careful review of the documentation submitted by the contractor placing particular emphasis on ensuring procedural compliance.
IV.
DATE WHEN FULL COMPLIANCE WILL BE ACHIEVED All the corrective actions stated in Sections II and III have been implemented with the exception of the briefings to be given to the contract personnel and the Radiation Protection Standards section


t 1
t 1


NRC Document Control Desk                                   102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC Page  5  of  5                                              December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01 personnel responsible for the implementation of the   RENP. ANPP estimates the completion of these briefings by February 1989.
NRC Document Control Desk Page 5 of 5 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01 personnel responsible for the implementation of the RENP.
ANPP estimates the completion of these briefings by February 1989.


C
C
(
(
L Qj t
L Qj H
H r
r t
f,
f,


  .; gCcp~~TH)                 DISTRIBUTION         .DEMOYSTRXTION             SYSTEM
.; gCcp~~TH)
  >j I                       REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS)
DISTRIBUTION
ESSION NBR:8901050059           DOC.DATE: 88/12/19   NOTARIZED: NO           DOCKET CIL:STN-50-528 Palo Verde Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Arizona Publi 05000528 AUTH. NAME             AUTHOR AFFILIATION KARNER,D.B.           Arizona Nuclear Power Project (formerly Arizona Public Serv RECIP.NAME             RECIPIENT AFFILIATION Document Control Branch (Document Control Desk)
.DEMOYSTRXTION SYSTEM
>j I
REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS)
ESSION NBR:8901050059 DOC.DATE: 88/12/19 NOTARIZED: NO DOCKET CIL:STN-50-528 Palo Verde Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Arizona Publi 05000528 AUTH.NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION KARNER,D.B.
Arizona Nuclear Power Project (formerly Arizona Public Serv RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION Document Control Branch (Document Control Desk)
R
R


==SUBJECT:==
==SUBJECT:==
Responds to violations noted in Insp Rept 50-528/88-40 on 881031-1104.                                                                     I DISTRIBUTION CODE: IE06D         COPIES RECEIVED:LTR       ENCL     SIZE:
Responds to violations noted in Insp Rept 50-528/88-40 on 881031-1104.
TITLE: Environ     & Radiological (50 DKT)-Znsp Rept/Notice of Violation Respons D NOTES:Standardized       plant.                                                   05000528 8 RECIPIENT           COPIES            RECIPIENT          COPIES ID CODE/NAME         LTTR ENCL      ID  CODE/NAME      LTTR ENCL PD5 LA                   1    0      PD5 PD                  1    1 CHAN,T                   1    1      DAVIS,M                1    1 INTERNAL: ACRS                         2    2      AEOD/DSP                1    1 NMSS/LLOB       5E4     1    1      NMSS/SGOB    4E4      1    1 NRR/DLPQ/PEB 11           1    1      NRR/DOEA/EAB 11        1    1 NRR/DREP/EPB 10           1    1      NRR/DREP/RPB 10        2    2.
I DISTRIBUTION CODE:
              'RR/PMAS/ILRB12             1     1     NUDO~S=A TRACT         1     1 OGC/HDS 1                 1     1   ~ERG'            02      1     1 RES                      1     1     KGE5    FILE 01        1     1 RGN2/DRSS/EPRPB          1     1     RGN4 MURRAY, B          1     1 E    ERNAL: LPDR                        1     1     NRC PDR                1     1 NSIC                      1     1     RESL MARTIN,D          1     1 NOTES:
IE06D COPIES RECEIVED:LTR ENCL SIZE:
D NOXE TO ALL ''RZDS" RECZPZENIS S
D TITLE: Environ
PIZASE HELP US TO REDUCE TQLSTH   CONIACT IHE DOCUMENI CONIBOL DESKF RXM. Pl-37 (EXT. 20079) 1O ELZK2VLER YOUR NAME PRQH DZSTIKBVTZGN LISTS H)R DOCUMENIS YOU DONFT HEEDs TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED: LTTR             27   ENCL   26
& Radiological (50 DKT)-Znsp Rept/Notice of Violation Respons NOTES:Standardized plant.
05000528 8 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD5 LA CHAN,T INTERNAL: ACRS NMSS/LLOB 5E4 NRR/DLPQ/PEB 11 NRR/DREP/EPB 10
'RR/PMAS/ILRB12 OGC/HDS 1 RES RGN2/DRSS/EPRPB E
ERNAL: LPDR NSIC NOTES:
COPIES LTTR ENCL 1
0 1
1 2
2 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD5 PD DAVIS,M AEOD/DSP NMSS/SGOB 4E4 NRR/DOEA/EAB 11 NRR/DREP/RPB 10 NUDO~S=A TRACT
~ERG' 02 KGE5 FILE 01 RGN4 MURRAY,B NRC PDR RESL MARTIN,D COPIES LTTR ENCL 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 2
2.
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
NOXE TO ALL ''RZDS" RECZPZENIS PIZASE HELP US TO REDUCE TQLSTH CONIACT IHE DOCUMENI CONIBOL DESKF RXM. Pl-37 (EXT. 20079) 1O ELZK2VLER YOUR NAME PRQH DZSTIKBVTZGN LISTS H)R DOCUMENIS YOU DONFT HEEDs D
S TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:
LTTR 27 ENCL 26


gt Arizona Nuclear Power Project P.O. BOX 52034   ~ PHOENIX. ARIZONA85072-2034 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KL'HC December 19, 1988 OONALO B. KARNER EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:     Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555
gt
 
