IR 05000313/1973007
| ML19309D919 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 06/06/1973 |
| From: | Kidd M, Murphy C, Whitt K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309D898 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-313-73-07, 50-313-73-7, NUDOCS 8004110744 | |
| Download: ML19309D919 (19) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . - . ,. o.. . , s . /*4 s.
UNITED STATES v' ,9
- g ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
!(<e< DIRECTORATE OF REGULATORY OPERATIONS
! J aEoioN n - suite ais 't,,' - 5 < ' ;f 230 PE ACMT R E E $7 RE ET. NORT MwEST ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, I4rgg O' AT t. A pe T A. G E ORo t a 30303 RO Inspection Report No. 50-313/73-7 Licensee: Arkansas Power and Light Company Sixth and Pine Streets Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71601 Facility Name: Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 Docket No.: 50-313 License No.: CPPR-57 Category: B1 Location: Russe 11 tile, Arkansas Type of License: B&W, PWR, 880 Mwe Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced O Dates of Inspection: May 8-11, 19 73
Dates of Previous Inspection: April 10-13,1973 l Principal Inspector: M. S. Kidd, Reactor Inspector Facilities Test and Startup Branch Accompanying Inspector: K. W. Whitt, Reactor Inspector j Facilities Test and Startup Branch ' ' Other Accompanying Personnel: None
Principal Inspector: d
M. S. Kidd', Reactor Inspector / D6te ) Facilities Test and Startup Branen Reviewed By: [[t' <2 2/> r c e b [/$'/e3 ' Date C. E. Murphy, Chief ~~ Facilities Test and S :artup Branch CI'
- ,,,l
..: iu a .,
1 O 03AC33 V 8004110 N
. e
. . .. . <-~ \\s_sl . ~ R0 Rpt. No. 50-313/73-7-2-I.
Enforcement Action A.
Violations Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, approved procedure QAP-4, " Review of Operating Procedures and Test Procedures," had not been used by the Safety Review Committee in performing procedure reviews.
(Details I, paragraph 3) B.
Safety Items None II.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters A.
Violations 1.
Gaseous Radwaste System Tank Volumes The working pressure of the compressor and decay tanks in [/ ) the gaseous radwaste system will be increased to provide ( the holdup capability stipulated in the FSAR.
(Details I, _, paragraph 4) , 2.
Reactor Building Spray System Electrical Test All corrective action to be taken to preclude recurrence of the violations of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 resulting from performance of this test had not been completed at the conclusion of the inspection.
(Details I, paragraph 5) , 3.
Reactor Building Spray Piping An evaluation of the significance of a crack found in the . reactor building spray system piping will be submitted per 10 CFR 50.55(e) by May 28, 1973.
(Details I, paragraph 6) B.
Safety Items There were no previously identified safety items.
III. New Unresolved Items 73-7/1 Arkansas Nuclear One Quality Assurance Program for Operations OP 1004.15, " Arkansas Nuclear One Quality Control Program," / does not define how the program requirements are implemented.
I (Details I, paragraph 7) ,
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
. . . e . ., s - ~ . . . R0 Rpt. No. 50-313/73-7-3- ' 73-7/2 ~ Licensee Review of Procedures i The licensee's procedure review committees do not employ ' checklists or other aids in reviewing procedures.
(Details I, paragraph 8) IV.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items ' 72-6/2 Staffing Commitments Minimum staffing requirements outlined in the Unit 1 FSAR have been met.
This item is resolved.
(Details I, paragraph 2) 72-9/1 Incorporation of All Safety Related Equipment in the FSAR Q-List j Not inspected.
72-9/3 Preparation of Test Procedures to Cover Tests in " Guide For Planning of Preoperational Test Programs" Test procedures,to cover those tests discussed in R0 Report No. 50-313/72-9, Section IV, paragraph 4, have been identified and most have been written.
(Details I, paragraph 9) , 73-1/1 Implementing Procedure For Use of Jumpers and Bypasses . This procedure was in the review process, with no change in status from the previous inspection.
