IR 05000313/1973010
| ML19320A042 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 08/01/1973 |
| From: | Campbell C, Kidd M, Murphy C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19320A032 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-313-73-10, NUDOCS 8004140662 | |
| Download: ML19320A042 (24) | |
Text
. - - - - - - -
.
.
.
.
,
[c" '%,, e ]
'
DIRECTORATE OF REGULATCRY OPERATIONS TN UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
l
, pT
-
-
McClo M ll - SUIT E 818 d
230 PE ACMT REE ST R E ET. NoRT HWEST Ilargg 09 T aphe s M0el03 N 903 AT 4. ANT A. G EoRGa A 30303
.
,
RO Inspection Report No. 50-313/73-10 Licensee: Arkansas Power and Light Company Sixth and Pine Streets Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71601
Pacility Name: Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 Docket No.:
50-313 License No.:
CPPR-57 Category:
B1 Location: Russellville, Arkansas Type of License: B&W, PWR, 880 MWe Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced
,
Dates of Inspection: July 17-20, 1973 Dates of Previous Inspection: July 5-6, 1973
Principal Inspector:
M. S. Kidd, Reactor Inspector Facilities Test and Startup Branch Accompanying Inspector:
C. M. Campbell, Radiation Specialist
,
Radiological and Environmental Protection Branch Other Accompanying Personnel: None Principal Inspector:
M
]
7/8//78 M. S. Kidd, b actor Inspector, Facilities Test D4te
~
and Startup Branch Reviewed by:
A
- * 73 C. E. Murphy,(C)f'ef, acilities Test and Startup Branch
'Uate a
v u'
e
'
8004140(,fQ
-
- -
.
'
.
-
..
'
r
.
.
,
p
.
(
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-10-2-
'
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
.
I.
Enforcement Action
'
.
'A. Violations
~
None B.
Safety Items None II.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters A.
Violations 1.
Failure to Loa the Use of Jumpers Corrective action and reasures to prevent recurrence of the violation concerned with the conduct of TP 204.02,
" Reactor Building Spray System Electrical Test," have been
.
O This matter is considered resolved.
(Details completed.
I, paragraph 3)
2.
Reactor Building Spray Piping The licensee has been assured by his architect-engineer and vendor that the crack in a section of the spray system piping was due ta an unauthorized repair method and that it is an isolated case.
This matter is considered resolved.
(Details I, paragraph 4)
3.
Failure to Use QAP-4, " Review of Operatina Procedures and Test Procedures"
.
Procedure QAP-4 has been deleted from the Quality Assurance Manual.
New procedure review guidelines have been approved
.
and implemented by the Safety Review Committee (SRC), Plant
"I Safety Committee (PSC), and Test Working Group (TWG).
This matter is considered resc1ved.
(Details I, paragraph 5)
4.
Gaseous Radwaste System Tank Volumes Corrective actions described in AP&L's response were partially verified during a previous inspection as reported in RO Inspection Report No. 50-313/73-8, Details I, paragraph 3.
Verification of corrective N
)
action was conpleted during this inspection and Region II has no further questions. (Details II, paragraph 3)
(
.
,-
. _ _ - _
_
_
-.,.., __
-
--
.
--
.
-
-
.
o
-
..
/~ '.
'
.
-
(
'
RO Rpt. No.~50-313/73-10-3-
B.
Safety Items
.
There were no previously identified safety items.
III. New Unresolved Items t
73-10/1 Administrative Controls Manual l
Comments were given on Revision 0 of'OP 1005.01, approved June 8, 1973.
(Details I, paragraph 6)
)
73-10/2 Primary and Secondary System Relief Valves The U it 1 pressurizer and main steam relief valves
-
n are of a type which has experienced operational problems such as premature actuation at operating
- -
facilities. Studies on enese problems will be followed to determine if upgrading of the valves will be required on Unit 1.
(Details I, paragraph 8)
73-10/3 Emergency Diesel Generator Test Test procedure 410.24 does not load test the vital a.c. busses from the emergency diesel generators.
(Details I, paragraph 9)
73-10/4 Fuel Pellet Problems A small percentage of fuel pellets in fuel pins made
-for Arkansas Nuclear one (ANO), Unit 1, have been inadvertently intermixed with those for another facility by Babcock and Wilcox Company (B&W).
,
(Details I, paragraph 10)
73-10/5 Gaseous Radwaste System (TP 232.72) and Clean Radwaste
'
System (TP 230.68) Test Procedures l
It does not appear that these tests, as written, will be adequate to meet all of the test acceptance criteria.
I (Details -II, paragraph 6.c)
---
I
- 73-10/6 Resotratory Protection Program and Procedures Respiratory protection program including approved procedures must be developed prior to fuel loading.
(Details II, paragraph 11)
l
- - - - - - -. - -, - - - - - -. - -
- - -. - - - -. - -. - -.. ~. ~. - - -..,
..