OONALO B. KARNER EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT Arizona Nuclear Power Project P.O. BOX 52034
~
PHOENIX. ARIZONA85072-2034 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KL'HC December 19, 1988 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:
Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555


==Reference:==
==Reference:==
Letter from G. P. Yuhas, Chief, Emergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection Branch, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Arizona Nuclear Power Project, Attn. D. B. Karner, Executive Vice President, dated December 2, 1988.
Letter from G.
P.
Yuhas, Chief, Emergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection
: Branch, U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Arizona Nuclear Power Project, Attn. D.
B. Karner, Executive Vice President, dated December 2,
1988.


==Dear   Sir:==
==Dear Sir:==
0


==Subject:==
==Subject:==
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1,   2 and 3 Docket No. STN   50-528 (License No. NPF-41)
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2 and 3
STN   50-529 (License No. NPF-51)
Docket No.
STN   50-530 (License No. NPF-74)
STN 50-528 (License No. NPF-41)
Reply to a Notice of Violation - 528/88-40-01 0      This File: 88-056-026 letter is provided in response to the routine inspection conducted by Hr.
STN 50-529 (License No. NPF-51)
G.. Cicotte from October 31 through November 4, 1988. Based upon the results of this inspection a violation of NRC requirements was identified. The violation is discussed in Appendix A of the referenced letter.
STN 50-530 (License No. NPF-74)
The   violation     and ANPP's response are provided in the attachment to this letter.       If you should have any questions regarding this response, contact Hr.
Reply to a Notice of Violation - 528/88-40-01 File:
Timothy Shriver       of my   staff at       (602) 393-2521.
88-056-026 This letter is provided in response to the routine inspection conducted by Hr.
DBK/TDS/KLHC/kj Attachments CC:     J. G. Haynes     (all w/attachments)
G.. Cicotte from October 31 through November 4, 1988.
J. B. Hartin T. J. Polich H. J.'Davis T. L. Chan A. C. Gehr                                                                   ~Ho a:="1219 pqoi050~5         0'500052~
Based upon the results of this inspection a violation of NRC requirements was identified.
QQQCK         poc 0
The violation is discussed in Appendix A of the referenced letter.
The violation and ANPP's response are provided in the attachment to this letter.
If you should have any questions regarding this response, contact Hr.
Timothy Shriver of my staff at (602) 393-2521.
DBK/TDS/KLHC/kj Attachments CC:
J.
G.
Haynes J.
B. Hartin T. J. Polich H. J.'Davis T. L. Chan A. C. Gehr (all w/attachments)
~Ho pqoi050~5 0'500052~
a:="1219 QQQCK poc 0


1 i
1 i


NRC Document Control Desk                                           102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLMC Page  1  of  2                                                      December. 19, 1988 APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Arizona Public Service Company                         Docket Nos. 50-528, 50-529, 50-530 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating                          License Nos. NPF-41, 51, 74 Station Units 1, 2, and 3 During   an inspection conducted October     31 - November 4, 1988,     a violation of NRC requirements     was identified. In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy   and Procedure   for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10     CFR Part 2, Appendix   C (1988), as modified by       53 Fed. Reg. 40019 (October 13, 1988), the       violation is listed   below:
NRC Document Control Desk Page 1 of 2 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLMC December.
A.       Technical Specification 6.8, "Procedures and Programs," states in part:
19, 1988 APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Arizona Public Service Company Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2, and 3
        "6.8.1       Written procedures shall     be established,   implemented,   and maintained covering     the..."
Docket Nos. 50-528, 50-529, 50-530 License Nos.
        "i. Offsite     Dose Calculation   Manual   [ODCM]...."
NPF-41, 51, 74 During an inspection conducted October 31 - November 4,
Licensee Procedure 75RP-OZZ08, "Radiological Environmental             Air Sample Collection," Revision 0, dated 3-4-88, states in part:
: 1988, a violation of NRC requirements was identified.
In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,"
10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C
(1988),
as modified by 53 Fed.
Reg.
40019 (October 13, 1988),
the violation is listed below:
A.
Technical Specification 6.8, "Procedures and Programs,"
states in part:
"6.8.1 Written procedures shall be established, implemented, and maintained covering the..."
"i.
Offsite Dose Calculation Manual
[ODCM]...."
Licensee Procedure 75RP-OZZ08, "Radiological Environmental Air Sample Collection," Revision 0, dated 3-4-88, states in part:


i l
i l
I I
I I


NRC Document Control Desk                                                       102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLMC Page  2    of 2                                                                  December 19, 1988 APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION (Continued)
NRC Document Control Desk Page 2 of 2 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLMC December 19, 1988 APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION (Continued)
        "1.0     ~Por         ose
"1.0
: 1. 1         This procedure provides the requirements           for the   weekly issue and exchange   of particulate air filters       and charcoal cartridges   as required by the     ODCM and the   REHP I'Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program]...."
~Por ose
        "6.1.3.4               Flowmeter reading     (If reading   is 1.5 CFH no   adjustments   are necessary,   otherwise 'adjust to 1.5 CFH).."
: 1. 1 This procedure provides the requirements for the weekly issue and exchange of particulate air filters and charcoal cartridges as required by the ODCM and the REHP I'Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program]...."
Contrary to the above, at approximately 12:45 p.m.                       HST, on November 2, 1988, the flowmeter               for environmental     sampling station Nos.       15 and 14a was   returned to service without having been adjusted to 1.5                         CFH.
"6.1.3.4 Flowmeter reading (If reading is 1.5 CFH no adjustments are necessary, otherwise 'adjust to 1.5 CFH).."
This is       a     Severity Level     IV Violation (Supplement IV).
Contrary to the above, at approximately 12:45 p.m.
f 4 '    I 'I ~ f 'lo s'           ', y             r PAN     A Q 'H le ~
: HST, on November 2,
: 1988, the flowmeter for environmental sampling station Nos.
15 and 14a was returned to service without having been adjusted to 1.5 CFH.
This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement IV).
f 4
I
'I ~ f 'lo s'
y r PAN A Q
'H le
~
 
i


i NRC Document Control Desk                                               102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC Page  1  of  5                                                        December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION         528/88-40-01 I.     REASON FOR VIOLATION On   November 2, 1988,     the weekly environmental       air sampling was performed by an ANPP     contract employee.     The air   sampling was performed using procedure 75RP-OZZ08, "Radiological Environmental             Air Sample Collection", Revision 0, dated         March 4, 1988.     During the performance of the   air sampling at predetermined       sites   14a and 15a,   the inspector observed   that the flowmeter reading recorded prior to adjustments             was
NRC Document Control Desk Page 1 of 5 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01 I.
: 2. 1 CFH and 2.0 CFH   respectively. The   individual then adjusted the flowrate to obtain     a flowmeter reading at site 14a of 2.0         CFH.
REASON FOR VIOLATION On November 2, 1988, the weekly environmental air sampling was performed by an ANPP contract employee.
As   discussed   in the inspection report, procedure         75RP-OZZ08 paragraph 6.1.3.3 states; "Flowmeter reading   ( If reading   is 1.5   CFH no adjustments are necessary;   otherwise adjust to 1.5 CFH).
The air sampling was performed using procedure 75RP-OZZ08, "Radiological Environmental Air Sample Collection", Revision 0, dated March 4, 1988.
A   preliminary evaluation conducted         by ANPP confirmed the     inspector's observations that the sample station flowrate             was adjusted to obtain   a flowmeter reading of 2.0       CFM or was left   in the as found   condition of 2.0   CFM. As a   result> ANPP initiated   an evaluation to determine the root cause of the deficiency         and to identify the necessary corrective actions.     The results of that evaluation are discussed in the 'following paragraphs.
During the performance of the air sampling at predetermined sites 14a and
: 15a, the inspector observed that the flowmeter reading recorded prior to adjustments was
: 2. 1 CFH and 2.0 CFH respectively.
The individual then adjusted the flowrate to obtain a flowmeter reading at site 14a of 2.0 CFH.
As discussed in the inspection report, procedure 75RP-OZZ08 paragraph 6.1.3.3 states; "Flowmeter reading (If reading is 1.5 CFH no adjustments are necessary; otherwise adjust to 1.5 CFH).
A preliminary evaluation conducted by ANPP confirmed the inspector's observations that the sample station flowrate was adjusted to obtain a
flowmeter reading of 2.0 CFM or was left in the as found condition of 2.0 CFM.
As a result>
ANPP initiated an evaluation to determine the root cause of the deficiency and to identify the necessary corrective actions.
The results of that evaluation are discussed in the 'following paragraphs.