(Details I, paragraph 10) 73-3/1 Completion of Construction of Radwaste Systems , Not inspected.
~ i 73-5/1 Reactor Building Ventilation System Tests Additional comments were given on the procedure which will be used to test this system.
(Details I, paragraph 11) 73-5/2 Core Flood System Flow Rate Test No change in status from previous report. Licensee personnel do not feel this test is -needed.
(Details I, paragraph 12) V.. Unusual Occurrences l None.
. . l -., _ - _ _ - __ _ __ _ - - . - __
. ._.
-. . -. .- _- . - -... - . . . e c . .- , . . I . . RO Rpt. No.'50-313/73-7-4-
VI.
Other Significant Findings , ! Project Status i t i Licensee personnel estimate construction of Unit 1 to be 97% complete.
l l Of the 75 startup systems, 40 have been completely released for testing, 27 partially released, and 8 have no releases. Preoperational
testing is considered complete on eight systems. The estimated core loading , . .date is November 1, 1973.
. VII. Management Interview ! A.
A management interview was held at the conclusion of the inspection May 11,.1973. The following licensee representatives attended: Arkansas Power and Light Company (AP&L) , l W. Cavanaugh - Production Project Manager , l J. W. Anderson - Plant Superintendent ' B. A. Terwilliger - Operations Supervisor N. A. Moore - Chief Quality Assurance Coordinator D. N. Bennett - Quality Control Engineer C. A. Moore - Procedure Administrator R. R. Culp - Test Administrator B.
The following subjects were discussed by Kidd:
! 1.
Staffing Constitments The inspector stated that with the addition of a fourth waste control operator (WCO), the minimum staffing requirements of ' the FSAR had been met and that this matter was considered resolved.
(Details I, paragraph 2) 2.
QAP-4, " Review of Operating Procedures and Test Procedures" The inspector stated that discussions with licensee personnel had revealed that this procedure had not been used by the Safety Review Committee (SRC) or the Test Working Group (TWG) and that this appeared to be in violation of Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50.
A licensee representative stated that this checklist was l initially approved in March of 1971, over a year before i reviews of test procedures were started and that the review constittees were not aware of it.
He further stated . . -- . ._.
. - _ - _ _ -. -. .- . _ _.. - - .
- i ) . , . . . . ,4 , R0 Rpt. No. 50-313/73-7-5- ' that it would be revised to reflect current practices or would be deleted if its functions were covered elsewhere.
' Another representative statad that he did not believe such a checklist to be necescary.
(Details I, paragraph 3) 3.
Gaseous Radwaste System ! The inspector stated that he had reviewed AP&L's evaluation , ' of the radwaste system discrepancies with the FSAR and changes to the FSAR in Amendment 36 and that he had no comments. He also stated that he would like to review documentation from the vendors of the compressor and c'acay tanks in the gasecca radwaste system verifying that the working pressure can be increased.
Licensee personnel stated that such documents would be available for the inspector.'s review during his next inspection.
(Details I, paragraph 4) , 4.
Reactor Building Spray System Electrical Test Corrective actions on and actions taken to preclude recurrence of the violations of Appendix B resulting from the conduct of this test were discussed. Licensee personnel stated that all corrective actions had not been completed.
(Details I, paragraph 5) 5.
Reactor Building Spray Piping Licensee representatives stated that they still did not believe 10 CFR 50.55(e) meant that construction deficiencies must be reported within 24 hours. The inspector stated that this was RO's position regarding plants in the testing phase.
j~ Licensee representatives indicated that a written report on the crack found in the reactor building spray system piping would be submitted by May 28,1973. (Details I, paragraph 6) 6.
QA Program for Operations The inspector stated that he had reviewed the portion of the "AP&L Quality Assurance Manual" (QA manual) dealing with operations and OP 1004.15, " Arkansas Nuclear One Quality Control Program" (QC program), and had given comments on them to QA and QC personnel.
f -)c.
.