,
s
-
- ~,. -,
., - - -._..,nm.
.
,..g,---,
,
a,mr.-,
.
.
..
_.
-
_
,
-.
.
-
-~
.
,..
_
.
R0 Rpt. No. 50-313/73-10-4-73-10/7 Representative Sampling of Gaseous Waste Evaluation of the collection efficiency of halogen
,
collection media and minimizing halogen collection losses in outside sample delivery lines have not been done.
(Details II, paragraph 9)
IV.
Status of Previously nepor ced Unresolved Items 72-9/1 Incorporation of All Saf y Related Equipment in Final Safety Analysis Report ('r5AR) Q-List
'
Not inspected.
72-9/3 Preparation of Test Procedures to Cover Tests in " Guide For The Planning of Preoperational Test Programs" Not all of the procedures needed to perform certain tests have been approved.
(Details I, paragraph 11)
73-1/1 Lack of an Implementing Procedure for Use of Jumpers and Bypasses Procedure OP 1005.04, " Control and Use of Bypasses and Jumpers," was approved and implemented' June 19, 1973.
This item is considered resolved.
(Details I, paragraph 12)
73-3/1 Completion of the Radiological Waste Disposal Systems Installation of the gaseous and liquid systems has been essentially completed. This item remains open pending inatt11ation of the solid waste system in accordance with Section 11.1.3.3 cf the Unit 1 FSAR.
(Details II, paragraph 4)
73-5/1 Reactor Building Ventilation System Tests
,
All comments on TP 160.34 have been resolved except one.
!
This item remains open.
(Details I, paragraph 13)
73-5/2 Core Flood System Flow Rate Tesl i
The licensee has not yet determined how a flow rate test
!
wil18be run, but expects to formulate a plan in the near future.
(Details I,' paragraph 14)
\\
l
!
'
_
.
... _
..
.. -
.
..
...
. -
._ _
_
_ _ _.__. _ _ _ _
i
-.
-
,
~
r
,
V
-
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-10-5-s 73-7/1 QA Program for Operation
'
All previous comments on OP.1004.15 except une have been
.j incorporated into Revision 1, which is under review. This
item remains open.
(Details I, paragraph 15)
73-7/2 Guidelines for Review of Procedures Guidelines for review of procedures by the SRC, PSC, and TWG have been approved and implemented. This item is considered resolved.
(Details I, paragraph 16)
73-8/1 Procedural Coverage Per Sefaty Guide 33 Procedures have been identified to meet most of the areas not covered on a previous comparison of SG 33 with the licensee's procedure index. This item remains open.
(Details I, paragraph 17)
73-8/2 Main Fuel Handling Bridge Control Rod Mast The capscrews which join the lower and upper mast tube sections apparently worked loose because of improper torquing of the screws or improper staking of the screw heads. Repairs have not yet been attempted. This item remains open.
(Details I, paragraph 18)
<
V.
Unusual Occurrences _
,
None VI.
Other Significant Findings
.
A.
Proiect Status
.
Licensee personnel estimate construction of Unit 1 to be
-
98.6% complete. Of the 73 startup systems, 47 have been completely released for testing, 20 partially released, and
6 have no releases. Seventeen preoperational tests have been completed, ten of which have been officially endorsed.
The estimated core loading date has changed from November 1, 1973, to December 21, 1973.
B.
Personnef Changes M. H. Shanbhag, an electrical engineer, has been employed as j
Procedure Administrator on the Unit 1 staff. The former V
Procedure Administrator, C. A. Moore, is now an Assistant to the Chemical and Radiation Protection Engineer in charge of health physics.
(Details I, paragraph 2)
{
l
'
n
.
-
_
-
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
-
,
-
,
,
.
U
-
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-10-6-
-
VII. Management Interview
..
A management interview was held at 'he conclusion of the inspection, t
July 20,1973. The following licensee representatives attended:
Arkansas Power and Light Company (AP&L)
J. W. Anderson - Plant Superintendent
,
T. C. Baksr - Chemical and Radiation Protection Engineer D. N. Bennett - Quality Control Engineer R. G. Carroll - Chemical and Radiation Protection Engineer R. R. Culp - Test Administrator
-
N. A. Moore - Chief Quality Assurance Coordinator J. Orlicek - Quality Control Engineer M. H. Shanbhag - Procedure Administrator The inspectors stated that the previously identified enforcement matters listed in Section II of this summary were considerad closed. Details on these matters are given in Details I, paragraphs 3, 4, and 5, and Details II, paragraph 3.
\\
New unresolved items in Section III of this summary were discussed. Details on these matters and licensee manage-ment positions on them are discussed in Details I, paragraphs 6, 8, 9, and 10, and Details II, paragraphs 6.c, 9, and 11.
The status of previously identified unresolved items listed in Section IV of the summary were also discussed. The items involving a procedure for use of jumpers and bypasses and guide-lines for review of procedures were closed out.