(l 'RC Page Document Control Desk 2 of 5
(l 'RC Document Control Desk Page 2 of 5
                                                                          ,102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 e                         REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION       528/88-40-01 Prior to   November,   1987   the contractor had been supplied flowmeters, used to verify/adjust the flowrates at the various sampling   sites, which   measured   air flow on a   percentage   scale.
,102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 e
The scale range is 0-100% with         100% equaling 2.5     CFH +5%. In November,   1987 the contractor was supplied replacement meters which could be permanently         installed at the collection sites.         The replacement meters measured         air flow on a'cale       ranging from 0-6 CFH +10%. The contractor independently evaluated the two devices and determined     that a reading of 2.0   CFH on   the replacement meter equated'o     a reading of   60% on   the original meter. and would therefore provide     a true measurement of 1.5       CFH. The procedural controls,   as previously discussed,       were revised     to address the replacement meters and required the         air flow to     be adjusted to obtain a meter reading     of 1.5   CFH. The intent of the procedure was to ensure   a sample   flow rate through the collection equipment of 1.5 CFH. Therefore, based upon the unapproved evaluation, the contractor utilized     a flowmeter reading of .2.0 to adjust the sampling   site flowrates.       This decision   was discussed with and concurred with by     an ANPP   representative. Based upon these events, the "root causes" of the identified violation are the failure of the contract organization to         adhere   to established procedural controls and the         failure of the   ANPP   representative   to initiate   the required evaluations and procedural changes that would have authorized the       contractor's actions.
REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01 Prior to November, 1987 the contractor had been supplied flowmeters, used to verify/adjust the flowrates at the various sampling sites, which measured air flow on a percentage scale.
The scale range is 0-100% with 100% equaling 2.5 CFH +5%.
In
: November, 1987 the contractor was supplied replacement meters which could be permanently installed at the collection sites.
The replacement meters measured air flow on a'cale ranging from 0-6 CFH +10%.
The contractor independently evaluated the two devices and determined that a reading of 2.0 CFH on the replacement meter equated'o a reading of 60% on the original meter. and would therefore provide a true measurement of 1.5 CFH.
The procedural
: controls, as previously discussed, were revised to address the replacement meters and required the air flow to be adjusted to obtain a meter reading of 1.5 CFH.
The intent of the procedure was to ensure a sample flow rate through the collection equipment of 1.5 CFH.
Therefore, based upon the unapproved evaluation, the contractor utilized a flowmeter reading of.2.0 to adjust the sampling site flowrates.
This decision was discussed with and concurred with by an ANPP representative.
Based upon these
: events, the "root causes" of the identified violation are the failure of the contract organization to adhere to established procedural controls and the failure of the ANPP representative to initiate the required evaluations and procedural changes that would have authorized the contractor's actions.


NRC   Document Control Desk                                             102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC Page 3    of 5                                                          December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION         528/88-40-01 II.     CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN AND RESULTS ACHIEVED As an immediate   corrective action,       an   evaluation was performed     to determine the effect of using 2.0         CFH   vice the required 1.5   CFH flowrate. The difference in the calculated activity results is approximately   25 percent in the conservative direction.
NRC Document Control Desk Page 3 of 5 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01 II.
Additionally, the original flowmeters which             were utilized by the contractor have been returned       to the contractor for use.       The meters' calibration stickers     have been   specifically annotated that       a 100%   scale reading equates to     a 2.5 CFH   flowrate. A change has been ap>roved     to the governing procedure,       75RP-OZZ08,     clarifying the readings required to obtain tPe appropriate flowrate.
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN AND RESULTS ACHIEVED As an immediate corrective action, an evaluation was performed to determine the effect of using 2.0 CFH vice the required 1.5 CFH flowrate.
I I I. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN TO AVOID FURTHER VIOLATIONS To address   the fact that the contract individual believed he could 0
The difference in the calculated activity results is approximately 25 percent in the conservative direction.
deviate from established procedural controls based upon               an unapproved technical justification,       a letter was   issued to the contractor from       ANPP on November 10, 1988.         The letter informed the contractor of       this event and emphasized   that   any deviation from procedural controls         was unacceptable. The letter     also provided instructions that whenever         an individual performing       a procedure has     a question or concern regarding the procedure's   adequacy,     technical accuracy, or requirements         he shall stop the   activity   and   resolve the matter with       ANPP management   prior to
Additionally, the original flowmeters which were utilized by the contractor have been returned to the contractor for use.
The meters' calibration stickers have been specifically annotated that a
100% scale reading equates to a 2.5 CFH flowrate.
A change has been ap>roved to the governing procedure, 75RP-OZZ08, clarifying the readings required to obtain tPe appropriate flowrate.
I II.
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN TO AVOID FURTHER VIOLATIONS To address the fact that the contract individual believed he could 0
deviate from established procedural controls based upon an unapproved technical justification, a letter was issued to the contractor from ANPP on November 10, 1988.
The letter informed the contractor of this event and emphasized that any deviation from procedural controls was unacceptable.
The letter also provided instructions that whenever an individual performing a procedure has a question or concern regarding the procedure's
: adequacy, technical
: accuracy, or requirements he shall stop the activity and resolve the matter with ANPP management prior to