~.- a . m .- - - - - _.-,,.c_ -- _,, _y.. ~ ,.- - _
____ _ _ _ _ _._ ___ _ __ . I - . . . . ' N O RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-7 6- -
He stated that training provided for both QA and QC personnel should be defined in the two documents referred to above.
Licensee personnel stated that this would be done.
The inspector stated that the QC program document is consistent with program requirements of Appendix B, but does not define how the requirements are to be implemented. Licensee repre-sentatives stated that the document would be revised.
(Details I, paragraph 7) 7.
Checklists For Review of Procedures During discussions of QAP-4 (See paragraph 3 of this section.), it was revealed that none of AP&L review committees use check-lists or other guidelines in reviewing procedures.
' The inspector stated the conunittees should develop checklists which woul/. contain key points and characteristics of procedurer. which would be checked as they are reviewed.
. ! A licens _a representative stated that he did not feel that ! checklists were beneficial and, in fact, better reviews can be performed without them, but that this matter would be ' considered.
The inspector stated that this subject would be considered ' as an unresolved item and be discussed again during subsequent inspections.
(Details I, paragraph 8) . 8.
Preparation of Test Procedures to Cover Tests in " Guide For Planning of Preoperational Test Programs" The inspector stated that he had been given the following information regarding certain tests which had been-identified in September of 1972.
(See RO Report No. 50-313/72-9, Section IV, paragraph 4.)
a.
Test procedures have been identified which will test pneumatic valves and dampers in safety systems under ' loss of air conditions, b.
Tests of the evacuation alarm are to be prescribed in TP 420.01, and . J i . . m , _. ~ -,. .y _ _ _, _ _. , - -.. -.. ,- w ~ - - -w.
_,-
.
, , 'N i %) RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-7-7-c.
DOP and Freon tests of ventilation filters are to be tested by a vendor procedure which has been identified as IP 165.01.
Licensee personnel stated that this information was correct.
The inspector noted that procedures for all of those tests discussed in the ra.ference report had now been identified.
(Details I, paragraph 9) 9.
Procedure for Use of Jumpers and Bypasses The inspector stated that he was concerned that the approval and implementation of this procedure had not been completed, noting that AP&L had committed to writing such a procedure in February of 1973.
(See RO Report No. 50-313/73-3, Summary of Findings, Section VII, H.)
Licensee personnel indicated that it would be approved shortly.
(Details I, paragraph 10)
( 10.
Reactor Building Ventilation Systems Test The inspector stated that additional comments had been given the test administrator on TP 160.34. He also stated that he would like to discuss AP&L's positions on and or resolutions or the comments on this procedure during the next inspection.
Licensee representatives indicated that they would be - prepared to discuss the comments during the inspector's next visit.
(Details I, paragraph 11) 11.
Core Flood System Flow Rate Test The inspector asked what AP&L's plans were in regards to a flow rate test on this system.
A licensee representative stated that they had no definite plans and still did not feel that such a test was necessary.
He stated that AP&L was expecting guidance from Babcock and Wilcox Company (B&W) in the near future.
The inspector stated that this subject would remain open.
(Details I, paragraph 12) '~%sJ
! i . y
- - - . s m s.- . RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-7-8-12.
Audits of Preoperational Test Program The inspector stated that he had reviewed audits of various test activities performed by AP&L QA and QC personnel and had one comment on those audits. He stated that the area of use of properly calibrated test equipment should be formally reaudited and the reaudit documented since problems had been found in enis area on previous QC audits.
A licensee representative indicated that this would be done.
Licensee personnel informed the inspectors that the SRC was at the site that day to perform an audit of preoperational testing.
(Details I, paragraph 13) 13.
Zero Power Physics and Power Ascension Test Programs The inspector noted that no additional information oa the testing to be done was available during the inspection.
He stated that it was his understanding that B&W was to provide AP&L more information the following week.
Licensee personnel indicated that this understanding was correct.
(Details I, paragraph 14) C.
These subjects were discussed by Whitt: 1.