Details on these
'
and the remaining old unresolved items are discussed in Details I, paragraphs 11 through 18, and Details II, paragraph 4.
~
.
l I
-
s
,
W l
-
l
)
j
.
--
-
-
_
.
.
.
-
-
-..
-
_
L.
r V
.
RO Rpt. No. 5e-313/73-10 I-1 DETAILS I Prepared By: - M O
df t
M. S. Kidd
' Date
,
Reactor Inspector Facilities Test and Startup Branch i
Dates of Inspection: July,17-20, 1973 Reviewed By:
/
T/2
T C. E. Murphy /Chie,f'
/ Date Facilities Test and Startup Branch f
1.
Individuals Contacted Arkansas Power and Light Company (AP&L)
J. W. nnderson - Plant Superintendent D. N. Bennett - Quality Control Engineer
%
T. H. Cogburn - Nuclear Engineer R. R. Culp - Test Adminis trator G. H. Miller - Assistant Plant Superintendent N. A. Moore - Chief Quality Assurance Coordinator J. Orlicek - Quality Control Engineer M. H. Shanbhag - Procedure Administrator B. A. Terwilliger - Operations Supervisor Babcock and Wilcox Company (B&W)
i J. N. Kaelin - Site Operations Manager
'
Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel)
~
J. W. Jamieson - Startup Engineer
,
2.
Personnel Changes Shanbhag was recently employed by AP&L and joined the Unit L staff as procedure administrator.
He holds a master of science degree in electrical engineering from the University of Arkansas.
He was involved in graduate studies at the Graduate Institute of f
o
,
(
.
y,
-, - -
-.
-
.e,,.--
,
,,.,-
, -,,,,,,. -
-
- _ _ _ _
--_
_ - - - _ _
__._
.
.
.
_
o m
n O
RO Rpt. No.- 50-313/73-10 I-2 Technology at Little Rock, Arkansas, for six months and was a consultant with Aubry Carroll Engineering Company for another
-
six months prior to joining the AP&L staff.
C. A. Moore has been reassigned as an Assistant to the Chemical and Radiation Protection Engineer.-
3.
Failure to Log the Use of Jumpers
.
This enforcement item was initially discussed in R0 Report No.
50-313/73-5, Details II, paragraph 3.
Corrective action includes approval of a new procedure and revision of the Plan for
Preoperational Testing (Plan). The Plan now states that all jumpers and bypasses used in support of a test will be logged unless specifically applied and removed by instructions in a formal test procedure. OP 1005.04, " Control and Use of Bypasses and Jumpers,"
l covers temporary circuit modifications for all activities other j
'
than preoperational testing. This procedure was approved June 19, 1973.
Os
'
This item was discussed during the management interview at which i
time the inspector stated that it was considered resolved.
,
4.
Reactor Building Spray System Piping This enforcement item was initially discussed in RO Report No.
'
50-313/73-5, Details I, paragraph 9.
The cause of the crack found
in a section of piping during a hydrotest was due to pounding on the pipe to facilitate fitup for welding at dhe vendor shop. During
,
the current inspection, the. inspector reviewed a telegram from the
.
M. W. Kellogg Company to Bechtel which stated that the repair procedure was not an approved one and that the pipe spool in question was the only one on which this method of repair was used. A licensee representative informed the inspector that AP&L was satisfied that this was an isolated case. The inspector stated during the managene interview that this matter was considered resolved.
~
5.
Failure to Use Procedure QAP-4
,
This enforcemune item, involving lack of use of QAP-4, " Review of Operating and Test Procedures," by the SRC was initially discussed in RO Report No. 50-313/73-7, Details I, paragraph 3.
QAP-4 has been deleted,from the AP&L QA M nual and has been replaced by guide-a
,
e (
-
_wn-m
m-e-
-
mww----
w w
s-w-m w-m eg
-
,
,
__ -.
_.
-
l
)
.~
t
~
k RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-10 I-3
.
lines for procedure reviews for use of-the SRC, PSC, and TWG. Guide-lines for use by the SRC have been-incorporated into Revision 1 of
,
the SRC charter. The PSC and TWG now use AP 1005.07," Plant Safety Committee ~ and Test Working Group Procedure Review Guidelines," an
'
administrative procedure approved July 17, 1973.
The inspector reviewed the guidelines referred to above and had no connants. The inspector stated that this'1 tem was considered closed in the management interview.
6.
Administrative Controls Manual This document has been identified by AP&L as meeting requirements for the following administrative controls required by SG 33:
Authorities and responsibilities for safe operation and a.
shutdown b.
Procedure adherence and temporary change method c.
Shift and relief turnover d.
Log entries and record retention The manual was reviewed and the following comments given to license personnel:
The minium qualifications necessary for the QC engineer are weak.
a.
For example, only a high school diploma is required.
b.
A member of the health physics group most apt to be cognizant of day-to-day health physics problems should be a member of the PSC.