HRC Document   Control Desk                                           102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLMC Page 4  of  5                                                        December 19, 1988 REPLY T'0 NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01 proceeding. ANPP has     requested that the contractor       brief the responsible personnel to ensure they understand           and comply     with these instructions. In addition,       a meeting was held by   ANPP on December       1, 1988 with the responsible contract personnel to reinforce the               ANPP requirements   for procedural compliance.
HRC Document Control Desk Page 4 of 5 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLMC December 19, 1988 REPLY T'0 NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01 proceeding.
As an   additional corrective action,         ANPP has evaluated the other       ANPP procedures   utilized     by the   contractor to implement the       REMP.   'The evaluation identified       no technical deficiencies.
ANPP has requested that the contractor brief the responsible personnel to ensure they understand and comply with these instructions.
The ANPP   representative       who was made aware   of the procedural deviation I
In addition, a meeting was held by ANPP on December 1,
by the contractor     and   fai'led to take appropriate action       has been counseled. Based upon     the individual's previous performance,         no additional actions are       deemed   necessary at this time.     However, the Radiation Protection Standards section responsible for the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program           (REMP) will be briefed     on the necessity to properly overview       a contractor's performance   and   to conduct   a careful review of the documentation submitted by the contractor placing particular   emphas'is   on   ensuring procedural compliance.
1988 with the responsible contract personnel to reinforce the ANPP requirements for procedural compliance.
IV. DATE WHEN FULL COMPLIANCE WILL BE ACHIEVED All the 'corrective actions stated in Sections           II and   III have   been implemented with the exception           of the briefings to   be   given to the contract personnel       and   the Radiation Protection Standards section
As an additional corrective action, ANPP has evaluated the other ANPP procedures utilized by the contractor to implement the REMP.
'The evaluation identified no technical deficiencies.
The ANPP representative who was made aware of the procedural deviation I
by the contractor and fai'led to take appropriate action has been counseled.
Based upon the individual's previous performance, no additional actions are deemed necessary at this time.
However, the Radiation Protection Standards section responsible for the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) will be briefed on the necessity to properly overview a contractor's performance and to conduct a careful review of the documentation submitted by the contractor placing particular emphas'is on ensuring procedural compliance.
IV.
DATE WHEN FULL COMPLIANCE WILL BE ACHIEVED All the 'corrective actions stated in Sections II and III have been implemented with the exception of the briefings to be given to the contract personnel and the Radiation Protection Standards section


IJ
IJ
~
~


5RC Document   Control Desk                                 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC Page 5  of  5                                              December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01 personnel responsible for the implementation of the   REHP. ANPP estimates the completion of these briefings by February 1989.}}
5RC Document Control Desk Page 5 of 5 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01 personnel responsible for the implementation of the REHP.
ANPP estimates the completion of these briefings by February 1989.}}

Latest revision as of 02:44, 8 January 2025

Responds to Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-528/88-40 on 881031-1104.Corrective Actions:Original Flowmeters Returned to Contractor for Use & Ltr Sent to Contractor Informing of Employee Deviation from Procedural Controls
ML17304A839
Person / Time
Site: Palo Verde  Arizona Public Service icon.png
Issue date: 12/19/1988
From: Karner D
ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR
To:
NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
References
102-01069-DBK-T, 102-1069-DBK-T, NUDOCS 8901050059
Download: ML17304A839 (34)


Text

'pi DONAI.O B.KARNER EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT PiFQJQI(

gr Arizona Nuclear Power Project P.O. BOX 52034

~

PHOENIX. ARIZONAI5072-%34

~

0

(.l. f t 102-01069-DBK/TDS7kf!kC December 19, 1988 U.

S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:

Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555

Reference:

Letter from G.

P.

Yuhas, Chief, Emergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection

Branch, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Arizona Nuclear Power Project, Attn. D.

B. Karner, Executive Vice President, dated December 2,

1988.

Dear Sir:

Subject:

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2 and 3

Docket No.

STN 50-528 (License No. NPF-41)

STN 50-529 (License No. NPF-51 STN 50-530 (License No. NPF-74)

Reply to a Notice of. Violation - 528/88-40-01 File:

88-056-026 S

This letter is provided in response to the routine inspection conducted by Hr.

G. Cicotte from October 31 through November 4, 19&8.

Based upon the results of this inspection a violation of NRC requirements was identified.

The violation is discussed in Appendix A of the referenced letter.

The violation and ANPP's response are provided. in the attachment to this letter.

If you should have any questions regarding this response, contact Hr.

Timothy Shriver of my staff at (602) 393-2521.

DBK/TDS/KLHC/kj Attachments CC:

J.

G.

J.

B.

T. J.

M. J.

T. L.

A. C.

Haynes (all w/attachments)

Martin Polich Davis Chan Gehr

t

NRC Document Control Desk Page 1 of 2 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Arizona Public Service Company Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 2; and 3.-

Docket Hos. 50-528, 50-529, 50-530 License Nos.

NPF-41, 51, 74 During an inspection conducted October 31 - November 4,

1988, a violation of NRC requirements was:identified.

In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for,4RC.-Enforcement Actions,"

10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C

(1988),

as modified by 53 Fed.

Reg.

40019 (October 13, 1988), the violation is listed below:

A.

Technical Specification 6.8, "Procedures and Programs,"

states in part:

Written procedures shall be established, implemented, and pa.i,ntained covering the..."

"i.

Offsite Dose Calculation Manual tODCM]...."

Licensee Procedure 75RP-OZ108, "Radiological Environmental Air Sample Collection," Revision 0, dated 3-4-88, states in part:

NRC Document Control Desk Page 2 of 2 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION (Continued)

"1.0

~Per ose

1. 1 This procedure provides the requirements for the weekly issue and exchange of particulate air filters and charcoal cartridges as required by the ODCH and the REHP [Radiological Environmental Honitoring Program]...."

"6. 1.3.4 Flowmeter reading (If reading is 1.5 CFH no adjustments are necessary, otherwise adjust to 1.5 CFH)."

Contrary to the above, at approximately 12:45 p.m.

