IR 05000313/1972010
| ML19320A005 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 12/08/1972 |
| From: | Jennifer Davis NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Phillips J ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19320A003 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004140624 | |
| Download: ML19320A005 (3) | |
Text
.
_
..
.
.
....
..
...
.s
.
.._._..
.'
,m
,
.
.
O
. /hM'**,
UNITED STATES
'
-
,
G' /[f..T sk'N; ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
1
).
xxxxxxx3cooocaccacxxxx
.
AE5;ON is - 5vi'E Ui
- <
s
.
230 P E AC HT H EE ST A EET. NCRT H a EST
T(1 C'
A r t. a N T a. G E C E G t A ?O 20 3 DIRECTORATE OF REGULATORY OPERATIONS In Reply Refer To:
DEC 81972 RO:II:RFW 50-313/72-10
.
.
.
Arkansas Power and Light' Company Atta:
Mr. J. D. Phillips Vice President and Chief Engineer
Sixth and Pine Streets Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71601
'
Gentlemen:
This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. R. F. Warnick and other members of this office on October 16-19, 1972, of the activities
-
authorized by AEC Construction Permit No. CPPR-57 for the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unic 1 facility, and to the discussion held with
j V
Mr. J. W. Anderson and other members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
Areas examined during this inspection included administrative controls for the preoperational test program, the preoperational environmental i
monitoring program, emergency operating procedures, and pretarations for receipt of fuel. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviests with plant personnel, and observations by the inspectors.
Du' ring this inspection, it was found that certain of your activities appear to be in noncompliance with your Final Safety Analysis Report.
These activities and reference to pertinent requirements are listed in the enclosure to this letter.
,
,
!
This notice is sent to you pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.201 of the AEC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations.
Section 2.201 requires you to submit to this office within
<
thirty (30) days of your receipt of this notice, a written statement or explanation in reply including:
(1) corrective steps which have been taken by you, and the results achieved; (2) corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further violations; and (3) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
O-8004140#
-
. _ -
-
__.
-
.-
-
--
-
.
. _ _. _
.
...
.
. _.
. _ _ _ _..
- -
.m.
,
,
,
.
V DEC 8 1972 Arkansas Power and Light-2-Company
~
Concerning the development of test procedures and preparations made by the station test coordinator prior to running a preoperational test, it is our understanding that the station test coordinator will be assigned to a test and b2 provided an approved procedure for the test sufficiently ahead of the test date such that he can become thoroughly familiar with the procedure.
Also, it is our understanding that the sts. tion test coordinator will have the authority and opportunity
.
to make any necessary input to the procedure if he feels it is inadequate.
Concerning the use of mechanical and/or electrical bypasses or jumpers,
it is our understanding that the Test Working Group will review the use of jumpers and bypasses after completion of tests to ascertain that use of the jumper or bypass has not negated portions of the j
test or has not adversely affected another system.
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, we will be glad to discuss them with you.
'
' ry truly yours,
'
\\
l
~
.
Jo G. Davis Direct:r Enclosure:
Description of Item of Noncompliance
.
%
%=
,
l'~'
(.))
l
.=_.
-.
.-.
.
-
_..
-
.-.
.. _ - _ - _ _ _
-
_:........
.__
. _ _.. _ _,.
..
...
.
... _...... _ _.....
. _ _ _. _ _ _ _. _. _...
.
,
'
.
.
t i
-
.
N _/
s
.
ENCLOSURE DOCKET NO. 50-313 Certain activities under your licensee appear to be in noncompliance with provisions of your Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) as u:dicated.
below:
The inspector determined through discussions with members of your staff and observations that the environmental monitoring program was revised and implemented prior to your approving and As issuing an FSAR amendment reflecting the program changes.
a result,.certain parts of the currently implemented environmental monitoring program, primarily in the areas of sample collection frequency and analyses, are not in agreement with FSAR requirements.
Specific examples of differences in the implemented program and FSAR requirements include:
FSAR Table 2-10 requires weekly ion chamber dosimeter readings and quarterly film badge readings for the measurement of direct radiation. Contrary to this, the current program has deleted the ion chamber dosimeters and replaced the film badges with O
TLD's (thermoluminescent dosimeters).
Table 2.10 of the FSAR requires semiannual gross beta, gamma j
spectral, and specific nuclide (I-131, Cs-137, Ba-La-140)
analyses on milk samples.
Contrary to this, the program does ecific nuclide notincludegrossbetaanalysesandthesg0,
.
analyses have been changed to Sr89 and Sr
,
FSAR Table 2.10 requires both quarterly gamma spectral analysis
!
and semiannual specific nuclide analysis (I-131, Cs-137,
!
ZN-65, Mn-54 and Ba-La-140) for water samples from the Dardenelle Reservoir.
Contrary to this, the current program
'
does not include the semiannual specific nuclide analyses.
~
%.
,
x_-
l j-