IR 05000313/1972004
| ML19317H114 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 07/27/1972 |
| From: | Jennifer Davis NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19317H108 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004140593 | |
| Download: ML19317H114 (5) | |
Text
- -.
-_ _
-____
-
-
~'
'
~
O
-
ff..
%.
L.[p(~h)N
.
UNITED STATES
"
-
/
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION-xTD.
mocoo m macoccacxxxx
'
a REGION 11 - SutT E til8
,
V 230 PE ACHT R E E ST R EET, NORT HwEST
U ($ t%
AT L. A NT A. GEORGI A 30303 Jt DIRECTORATE OF REGULATORY OPERATIONS f
In Reply Refer To:
July 27, 1072
'
RO:II:VLB
.
50-313/72 h
.
50-368/72-3
'
,
Arkansas Power and Light ^ -
y l
Attn:
Mr. J. D. Philli.
'
'
Vice President an?
t
-
'- ineer Sixth and Pine Streets -
Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71601
.
.
Gentlemen:
This refers to the inspection conducted by Messrs. Brownlee, Cochran, Crossman and Vallish on June 6-9, 1972, of activities authorized by AEC Construction Permit No. CPPR-57 for the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 facility and of your quality assurance progran for work to be performed under an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.10 for the Arkansas (
Nuclear One, Unit 2 facility. Our findings were discussed by Mr. Brownlee with Messrs. Moore, Bland, Bean, and Quattlebaum of your staff, and Messrs. Loth, Zampieri and Sly of Bechtel Engineering Corporation at the conclusion of the inspection.
,
I Areas evaminaJ during the inspection included a detailed examination of AP&L's quality surveillance program; piping and electrical / instrumentation l
and control systems installation; installation of the reactor vessel
'
internals, pressurizer, primary coolant pumps, primary makeup pumps, and.
decay heat coolers; modification of the reactor vessel and vessel inter-nals; control rod drive housings; main steam line pressure relief valve and header stress evaluation; and the post-tension stressing system, jack failures. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinatior. of procedures and representative records, interviews with site
,
!
persornel, ad observations by the inspectors.
-
During the inspection, it was found that 'certain of your activities appeared to be in noncompliance with AEC requirements. The items and
'
references to requirements are listed in the enclosure to this letter.
Please provide us within 30 days, in'vriting, with your comments con-
,
l cerning these items, any steps which have been or vill be taken to correct
l them, any steps that have been or will be taken to prevent recurrence, and
!
!
\\
J
.
~
800414
.
.g.--._
.
...
.
- ~ -.
... _....
_...
._
-
.
,,
--
-
,
,
.
.
O Arkansas Power and-2-July 27, 1972 (,)
Light Company
,
the date all corrective or preventive measures were or vill be completed.
Your reply should emphasize, in particular, any appropriate changes that have been or vill be made to improve the effectivensss of your quality assurance program.
- We have examined the actions you have taken with regard to the main steam relie' valve and manifold stress evaluation identified in our letter of Decemwer 10, 1971, and have,no further questionc concerning this item.
We also examined t? e actions you have taken regarding the failuie of reactor in-core instrumentation guide tubes discussed in our letter of May 23, 1972.
It is our understanding that a design change is in prepa-ration covering this item. We have referred the item to Regulatory
!;erations, Headquarters, for further evaluation and vill advise you of the results of this evaluation at a later date.
.
At the conclusion of the inspection, three items remained unresolved.
These items were as follows:
1.
The routing of cables under the removable control room floor cod separc. tion cf safety cha ulel viring inside the Babcock and Wilcox Company (S&W) supplied panels may not meet the requirements of the (j safeguards and reactor protection systems separations and loading criteria.
It is our understanding that these items vill be further evaluated by AP&L and the NSSS supplier, and corrt.ctive measures vill be initiated as may become necessary. L'e vill examine this item further during future inspections.
'2. The control rod drive motor tube housings contained metal defect indications and possible thin valls.
it is our understanding that design changes are being made and vill be the subject of a B&W topi-cal report. This item has been referred to Regulatory Operations, Headquarters, for further evaluation. We vill advise you of the results of this evaluation when it becomes available.
3.
The battery room ventilation exhaust ducts appeared to be improperly located creating a possible hydrogen accumulation area.
It is our understanding that you will initiate corrective actions as may be necessary. We vill examine this item further during future inspections.
I l
.
(_)
,
.
.
,
- =*
+--e oe
,
--
-
-,e
._
. - -
-_ ___ __ _. _ _
-
.
r
,
%
-
.
.
.
3-July 27, 1972 Arkansas Power and
-
,
Light Company
,
'
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, you may communicate directly with this office.
.
Very truly yours,
/
!
-
__
-
John G. Davis
,
Director-
)
'
Enclosure:
Description of Items
'
of Noncompliance
<
D
l
.
l l
,
s
.
%
l
I e
,,.
..
--
-
. - -.. -
.-
.-_.,.... ~ -.... -..
.... ~ - -.
-. - -.. -
.,,.,_---,--.-,._,,,-,----,---,---,-.w-e..e--t
-
%
%
kNCLOSURE DOCKET NOS. 50-313 50-368 Certain items appear to be in noncompliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B,
" Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," as indicated below:
Criterion XVIII, iudlts," states, in part, "A comprehensive system of planned and periodic audits shall be carried out to
'
verify compliance with all aspects of the quality assurance
"
program and to determine the effectiveness of the program.
...
Contrary to the above, the examination of AP&L's quality sur-veillance program identified deficiencies in two areas, 1.
AP&L had not perfor=ed a quality assurance audit of the
.
nuclear steam supply : ystem supplier (Combustion Engineering,
'
Inc.) for Unit No. 2.
2.
The site quality assurance surveillance program, as ample-mented, lacks the visi'oility, scope, and frequency to ade-quately asse.ss and determine the effectiveness of all aspects of the site quality assurance / quality control program and procedures, commensurate with project status.
.
I
~
!
l l
O
.
I s
+
.
- .
a e
e
-,
-
-,,
a-
-
,
-
_ _
-
.m
- -
,
r-
.
e
-
-,- -
_ _ _ _
,
t
e
.
Ltr to Arkonsas Power and Light Comp'any dtd 7/27/72 DISTRIBUTIO3-J. B. Hentarson, RO J. G. Keppler, RO RO Office of Operations Evaluation RO AD for Procedures RO AD for Inspection & Enforcement L, DD for Reactor Projects
'
RO Files DR Central Files
- PDR
- Local PDR
-
- NSIC
i
.
- DTIE l
,
)
M
- To be dispatched with licensee response.
,
l
.
a
-
.
e
-*=e w e e guesen. cy