HST, on November 2, l
1988, the flowmeter for environmental sampling station Nos.

15 and 14a was returned to service without having been adjusted to 1.5 CFH.

I This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement IV).

NRC Document Control Desk Page 1 of 5 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01 I.

REASON FOR VIOLATION On November 2,

1988, the weekly environmental air sampling was performed by an ANPP contract employee.

The air sampling was performed using procedure 75RP-OZZ08, "Radiological Environmental Air Sample Collection", Revision 0, dated Harch 4, 1988.

During the performance of the air sampling at predetermined sites 14a and

15a, the inspector observed that the flowmeter reading recorded prior to adjustments was
2. 1 CFH and 2.0 CFH respectively.

The individual then adjusted the flowrate to obtain a flowmeter reading at site 14a of 2.0 CFH.

As discussed in the inspection report, procedure 75RP-OZZ08 paragraph 6.1.3.3 states; "Flowmeter reading (If reading is 1.5 CFH no adjustments are necessary; otherwise adjust to 1.5 CFH).

A preliminary evaluation conducted by ANPP confirmed the inspector's observations that the sample station flowrate was adjusted to obtain a

flowmeter reading of 2.0 CFH or was left in the as found condition of 2.0 CFH.

As a result, ANPP initiated an evaluation to determine the root cause of the deficiency and to identify the necessary corrective actions.

The results of that evaluation are discussed in the following paragraphs.

NRC Document Control Desk 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01

.....Prior. to November, 1987 the contractor had been supplied flowmeters, used to verify/adjust the flowrates at the various sampling sites, which measured air flow on a percentage scale.

The scale range is 0-100% with 100% equaling 2.5 CFH +5%.

In November; 1987 the contractor was supplied replacement meters which could be permanently installed at the collection sites.

The replacement meters measured air flow on a scale ranging from 0-6 CFH +10%.

The contractor independently evaluated the two devices and determined that a reading of 2.0 CFH on the replacement meter equated to a reading of 60% on the original meter and would therefore provide a true measurement of 1.5 CFH.

The procedural

controls, as previously discussed, were revised to address the

~

replacement: meters and-required, the air flow to be adjusted to obtain a meter reading of 1.5 CFH.

The intent of the procedure was to ensure a sample flow rate through the'collection equipment

'I of 1.5 CFH.

Therefore, based upon the unapproved evaluation, the contractor utilized a flowmeter reading of 2.0 to adjust the sampling site flowrates.

This decision was discussed with and

, concurred with by an ANPP representative.

Based upon these

events, the "root causes" of the identified violation are the failure of the contract organization to adhere to established procedural controls and the failure of the ANPP representative to initiate the required evaluations and procedural changes that would have authorized the contractor's actions.

NRC Document Control Desk 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40>>01 II.

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN AND RESULTS ACHIEVED As an immediate corrective action, an evaluation was performed to determine the effect of using 2.0 CFH vice the required 1.5 CFH flowrate.

The difference in the calculated activity results is approximately 25 percent in the conservative direction.

Additionally, the original flowmeters which were utilized by the contractor have been returned to the contractor for use.

The meters'alibration stickers have been specifically annotated that a

100% scale reading equates to a 2.5 CFH flowrate.

A change has been approved to the governing procedure, 75RP-OZZ08, clarifying the readings required to obtain the appropriate flowrate.

III.

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN TO AVOID FURTHER VIOLATIONS To address the fact that the contract individual believed he could deviate from established procedural controls based upon an unapproved technical justification, a letter was issued to the contractor from-ANPP on November 10, 1988.

The letter informed the contractor of this event and emphasized that any deviation from procedural controls was unacceptable.

The letter also provided instructions that whenever an individual performing a procedure has a question or concern regarding the procedure's

adequacy, technical
accuracy, or requirements he shall stop the activity and resolve the matter with ANPP management prior to

NRC Document Control Desk 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLMC December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-0l proceeding, ANPP has requested that the contractor brief the responsible personnel to ensure they understand and comply with these instructions.

In addition, a meeting was held by ANPP on December 1,

1988 with the re'sponsible contract personnel to reinforce the ANPP requirements for procedural compliance.

As an additional corrective action, ANPP has evaluated the other ANPP procedures utilized by the contractor to implement the REHP.

The evaluation identified no technical deficiencies.

The ANPP representative who was made aware of the procedural deviation by the contractor and failed to..take appropriate action has been counseled.

Based upon the individual's previous performance, no additional actions are deemed necessary at this time.

However, the Radiation Protection Standards section responsible for the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REHP) will be briefed on the necessity to properly overview a contractor's performance and to conduct a careful review of the documentation submitted by the contractor placing particular emphasis on ensuring procedural compliance.

IV.

DATE WHEN FULL COMPLIANCE WILL BE ACHIEVED All the corrective actions stated in Sections II and III have been implemented with the exception of the briefings to be given to the contract personnel and the Radiation Protection Standards section

t 1

NRC Document Control Desk Page 5 of 5 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01 personnel responsible for the implementation of the RENP.

ANPP estimates the completion of these briefings by February 1989.