During the initial period of operation, the Mastar Plant Manual c.
should be reviewed annually rather than every two years.
'
..
d.
The manual should discuss special reviews of procedures following an usual occurrence, abnormal occurrence, technical specification violation, etc., to verify that procedures being used at the time of the occurrence were not at fault.
The assistant plant operator should be responsible for shutdown e.
of the pl~nt as well as the shift supervisor and plant operator.
a O
t
-
.
.
-
.
.
. _.
. =-
-.
.
E
.
,-
-
\\
.
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-10 I-4 After discussing the bases for the comments above, licensee
-
personnel stated during the management interview that items
'
c, d, and a would be incorporated and items a and b would be considered.
The inspector stated that resolution of the comments would be carried as an unresolved item.
7.
Review of Procedures The inspector informed licensee personnel that he had reviewed the following quality control procedures and had no comments c.1 them:
OP 1004.05, "Q-List Spare Parts Quality Control Procedure" OP 1004.07, " Control of Special Processes" OP 1004.08, "QC Inspections" 0F 1004.10, "ANO Test Equipment Calibration Quality Control Procedure" He stated that review of OP 1005.02, " Handling of Procedures,"
resulted in one comment which might require action on the part of AP&L.. JHe stated. that section 8.6, which provides definitions of changes to the intent of a procedure, is confusing in that change in
- -
intent and changes which affect safety of personnel or equipment are both discussed.
The inspector was informed during the management interview that a t
revision of this section would be considered.
8.
Primary and Secondary System Relief Valves Problems with relief valves at operating facilities were discussed with licensee personnel. The inspector stated during the management
'
interview that studies were currently underway to analyze several mechanisms which can cause premature valve actuation as well as other problems. He also stated that although 'no action was being requested of AP&L at that time, the matter would be carried as an unresolved
. item and discussed further when more information became available.
-
-
9.
Emergency Diesel Generator Tests Comments on Revision 0 of TP 410.24 were discussed in R0 Report p
No. 50-313/73-8, Details I, paragraph 17 a.
Review of Revision 1 i
(
j revealed that all comments except one involving a vital bus full
!
- \\s d load test had been resolved. Additional comments were given on
/
i
.
-
i L-
>
.,
,,
/G~
U
-
,
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-10 I-5 Revision 1.
Licensee personnel were informed in the management l
interview that the full load test question along with the other
-
conaments would be carried as an unresolved item.
Licensee personnel stated that it was their intent to perform full load tests on the vital busses, but that they might not be run per TP 410.24.
The inspector witnessed a portion of the testing of No. 2 diesel-generator at 75% load on July 19, 1973, and had no conments on the testing activities on that date.
10.
Fuel Pellet Mixup AP&L informed RO on June 27, 1973, that a small number of fuel pellets for another facility had been discovered in a batch of pellets being loaded into fuel pins for ANO, Unit 1, at the B&W fuel fabrication facility.
In that the pellets are of a lower enrichment than those of ANO, AP&L does not feel that this p
is a reportable item per 10 CFR 50.55(e).
The inspector was informed during the inspection that no additional information had been obtained, but that a report from B&W was expected shortly and that the findings of this report would be
~
__
forwarded to RO.
Licensee personnel also stated that a representative of Middle South Services, Inc., was to perform an audit at the B&W facility during the week of July 16, 1973.
The inspector stated in the management interview that this item would be carried as an unresolved item for followup when more information is available.
11. Preparation of Test Procedures to Perform Tests in Guide for the Planning of Preoperational Test Programs
.
This unresolved item was initially discussed in R0 Report No.
-
50-313/72-9,Section III, paragraph 3.b.
During the inspection documented in RO Report No. 50-313/73-5, it was revealed that procedures had been prepared to perform all tests except loss of instrument air, a check of the evacuation alarm, and flow balances and filter tests in ventilation systems.
The inspector was informed during the current inspection that certain of the procedures with which the tests will be performed have not yet been written. The inspector stated that this item would remain open.
,., - - - -
,
.e
,-
-,
,
, - -, -, - - - - -,.,, -
, - - - - -, -
e-m
.-
e
..
<m RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-10 I-6
.
12. Procedure for Use of Bypasses and Jumpers
This unresolved item was initially discussed in R0 Report No.
50-313/73-1, Details, paragraph 6.
An implementing procedure, OP 1005.04, " Control and Use of Bypasses and Jumpers," has now
.
been approved and implemented. The inspector stated in the management interview that this specific matt'er was considered resolved.
-
One comment on OP 1005.04 involving testing and checkout of equipment after maintenance, remains open.
13.
Reactor Building Ventilation Systems Test Actions taken to resolve previous comments on TP 160.34 given in RO Report Nos. 50-313/73-5, Details I, paragraph 10, and 50-313/73-7, Details I, paragraph 11, were discussed. It was determined that all previous comments except one involving loss O
of power tests had been resolved. The inspector stated that this
,
comment would be discussed further.