Procedure Reviews . The inspector stated that he had reviewed three approved test procedures. He had no comments on one of these (TP 200.11 " Reactor Coolant Pump Flow Test"), and comments on the other two had been given to the station test administrator.
(Details II, paragraph 2) 2.
Borated Water Storage Tank (BWST) The inspector stated that he had discussed certain characteristics of the BWST with the operation supervisor, and had obtained the desired information.
(Details II, paragraph 3) 3.
Station Log The inspector stated that he had raviewed a portion of the station log and had no significant comments. He noted that he had looked at the addition to the administrative manual which required that all log alterations be dated. The l l l . -- -, w - - -
. O % RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-7-9-inspector then asked the licensee when the administrative manual would be approved and in effect. The licensee management representative answered that it would be written in its final form in one monch and would be approved for use within two months.
(Details II, paragraph 4) 4.
Emergency Procedures The inspector stated that he had looked at the addition to the administrative manual which had been made to clarify the manual action to be taken by the operator during emergency conditions being handled in accordance with emergency procedures.
(Details II, paragraph 5) 5.
Use of Ink for Recording Data The inspector stated that he had read the memorandum from the plant superintendent to the station test coordinators dated April 27, 1973, which required the use of ink in the recording of all test data.
(Details II, paragraph 6) h l
l
t %-s , m yr.
- --- - +. - - -- , -,..,, - v- , - - - - .,-,e, ,--
. __ _ . _.
. R0 Rpt. No. 50-313/73-7 I-1 , . DETAILS I Prepared By: h3 M. S. Kidd, Reactor Date Inspector Facilities Test and Startup Branch Dates of Inspection: May 8-11,1973 Reviewed By: [ [// 2,vyu$d- & 4 /4 /75 C. E. Murphy, Chief 'Dite Facilities Test and Startup Branch 1.
Individuals contacted
Arkansas Power and Light Company (AP&L) p J. W. Anderson - Plant Superintendent i i \\ G. H. Miller - Assistant Plant Superintendent D. N. Bennett - Quality Control Engineer N. A. Moore - Chief Quality Assurance Coordinator R. R. Culp - Test Administrator C. A. Moore - Procedure Administrator 2.
Staiti_ng n A fourth waste control operator had been hired since the previous inspection. All positions shown on Figure 32-2 of the FSAR have now been filled. This item is resolved.
3.
Checklist For Review of Operating and Tes t Procedures The inspector asked if the SRC was using QAP-4, a checklist for . review of procedures, located in Section 19 of the AP&L QA manual.
. After investigating the matter, licensee representatives replied l that the checklist had not been used. The inspector stated that
lack of use of the checklist appeared to be in violation of l Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50.
l-i . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,_. _,.. _ _, _, _ _. _,, , -,,, _,
_ _ _ _ . . _ ' . ., N Y . RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-7 I-2 Licensee personnel stated that the checklist was a part of the original QA manual which was published in March of 1971 and that the SRC probably did not know about it since it was part of the QA manual, where it would not normally be located. The inspector was also informed that QAP-4 would be considered for revision by i t e AP&L Quality Assurance Committee during its next meeting, i and that the procedure would be revised to reflect current practices or would be deleted if its functions are covered , elsewhere. Other station representatives did not feel such a checklist was needed.
(See paragraph 8 of this section.)
This matter was discussed during the management interview at which time the inspector stated that a notice of violation would be issued concerning it.
4.
Gaseous Radwaste System As a result of the discrepancies found in tank volumes in February of 1973, AP&L reviewed all radwaste component nameplate data and 'N compared it to Table 11.6 of the FSAR. Other differences were f ound. The resolutions of all discrepancies found were discussed in AP&L's reply to the notice of violation and Amendment 36 to the PSAR reflects changes in component descriptions and characteristics resulting from the evaluation.
In order to maintain the waste gas holdup capability discussed in . the F3AR, AP&L plans to operate the waste gas decay tanks at a
higher pressure than originally planned. Vendors of the compressor and tanks have assured AP&L that the higher working pressure is feasible. The inspector asked that the vendors' correspondence on this matter be made available for his review. Licensee personnel .. stated that it would be available during the inspector's next visit.