C

(

L Qj H

r t

f,

.; gCcp~~TH)

DISTRIBUTION

.DEMOYSTRXTION SYSTEM

>j I

REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS)

ESSION NBR:8901050059 DOC.DATE: 88/12/19 NOTARIZED: NO DOCKET CIL:STN-50-528 Palo Verde Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Arizona Publi 05000528 AUTH.NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION KARNER,D.B.

Arizona Nuclear Power Project (formerly Arizona Public Serv RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION Document Control Branch (Document Control Desk)

R

SUBJECT:

Responds to violations noted in Insp Rept 50-528/88-40 on 881031-1104.

I DISTRIBUTION CODE:

IE06D COPIES RECEIVED:LTR ENCL SIZE:

D TITLE: Environ

& Radiological (50 DKT)-Znsp Rept/Notice of Violation Respons NOTES:Standardized plant.

05000528 8 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD5 LA CHAN,T INTERNAL: ACRS NMSS/LLOB 5E4 NRR/DLPQ/PEB 11 NRR/DREP/EPB 10

'RR/PMAS/ILRB12 OGC/HDS 1 RES RGN2/DRSS/EPRPB E

ERNAL: LPDR NSIC NOTES:

COPIES LTTR ENCL 1

0 1

1 2

2 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD5 PD DAVIS,M AEOD/DSP NMSS/SGOB 4E4 NRR/DOEA/EAB 11 NRR/DREP/RPB 10 NUDO~S=A TRACT

~ERG' 02 KGE5 FILE 01 RGN4 MURRAY,B NRC PDR RESL MARTIN,D COPIES LTTR ENCL 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 2

2.

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

NOXE TO ALL RZDS" RECZPZENIS PIZASE HELP US TO REDUCE TQLSTH CONIACT IHE DOCUMENI CONIBOL DESKF RXM. Pl-37 (EXT. 20079) 1O ELZK2VLER YOUR NAME PRQH DZSTIKBVTZGN LISTS H)R DOCUMENIS YOU DONFT HEEDs D

S TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:

LTTR 27 ENCL 26

gt

OONALO B. KARNER EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT Arizona Nuclear Power Project P.O. BOX 52034

~

PHOENIX. ARIZONA85072-2034 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KL'HC December 19, 1988 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:

Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555

Reference:

Letter from G.

P.

Yuhas, Chief, Emergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection

Branch, U.

S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Arizona Nuclear Power Project, Attn. D.

B. Karner, Executive Vice President, dated December 2,

1988.

Dear Sir:

0

Subject:

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2 and 3

Docket No.

STN 50-528 (License No. NPF-41)

STN 50-529 (License No. NPF-51)

STN 50-530 (License No. NPF-74)

Reply to a Notice of Violation - 528/88-40-01 File:

88-056-026 This letter is provided in response to the routine inspection conducted by Hr.

G.. Cicotte from October 31 through November 4, 1988.

Based upon the results of this inspection a violation of NRC requirements was identified.

The violation is discussed in Appendix A of the referenced letter.

The violation and ANPP's response are provided in the attachment to this letter.

If you should have any questions regarding this response, contact Hr.

Timothy Shriver of my staff at (602) 393-2521.

DBK/TDS/KLHC/kj Attachments CC:

J.

G.

Haynes J.

B. Hartin T. J. Polich H. J.'Davis T. L. Chan A. C. Gehr (all w/attachments)

~Ho pqoi050~5 0'500052~

a:="1219 QQQCK poc 0

1 i

NRC Document Control Desk Page 1 of 2 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLMC December.

19, 1988 APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Arizona Public Service Company Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2, and 3

Docket Nos. 50-528, 50-529, 50-530 License Nos.

NPF-41, 51, 74 During an inspection conducted October 31 - November 4,

1988, a violation of NRC requirements was identified.

In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,"

10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C

(1988),

as modified by 53 Fed.

Reg.

40019 (October 13, 1988),

the violation is listed below:

A.

Technical Specification 6.8, "Procedures and Programs,"

states in part:

"6.8.1 Written procedures shall be established, implemented, and maintained covering the..."

"i.

Offsite Dose Calculation Manual

[ODCM]...."

Licensee Procedure 75RP-OZZ08, "Radiological Environmental Air Sample Collection," Revision 0, dated 3-4-88, states in part:

i l

I I

NRC Document Control Desk Page 2 of 2 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLMC December 19, 1988 APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION (Continued)

"1.0

~Por ose

1. 1 This procedure provides the requirements for the weekly issue and exchange of particulate air filters and charcoal cartridges as required by the ODCM and the REHP I'Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program]...."

"6.1.3.4 Flowmeter reading (If reading is 1.5 CFH no adjustments are necessary, otherwise 'adjust to 1.5 CFH).."

Contrary to the above, at approximately 12:45 p.m.

HST, on November 2,
1988, the flowmeter for environmental sampling station Nos.

15 and 14a was returned to service without having been adjusted to 1.5 CFH.

This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement IV).

f 4

I

'I ~ f 'lo s'

y r PAN A Q

'H le

~

i

NRC Document Control Desk Page 1 of 5 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01 I.