'
14.
Core Flood Flow Rate Test
'
This unresolved item was initially discussed in R0 Report No.
,
50-313/73-5, Details I, paragraph 11.
AP&L has not decided how a flow test can be performed on 'the core flood tanks to demonstrate adequate reflood capability. One problem is that Unit 1 core flood discharge valves are equipped with relatively slow operators
'
(approximately 60 seconds).
The test was discussed with plant management and a B&W site representative. The inspector was informed in the management interview dhat AP&L hopes to develop plans which will resolve this item within a month.
'
15.
QA for Operations Previous comments on OP 1004.15, " Arkansas Nuclear One Quality Control Program," were discussed in R0 Report Nos. 50-313/73-7, Details I, paragraph 7, and 50-313/73-8, Details I, paragrap.1 10.
-
Dis,cussions on those comments indicate that all have been L
- incorporated into the draf t of Revision 1 except one involving training to be given the QC engineer.
x (
.-
-
.
- -.
. -
- -
.. - - - -
_ _ _ _
__ - - _ _ _
.
.
t
,
-
O
,
\\
.
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-10 I-7 During the management interview the inspector stated that this training should be given special attention as was that for QA
personnel since the.QC engineer plays a vital role in the total QA program. ~ Licensee personnel stated that the training for this man should be handled like other station staff personnel.
- The inspector stated that this item would remain open.
16. Procedure Review Guidelines This unresolved item was discussed in RO Report No. 50-313/73-7, Details I, paragraph 8, when it was determined that AP&L's procedure review committees did not have official guidelines which defined how procedures are reviewed.
Guidelines have now been developed as follows:
Cuidelines for use of the SRC in reviewing operating and test a.
procedures have been incorporated as an attachment to the SRC charter.
b.
Guidelines for use of the PSC and TWG (test procedures only) are contained in a newly approved procedure AP 1005.07, " Plant Safety
~
Committee and Test Working Group Procedure Review Guidelines."
The inspector reviewed the guidelines and had no comments. He stated
'
in the management interview that this matter was considered resolved.
-
17. Procedural Coverage - Safety Guide 33 e
Certain procedures which are needed to meet the listings in SG 33 which had not been identified by AP&L were discussed in RO Report No. 50-313/73-8, Details II, paragraph 4.
Discussions during the current inspection revealed the following:
-
a.
General Plant Operating Procedures A reactor trip recovery procedure is being written.
l
!
b.
Systems Operating Procedures Procedures are being written for startup, operation, and shutdown of the containment cooling systes, auxiliary building heating
and ventilation system, other ventilation systems, electrical systems, and the communications system.
L
l
.
...
-
- - -
.
-
-.
--
- -. - - - -
..
-
.
.
.
-
A U
.
-RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-10 I-8
.
t
'!
c.
Emergency Operating Procedures
.
Procedures are being written to cover loss of instrument air and loss of electrical power or degraded power sources. The i
matter of expected transients is still being studied to determine if any transients are not covered by procedure.
d.
Procedures for Control of Radioactivity
'
A procedure for drum handling and storage will be written in
'
the near future.
The section of procedures regarding periodic tests was not discussed.
Development of all the above procedures will continue to be carried as an unresolved item, 18.
Control Rod Mast Problems i
This unresolved item was initially discussed in RO Report No.
50-313/73-8, Details I, paragraph 15.
A licensee report of July 16, 1973, reveals that evaluation of the problem has been 4..
completed by B&W. The report indicated that the probable cause of the loose capscrews and deformed metal over them was either improper torquing of the screws or improper staking of the screw
,
heads during assembly of the mast sections.
!
During the management interview, the inspector asked what action would be taken to preclude improper assembly in the future. Licensee persennel stated that all personnel involved in -the repair and
'
' reassembly process would be well aware of the current problems.
The manufacturer of the fuel handling equipmept is to have a
representative onsite in the near future to assist with repairs.
The inspector stated that the item would remain open until
~
repairs are complete.
l 19. -SRC Charter and Audit Procedure I
Comments on the SRC charter and-audit procedure were previously discussed in RO Report No. 50-313/73-8, Details I, paragraph 13.
During this inspection, the inspector reviewed these documents and found that both have been revised to resolve all comments.
The inspector stated that he had no further questions on these documents,
.
-
g-v
-
f-
-- -.,-
y
-
,,. -
-
,.-_. _,,,.,
,.w.
..m4
-,.,.-,-t-
j
.
}
e (%
Ng)
\\
I RO Rp t. No. 50-313/.73-10 I-9
,
!
20. Barksdale Pressure Switches
.
The inspector asked licensee personnel if any Model B2T-A12SS Barksdale pressure switches were in use at ANO, Unit 1.
He stated that other facilities had experienced operational problems with them. Licensee personnel stated that none were in use at Unit 1.
The inspector stated that he had no further questions.
.
21.