5.
Reactor Building Spray System Electrical Test , i Violations of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 which occurred during the performance of this test were initially discussed in RO Report No. 50-313/73-5, Details II, paragraph 3.
The inspector was informed that certain corrective and preventive actions had been taken but that all action had not been completed. Licensee personnel stated that implementation of a new procedure for use of jumpers and bypasses was expected to solve the problem of what types of jumpers and bypasses are logged. Also, test personnel have been informed of the deficiencies found by RO and measures to
prevent recurrences discussed.
O . . - - ,. . -..,. .... - - -.... -.
. _ - . --. . . ' , . - . n
i s
' RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-7 1-3 . This subject was discussed during the management interview at which time the inspector stated that all corrective actions would be reviewed during the next inspection.
6.
Reactor Building Spray Piping Failure to promptly report a construction deficiency found in the system was initially discussed in RO Report No. 50-313/73-5, Details I, paragraph 9.
Licensee personnel again informed the inspector that , - they could not determine that 10 CFR 50.55(e) meant that construction deficiencies must be reported within 24 hours of discovery or that it meant that deficiencies which might be classified as reportable af ter evaluation should be reported.
The inspector reiterated that RO's position on promptly means within 24 hours of discovery. Also, he stated that if significant evaluation of a problem were needed to verify that the system meets the criteria in the safety analysis report, then a written report might be needed to allow RO to evaluate the decisions made.
, Licensee personnel indicated that a written report on this problem ' of a crack found in the system piping would be submitted by May 28,1973.
7.
QA Program for Operations - The inspector gave consnents on the AP&L QA manual and QC program to i QA and QC personnel. The only comment on the (A manual was that the training given to QA personnel needed to be defined. A licensee representative stated that this would be done.
i Several connents were given on the QC program document, most of which ) were based on lack of detail or need for definition of terminology used. These consnents were given to the QC engineer. The inspector was informed that the document would be revised and his comments , would be considered.
This subject was discussed during the management interview, at which time the inspector stated that it would be carried as an unresolved item and-discussed further.
l l I . - ni w,- -e-- w - m - , - - -, - - - --m - - -, m -- >,- - - --w-
. ~ ' . . ., - . .s O R0 Rpt. No. 50-313/73-7 I-4 8.
Checklists For Review of Procedures During discussions of the use of QAP-4, a checklist for use in reviewing procedures, the inspector was informed that AP&L's procedure review committees, the Plant Safety Committee (PSC), Safety Review Committee (SRC), and Test Working Group (TWG) do not use checklists or other aids in reviewing procedures. The inspector stated that checklists for this purpose should be developed and used and that these checklists should enumerate the key points and characteristics of procedures which the comnittees should be looking for.
The inspector noted that his review of TP 160.34 (See paragraph 11.), using a checklist developed from guidelines in Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, the " Guide For The Planning of Preoperational Testing Programs," and other guides resulted in over a dozen comments which had been given to station personnel. He also noted that the cover sheet for this procedure indicates that it was " approved as written" by the PSC, SRC, TWG, and plant superintendent.
A tabulation of all significant cotanents previously given by RO:II on N AP&L test procedures was discussed with station personnel. The inspector _ ) pointed out that TP 160.34 received the most number of comments, but that all procedures reviewed by RO:II have been commented on to some extent.
Licensee representatives did not feel that checklists would help the quality of reviews, one stating that he felt checklists would be too restrictive and that better reviews could be accomplished without them.
During the management interview, licensee representatives stated that development of the checklists would be considered. The inspector stated that the subject would be carried as an unresolved item and be discussed further.
9.
Preparation of Test Procedures to Cover Tests in Guide For Planning of Preoperational Test Programs Tests for which no procedures had been identified to RO:II by AP&L in September of 1972 were initially discussed in RO Report No. 50-313/72-9, Section IV, paragraph 4.