REASON FOR VIOLATION On November 2, 1988, the weekly environmental air sampling was performed by an ANPP contract employee.

The air sampling was performed using procedure 75RP-OZZ08, "Radiological Environmental Air Sample Collection", Revision 0, dated March 4, 1988.

During the performance of the air sampling at predetermined sites 14a and

15a, the inspector observed that the flowmeter reading recorded prior to adjustments was
2. 1 CFH and 2.0 CFH respectively.

The individual then adjusted the flowrate to obtain a flowmeter reading at site 14a of 2.0 CFH.

As discussed in the inspection report, procedure 75RP-OZZ08 paragraph 6.1.3.3 states; "Flowmeter reading (If reading is 1.5 CFH no adjustments are necessary; otherwise adjust to 1.5 CFH).

A preliminary evaluation conducted by ANPP confirmed the inspector's observations that the sample station flowrate was adjusted to obtain a

flowmeter reading of 2.0 CFM or was left in the as found condition of 2.0 CFM.

As a result>

ANPP initiated an evaluation to determine the root cause of the deficiency and to identify the necessary corrective actions.

The results of that evaluation are discussed in the 'following paragraphs.

(l 'RC Document Control Desk Page 2 of 5

,102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 e

REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01 Prior to November, 1987 the contractor had been supplied flowmeters, used to verify/adjust the flowrates at the various sampling sites, which measured air flow on a percentage scale.

The scale range is 0-100% with 100% equaling 2.5 CFH +5%.

In

November, 1987 the contractor was supplied replacement meters which could be permanently installed at the collection sites.

The replacement meters measured air flow on a'cale ranging from 0-6 CFH +10%.

The contractor independently evaluated the two devices and determined that a reading of 2.0 CFH on the replacement meter equated'o a reading of 60% on the original meter. and would therefore provide a true measurement of 1.5 CFH.

The procedural

controls, as previously discussed, were revised to address the replacement meters and required the air flow to be adjusted to obtain a meter reading of 1.5 CFH.

The intent of the procedure was to ensure a sample flow rate through the collection equipment of 1.5 CFH.

Therefore, based upon the unapproved evaluation, the contractor utilized a flowmeter reading of.2.0 to adjust the sampling site flowrates.

This decision was discussed with and concurred with by an ANPP representative.

Based upon these

events, the "root causes" of the identified violation are the failure of the contract organization to adhere to established procedural controls and the failure of the ANPP representative to initiate the required evaluations and procedural changes that would have authorized the contractor's actions.

NRC Document Control Desk Page 3 of 5 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01 II.

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN AND RESULTS ACHIEVED As an immediate corrective action, an evaluation was performed to determine the effect of using 2.0 CFH vice the required 1.5 CFH flowrate.

The difference in the calculated activity results is approximately 25 percent in the conservative direction.

Additionally, the original flowmeters which were utilized by the contractor have been returned to the contractor for use.

The meters' calibration stickers have been specifically annotated that a

100% scale reading equates to a 2.5 CFH flowrate.

A change has been ap>roved to the governing procedure, 75RP-OZZ08, clarifying the readings required to obtain tPe appropriate flowrate.

I II.

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN TO AVOID FURTHER VIOLATIONS To address the fact that the contract individual believed he could 0

deviate from established procedural controls based upon an unapproved technical justification, a letter was issued to the contractor from ANPP on November 10, 1988.

The letter informed the contractor of this event and emphasized that any deviation from procedural controls was unacceptable.

The letter also provided instructions that whenever an individual performing a procedure has a question or concern regarding the procedure's

adequacy, technical
accuracy, or requirements he shall stop the activity and resolve the matter with ANPP management prior to

HRC Document Control Desk Page 4 of 5 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLMC December 19, 1988 REPLY T'0 NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01 proceeding.

ANPP has requested that the contractor brief the responsible personnel to ensure they understand and comply with these instructions.

In addition, a meeting was held by ANPP on December 1,

1988 with the responsible contract personnel to reinforce the ANPP requirements for procedural compliance.

As an additional corrective action, ANPP has evaluated the other ANPP procedures utilized by the contractor to implement the REMP.

'The evaluation identified no technical deficiencies.

The ANPP representative who was made aware of the procedural deviation I

by the contractor and fai'led to take appropriate action has been counseled.

Based upon the individual's previous performance, no additional actions are deemed necessary at this time.

However, the Radiation Protection Standards section responsible for the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) will be briefed on the necessity to properly overview a contractor's performance and to conduct a careful review of the documentation submitted by the contractor placing particular emphas'is on ensuring procedural compliance.

IV.

DATE WHEN FULL COMPLIANCE WILL BE ACHIEVED All the 'corrective actions stated in Sections II and III have been implemented with the exception of the briefings to be given to the contract personnel and the Radiation Protection Standards section

IJ

~

5RC Document Control Desk Page 5 of 5 102-01069-DBK/TDS/KLHC December 19, 1988 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION 528/88-40-01 personnel responsible for the implementation of the REHP.

ANPP estimates the completion of these briefings by February 1989.