Reactor Vessel Closure Head Studs The inspector asked licensee personnel what protection would be afforded reactor head studs when the head is removed. He
'
was informed that the two studs which are completely removed for alignment purposes upon replacing the head will be stored in a portable rack which will be located near the reactor
'
head stand.
The other studs will remain in the head with a spacer around the top threaded section to prevent damage to the lower ends of the studs.
("s The inspector stated that he had no further questions.
s- -
22.
Procedure Status The following information regarding the status of Unit 1 procedures
.
was given the inspector during the current inspection:
Number Number Number Identified Written Approved Preoperational and 146 124 111 Initial Startup Tests
'
Quality Control
12
Administrative
6
'
Operating
76
Emergency
36
Calibration and
61
Surveillance Tests
.
Maintenance
9
~~.
l
. _. _ - - -
_
.. -
-
,.
.
-
s
~.
R0 Rpt. No. 50-313/73-10 I-10 Refueling
.
9
.
Chemistry and
19
Protection Total 412 360 270 l
,
I
,
%
3 I
I f
,
-.
..
--
-
-
-- -
. _.
. -. -
. -
_
- - -. - -
.
.
O
.
f%
N
' --(
(
w)
R0 Rpt. No. 50-313/73-10 II-l
-
DETAILS II'
Prepared By:
7 [73
.
. C. M. Campbell Date Radiation Specialist
Radiological and Environmental Protection Branch
-
Dates of Inspection: June 17-20, 1973 Reviewed By:
2I g M /!
7-/-73
)f. T. Sutherland Date
Acting Chief Radiological and Environmental Protection Branch 1.
Individuals contacted (All Arkansas Power and Light Company)
J. Anderson - Plant Superintendent D. Bennett - Quality Control Engineer T. Btker - Chemistry and Radiation Protection Engineer R. Carroll - Chemistry and Radiation Protection Engineer (j R. Culp - Test Administrator M. Shanbhag - Procedure Administrator R. Orlicek - Quality Control Engineer R. Terrwilliger - Operations Supervisor 2.
Organization Changes The inspector was informed that a new position had been created and filled in the health physics organization.
The
,j position title is Assistant to the Chemistry and Radiation Protection Eng 2er.
This position has been filled by C. Moore who had previously been the ANO Procedure Administrator.
The current primary duty of C. Moore is the set-up and
,
calibration of the new whole body counting system.
-
3.
Gaseous Rad Waste System Tank Volumes Prior to this inspection the licensee had advised Region II that he had completed an evaluation of the as built gaseous rad waste syatem. As a result of this evaluation it was determined that gasecas storage design capability could be achieved by operating the system at a higher pressure than had been previously planned.
This evaluatioh included verification that the involved compressora and tanks were designed to be operated at the increased working pressure value. The FSAR had been ' revised and is now in agreement
[
with the installed system and reflects the revised operating values.
.\\
The vendor documentation for the tanks had been previously reviewed as i
k
-
__. -
_
-
..-
_~
.
.
_ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ - - - _ _ _
'
.
.
e
,-
-
m RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-10 II-2 discussed in RO Inspection Report No. 50-313/73-8. The vendor documentation for the air compressors was examined during this inspection.. Region II has no further questions. - Physical
-
inspection, discussion with-licensee representatives, and review of licensee drawings indicate that the gaseous waste system is essentially as described in the FSAR.
,
4.
Completion of Installation of Rad Waste Systems
'
Discussions with licensee representatives and observations
showed that the gaseous and liquid systems are essentially complete but the solid rad waste system has not been installed.
The inspector was informed, by licensee representatives, that
this will be a " Unit 2 system" due to be completed in December 1973 for use by both units.
The inspector pointed
-
out that Amendment No. 37 to the U it 1 FSAR (dated April 1973)
n included a description of this system in Section 11.1.3.3.
A management representative stated that this system was due to be completed by the end of this year but would not necessarily be completed and operational prior to fuel loading. He further stated that their position was that this was satisfactory since they had adequate storage space in the spent resin storage tank and were planning to store resins for one year.
The inspector stated that until this capability existed the
rad waste systems were not in full agreement with the FSAR and therefore the unresolved item regarding the. completion of i
!
installation of the rad waste systems would remain open.
5.
Procedures not included on master list
.
Discussions with licensee representatives and review of the master list of procedures to be written showed that several procedures did not-appear on the list. These included:
Operation and calibration procedures for both gamma spectrometry
,
and TriCarb liquid scintillation systems; calibration procedures for the NMC gas flow proportional counter; calibration
-
procedures for health physics portable and fixed instruments (nine out of about 35 health phycies calibration procedures were included on the list); operational procedure for the whole body counter; procedure for the shipment of radioactive materials; and respiratory protection program procedures. Management agreed that all these proc 6dures will be completed and will be added to the list of procedures to be written.
6.
Review of Rad Waste and Health Physics Procedures
,_s
,
('
The inspector reviewed health physics procedures, rad waste
.
system operational and rad waste system test procedures
.