Information given the inspector during the current inspection included:
( . _ _ _. _
_ _ _ _ -- _ _ __ _ ._ _ _. . _ _. . . . . , - ., , . ' . R0 Rpt. No. 50-313/73-7 I-5 a.
Test procedures have been identified which will test all pneumatic valves and dampers in safety related systems >under loss-of-air conditions, a b.
Tests of the evacuation alarm signal will be accomplished per
TP 420.01, and c.
DOP and Freon tests of ventilation filters are to be tested by a vendor procedure which has been assigned a number of
, TP 165.01.
! These procedures complete the identification of all those tests listed in the report referenced above. Most of the procedures have been written; some have been approved. This item will remain open until the procedures are approved.
. 10.
Implementina Procedure for Use of Jumpers ard Bypasses
Initial discussions on the need for a detailed procedure for the use
l of jumpers and bypasses were documented in RO Report No. 50-313/73-1,
Details, paragraph 6.
Licensee representatives stated that such a ' procedure would be written in February of 1973 as discussed in RO Report No. 313/73-3, Details I, paragraph 8.
In April of 1973, the inspector was informed that the procedure had been written and would be approved in four to six weeks.
I During the current inspection, the inspector was informed that the procedure had been reviewed, revised and was being reviewed again.
The inspector stated that he was concerned that the development and
approval of the procedure was taking such an extended amount of time. He pointed out that such items would need much faster resolution as fuel loading for Unit 1 approaches.
, This item remains open.
i l 11.
Reactor Buildina Ventilation System Test The inspector gave comments resulting from his review of procedure . TP 160.34 in addition to those given in April of 1973 and documented in RO Report No. 50-313/73-5, Details I, paragraph 10.
Examples of comments given during the current inspection include: .- a.
What is the " desired velocity pressure set point" referred to - in step 6.3. 3.(6)? ! I . .. g 9- '-w+-y v v- --
- p+------w, - -. ---m-g--- - - -,*e-+Tv-T e-rw= =g*-tmm wer--er ir e-w --+w-m*-e-v-w- -Ye-vm <--e vm e y
. ~ - . _ . , . % m . RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-7 I-6 b.
Step 6.3.4.(4) checks fan VSF-lD for operatioa from engineered safeguards (ES) channel No. 5.
The FSAR indicates that this fan is actuated by ES channel No. 6.
c.
Section 6.3.10 reads like a system description and does not provide step-by-step instructions for the actions to be accomplished. Also, it does not contain spaces for signatures and dates as previous sections do.
These and other comments were given to the test administrator who agreed to seek resolution of the conments by the next inspection.
This subject remains open.
12.
Core Flood Flow Rate Test Discussions of this previously identified unresolved item revealed that AP&L has not yet developed plans for further testing. The inspector was info med that B&W is expected to provide AP&L information regarding their recoamendations on the subject shortly.
This matter was discussed during the management interview at which time the inspector stated that it would remain open.
13.
Review of AP&L Audits of Preoperational Testing The inspector reviewed and discussed audits and inspections of the preoperational testing program by AP&L QA and QC personnel between October of 1972 and March of 1973. QA personnel use the following , procedures in making their audits: ANO-13, " Audit of Preoperational Test Procedures," and a.
b.
ANO-15, " Procedure For Preoperational Testing Audits" ANO-15 utilizes two checklists, one titled " Conduct of Test," which - is used to evaluate work performance, and " Records and Documentation," which is used in auditing documentation. The inspector was informed that another QA procedure, ANO-14, " Operating Plant General Audit," is a expected to be approved shortly.
(~~ __ The inspector had no comments concerning QA audits.
O . . --
- . ._ .- ^ , . . . . RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-7 II-1 ' DETAILS II Prepared by: M 8 # 73 j K. W. Whitt, Reactor Date Inspector, Facilities Test and Startup Branch
Dates of Inspection: Ma 8-11, 1973 Reviewed by:.[ MM /
[73 C. E. Murphy; Ac0 g Chief ITate Facilities Testi d Startup Branch 1.