..
.
. _.
.
_
.
-
-
....
..
. -
- -
.
__
. _ _ ___ _ _
.
-
.
,
n.
,
i
\\
!
V 313/73-10 II-3
'
',
following findings:
.
..
n health physics operational procedures, one draft test
.
dure, one rad waste operational procedure and one cted test procedure were examined without any comments.
rocedures examined were:
}
602.20 Radiation Exposure Control
!
602.30 Radiation Monitoring System Check and Test
'
,
602.23 Environmental Radiation Monitoring Program 602.19 Air Monitoring with Portable Instruments
-
602.18 Smear Sampling i
602.17-Instrument Monitoring and Survey Procedures
'
602.16 Shift Health Physics Guide l
.
602.11 Personnel Decontamination i'
602.02 Self Reading Pocket Dosimeter Use 602.04 Health Physics Radiation Work Permit and
!
Special Radiation Work Permit
!
602.24 Portable Survey and Monitoring Instruments P-361.1 Biological Shield Survey (Draft)
4-19 Clean Resin Transfer i
g 233.73 iolid Waste Baler (completed test procedure)
'
v rad waste system operational procedures were examined omments were provided to a licensee r presentative. The dures examined were:
,
,
104.22 Gaseous Rad Waste System Operation'
104.15 Laundry Waste Processing i
'
104.14 Dirty Liquid Waste and Drain Processing
,
ad waste system test procedures were examined and I
nts were provided to a licensee representative and'
i
'[h
s;ed during the management interview.
The two IQ dures examined were Gaseous Rad Waste System Acceptance
0 s
(TP 232.72) and Clean Rad Waste Acceptance Test dure (TP 230.68). The inspector stated that it does
,
ppear that TP 232.72, as written, is adequate to fully items (3) and (4) of the test acceptance criteria in the restarting of the previously operating compressor t tested as described in the acceptance criteria. He also
,
d that it does not appear that TP 230.68, as written, is i
,
s_te to fully meet items (4) and (5) of the test acceptance e
ria in that it does not verify the capability of the clean receiver tank recirculating pump to transfer water from
waste receiver tank 12A to receiver tanks 12B and 12C nor
!
show the capability of each of the clean waste receiver nsfer pumps to transfer water from cach of the clean waste er tanks to each of the treated waste monitor tanks. Manage-
!
cgreed to evaluate these comments and provide a response.
j
<
.
E
-,
--
P
'
-
e
.
-
'
/- s RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-10 II-4 s_-
,
7.
Liquid Waste Release Criteria
.
Examination of procedures and discussions with licensee personnel showed that criteria are not yet established to assure that
-
liquid waste releases will not exceed discharge limits. The inspector stated that criteria need to be established that determine when liquid waste may be released to the cooling water discharge. Management agreed that these criteria will be established and included in the appropriate procedures.
.
8.
Waste Reprocessing Criteria Examination of procedures and discussion with licensee representatives
-
showed that operating limits to specify when vaste will be re-processed are not yet established. The inspector stated that specific examples where reprocessing criteria are not included in operating procedures include: In the operating procedure for the clean liquid waste system the liquid from the clean vaste receiver tanks is
.
processed through filters and demineralizers and then is either disenarged or returned to the receiver tanks for reprocessing;
/N in the operating procedure for the dirty liquid waste system I
I effluent from the dirty waste drain tank is filtered and
\\' -
transferred to the filtered waste monitor tank for discharge or further processing; and in the operating procedure for laundry effluent the liquid is filtered and then can be released or reprocessed. Management agreed that these criteria will be developed and included in the appropriate procedures.
9.
Representative Sampling of Waste Streams The inspector observed that portions of the sample delivery
,
lines to the stack monitor were outside the building and asked what measures will be taken to minimize halogen condensation losses in these outside' lines. Licensee representatives stated that this would be looked into to see what measures will be taken. Management agreed that they would look into this and evaluate what measures would be taken. Licensee representatives
-
assured the inspector that verification sampling would be performed to evaluate sampling line losses in the sample delivery lines to the stack monitor. Management agreed with this position.
The necessity to evaluate the collection efficiency of halogen collection media in the stack procens monitor was discussed with licensee representatives. Management agreed to look at this.
During discusgions of representative sampling of liquid wastes the inspector was assured by a licensee representative that verifica-tion of the adequacy of recirculation times will be performed.
.
.
.
-
-.
!-
.
..
1. -
<-
.
'
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-10 II-5
'
,
10.' Process and Area Monitoring Systems Installation of area and process monitors is complete except for
~
,
the process monitors in the hydrogen purge (2 units), penetration l
room ventilation (2 units), and coolant leak detection (1 unit)
. systems. - Management agreed that they plan to complete installation l
calibration of the process monitoring system prior to fuel loading.
.11'. Respiratory Protection Program Discussion with licensee representatives and review of' procedures revealed that this program has not yet been developed nor procedures written. A licensee representative stated that this
'
program and procedures would be completed prior to fuel loading.
Management agreed with this position.
12. Verification of Adequate-In-plant and Hood Air Flows
.
In response to the inspectors questions regarding verification of adequate air flow between in-plant potentially contaminated and clean areas as well as hood air flows licensee representatives
-/
stated that it was their understanding that this would be done as part of vendor's final checkout of the ventilation systems.
Management agreed with this understanding and stated they would look
!
at the vendor's system checkout and verify adequacy of flows.
---
13. Laundry Dryer Exhaust The inspector observed that the laundry dryer exhaust was not connected'into the room ventilation exhaust but was exhausted i:
directly into the room. A licensee representative stated that he understood that this was to be connected to the ventilation system. Management agreed and put this on their punch list of items to be taken care of.
14. Water Supply to Decontamination Room
'
l The inspector observed that there did not appear to be a water i
supply to the stainless steel decon area in the decon room.
_ Management agreed to put this on their list of items to be taken care of.
15. Development of Environmental Monitoring Procedures t
A composite procedure containing the Environmental Monitoring
<~"s Program procedures has been completed and was examined during the previous inspection of February, 1973. This item on the outstanding items list is now closed.
?
-1 I
,
-
-.
., -.. -.,.
. -.
~... -..
-.. - -.
.-----.L
'
4l
.
.
c g])
(
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-10 II-6 16.
Solid Waste compactor Installation and pre-operational testing of the solid waste
.
compactor has been completed. The inspector examined the completed pre-op test procedure for this item. Testing of this unit was completed on June 9, 1973.
17.
Responsibilities of Chemistry and Radiation Protection (C&RP)
Engineers This item was initially discussed during the previous health physics inspection in February, 1973 and reported in RO Report 50-313/73-3. The inspector's understanding, at the conclusion of that inspection was that the licensee would revise the FSAR to be in agreement with the planned assignment of responsibilities. Amendment 36 to the FSAR revised these responsibilities. Review of the FSAR amendment and discuss 4cn with licensec representatives indicate that the assigned responsibilities are now in agreement with the FSAR with the possible exception of the responsibility for the waste disposal f]
systems. Currently the responsibility for the solid waste (
/
system is given to one C&RP Engineer and t.he responsibility
for the liquid and gaseous systems to the other. The inspector pointed out that this does not appear to be in agreement with
the FSAR in that it assigns "... surveillance of radioactive waste disposal and handling of radioactive materials..." to one engineer. Management response to this comment was that they consider either of the two C&RP Engineers capable of performing any of the assigned responsibilities and that the FSAR description was written in a manner to give them flexibility in this area.
This item will be followed up during a subsequent inspection.
18. Whole Body Counter The licensee has received a Landauer Gardray s'hadow shielded chair type of whole body counter.
Installation and calibration
,
of this system is in progress. Upon completion of calibration the licensee plans to obtain base line whole body counts of all personnel assigned to ANO.
19. Areas Inspected with no Apparent Deficiencies Examination of procedures and licensee drawings; discussions with licensee representatives; and inspector observations in the following areas showed no apparent deficiencies:
/m
-
)
a.
Overall health physics program including organization;
/
exposure and contamination control including dosimetry program and devices, radiation work permit Fystem, form AEC 4's, exposure limits and authorizations, surveys, (
I
')
-
.
.
p.
,/^s, k
I
'~
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-10 II-7 portable instrumentation, protective clothing and associated forms and records; training program; installation and initial checkout of area monitors; draft biological shielding survey
procedure; ANO Radiation Protectio'n Manual and other completed health physics procedures as itemized in paragraph 6, instrument calibration facility; source control and wipe test logs.
.
b.
Rad waste systems including provisions for moni. - ring potentially contaminated streams before discharge; provisions to terninate discharge; sampling from tanks and pipes; location of sampling probes; methods and frequency of sampling to determine proper calibration of gaseous stack monitor; use of charcoal absorbers and HEPA filters; plans i
l f
to verify demineralizer DF's and recirculation times for liquid sampling and comparison of effluent sampling program with Safety Guide 21.
em I
x/
'
.-
=
3
/
\\
i
s__-
,
,
-
e n.
-
'
'
.
V
.
Arkansas Power and Light Company AUG 2 B73 Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 RO Inspection Report No. 50-313/73-10
.
.
cc v/ enc 1:
H. D. Thornburg, R0 o
- HQ (5)
DR Central Files Regulatory Standards (3)
Directorate of Licensing (13)
cc encl. only:
'PDR
' Local PDR
- NSIC
'IffIE, OR
- State O
'To.be dispatched at a later date.
.
.
-
-
~
),
.......; u........ a a 8I El El
/. Ef!1 9.S 02A13333 o
k
-
., -
-
. _ _ _ _ _. _ - -
_ _. _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_
_
_