Individuals contacted Arkansas Power and Light Company (AP&L) D. N. Bennett - Quality Control Engineer R. R. Culp - Test Administrator i B. A. Terwilliger - Operations Supervisor i 2.
Comments On Approved Test Procedures The following comments were given to the station test administrator who agreed to initiate appropriate action for timely resolution.
a.
TP 200.12. " Reactor Coolant Flow Coastdown Test."
(1)- Cover Sheet - The Plant Safety Consnittee and the test working , group have approved this procedure with addendum No.1.
The . Safety Review Committee has approved it as written. The plant superintendent has approved it without specifying whether or not addendum No. I was approved. Procedure approvals should be consistant with respect to addenda and should clearly show what addenda are approved for use.
. (2) Sections 3.0, 6.0, and 7.0 - Date and signoff spaces have not been provided for the prerequisites and steps of these sections.
(3) Section 8.1.1 and other procedure steps reference enclosure.1, ' ' but there does not appear to be an enclosure 1 in this procedure.
' . e - ,,,
- Q
, - , m ,. -% - , , -,.. - e
, . - . ,s I h \\ / '- ' RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-7 II-2 b.
TP 210.03, " Chemical Addition and Sampling System Functional Test" (1) Sections 3.0, 6.0, and 7.0 - Date and signoff spaces ' have not been provided for the prerequisites and ateps of these sections.
. (2) Steps 7.3.3 and 7.3.8 - These steps provide instructions for energizing trace heating around the boric acid addition tank using HS-1603 and HS-1604. The piping and instrumentation diagram for the chemical addition system (M-233-6, Ch. 6) does not show HS-1603.
It shows HS-1604 and HS-1605. The procedure and drawing should be studied in this regard and changes should be made as appropriate.
> 3.
Borated Water Storage Tank (BWST) Due to a spill incident involving the BWST at another facility, certain characteristics of the ANO-1 BWST was discussed with AP&L management. It was learned that the tank has a high level alarm at approximately 40 feet and normal operation is between 39 and 40 feet. If the tank should overflow, the water will spill out through the overflow pipe onto the ground, and if overflow continues for a sufficient time period, the water will eventually flow into the lake.
4.
Station Log The inspector reviewed the station log entries from February 22 through March 26, and had no significant comments.
In response to a comment made by the inspector on a previous inspection, a change has been made to the administrative manual requiring that any alteration of the station log be dated as well as initialed.
This will become effective when the administrative manual is approved which will be within two months according to a licensee management representative.
5.
Emergency Procedures Because of a comment on emergency procedures made by the inspector during the previous inspection, instructions are being added to the administrative manual to emphasize that the operator is to take manual action when any automatic action fails to initiate during an emergency condition covered by an emergency procedure.
Og V' . - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - -. - - - - --- --- ~- '-m^
- ~
. _. . ..- . .. __.
. . -_ , _.
- . - a , B0 Rpt. No. 50-313/73-7 II-3 6.
Use of Ink for Recording Data ' The inspector was shown a memorandum from the plant superintendent to the station test coordinators instructing , them to use only ink when recording data in test procedures.
It also contained instructions for initialing and dating i all data alterations. This memorandum, which was dated April 27, 1973, and became effective May 1, 1973, was ' I written as a result of a comment made by the inspector during the previous inspection. This item is considered closed.
t I
4
I I
- O
. i l l l e -, - ., ,- -. - -,.. - - , - -,,... -,, . ,-.,.------,,-es.
--,- -,,, - -, -
_ _ _. ___ _ . j . . ' ., ,, . ' Arkansas Power and Light Company Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 , RO Inspection Report No. 50-313/73-7 cc w/ encl: g. D. Thernburg, R0 RO:HQ (5) DR Central Files Regulatory Standards (3) Directorate of Licensing (13) cc encl. only: "PDR
- Local PDR
- NSIC
- DTIE, OR
- State
- To be dispatched at a later date.
\\~ l l* }}