IR 05000313/1973012
| ML19319E593 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 09/05/1973 |
| From: | Kidd M, Murphy C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| 50-313-73-12, NUDOCS 8004140596 | |
| Download: ML19319E593 (16) | |
Text
_ _ _ _
s-i g
.
.
_
.
.
t
-
-'
QL'c%
].'
Arkansac Power and Light Company SEP 6 B73
.
Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 RO Inspection Report No. 50-313/73-12 cc w/encls H. D. Thornburg, RO RO HQ (5)
DR Central Files j-[f[_platoryStandards (3)
i Directorate of Licensing (13)
c'c encl. only:
,
- PDR
- Local PDR
- NSIC
- DTIE, OR
~
- State
- To be dispatched at a later date.
e
=
8004140ffd k
.
.
l
.
.
- -
,
. - -.
,
- -,. - -
_-
_ _ _ _ _
- g,
.
.
.
.,
?
.
~
-
,
' [#" ' %,
UNITED STATES
.
g ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
,
,
,
! !
o/
l DIRECTORATE OF REGUIATORY OPERATIONS
-
T s
s REGloM 11 - SulT E 818
$
/ p 230 PE ACHT R EE ST RE ET. NoRT MwEST 4Ttl09
,,L,,w,,c,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,
If AT L. A NT A. G E oRGI A 30303
.
RO Inspection Report No. 50-313/73-12 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: Russellville, Arkansas Type of License: B&W, PWR, 880 Mwe
)
Type of Inspection: Routine, Announced (Abgust 7-10)
/
Routine, Unannounced (August 21-24)
Dates of Inspection: August 7-10 and 21-24,1973 Dates of Previous Inspection: July 18-20, 1973 f_ 7 Principal Inspector:
/
M. S. Kidd,' Reacto'r Insp3ctor, Facilities Daf;e Test and Startup Branch
_
Accompanying Inspectors: None Other Accompaying Personnel: None Reviewed by:
/
r/
77
'C. E. Murphy,ye1[ Facilities Test and Startup Branch
/ a'te D
'
\\
.
,
Y.1 O
O, a
n.
[
.
.
.
'.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
,
,
/3.
(
)
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-12-2-V..
SIDefARY OF FINDINGS I.
Enforcement Action
'
'
A.
Violations
,
1.
The following violation is considered to be of Category. II severity:
Contrary to Criterion V of appendix B to 10 CFR 50, changes to certain test procedures were not made in accordance with the provisions of the " Plan for Preoperational Testing."
(Details I, paragraph 2)
2.
The following violation is considered t.o be of Category III severity:
.
Contrary to Criteriot. XVII of Appendix B, the completion of certain steps within test procedures was not properly documented.
(Details I, paragraph 2)
B.
Safety Items
,
None
.
II. ~ Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters
-
.
A.
Violations There were no previor. sly identified items which had not been resolved at the time of this inspection.
B.
Safety Icems a
There were no previously identified safety items.
III.. New Unresolved Items
-
73-12/1 Administrative Controls for Maintenance Activitias Certain aspects of t.he controls for maintenance activities have not yet been defined.
(Details I, paragraph 3)
73-12/2 Diesel Generator Trips The Unit 1 diesel generators which supply station emergency power have experienced voltage and current control problems, f}
causing losses of power to engineered safeguards buses. This (
l matter will be reported by ' September 6,1973, per 10 CFR 50.55(e).
'
(Details I, paragraph 4)
(
l
'
-.
.
-
'.
-
-
'.
.
.
_,
l l'
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-12-3-
'
73-12/3 Control Rod Trip Test Four comments were given on TP 330.05. These should be resolved before the test is run.
(Details I, paragraph 5)
IV.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items 72-9/1 Incorporation of Safety Related Equipment in the FSAR Q-List Not inspected.
73-9/3 Preparation of Test Procedures to Cover Tests in " Guide For The P.lanning of Preoperational Test Programs" No change in status.
(Details I, paragraph 6)
.
73-3/1 Completion of Radiological Waste Disposal Systems Not inspected.
73-5/1 Reactor Building Ventilation Systems Te.st l
l
~
Comments on TP 160.34 have been resolved. This item is therefore considered closed.
(Details I, paragraph 7)
,
'
(
73-5/2 Core Flood System Flow Rate Test Details of a flow rate test on this system have not been developed. AP&L is consulting with Babcock and Wilcox
(B&W) on this problem.
(Details I, paragraph 8)
I I
73-7/1 QA Program for Operation
.
l All previous comments on QC 1004.15 have been incorporated into Revision 1, which is being reviewed for approval. This item remains open.
(Details I, paragraph 9)
-
73-8/1 Procedural Coverage Per Safety Guide 33 Certain procedures have not yet been identified to meet the intent of SG 33.
(Details I, paragraph 10)
73-8/2 Main Fuel Handling Bridge Control Rod Mast A final report on this item, dated July 16, 1973, has been received. Repairs are partially complete. This iten is considered closed.
(Details I, paragraph 11)
k
.
.
..
-
.
.
.
',
.
.
.
.
,..
l l'
.
BO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-12-4-
-
73-10/1 Administrative Controls Manual
"
Comments on 1005.01 have not yet been resolved. This item remaina open.
(Details I, paragraph 12)
73-10/2 Primary and Secondary System Relief Valves Not inspected.
73-10/3 Emergency Diesel Generator Test All, previous comments on TP 410.24 have been resolved except for one involving full load testing of vital a.c. buses.
This item remains apen.
(Details I, paragraph 13)
-
73-10/4 Full Pellet Enrichment Cressover A report on this problem has been received and the item is considered closed.
(Details I, paragraph 14)
/9 73-10/5 Gaseous and clean Radwaste Systems Test Procedures Not inspected.
'
73-10/6 Respiratory Protection Program and Procedures Not inspected.
73-10/7 Representative Sampling of Gaseous Waste Not inspected.
.
'
V.
Unusual Occurrences i
Diesel Generator Trip Pichlems
,
On Auguet 5,1973, emergency diesel generator (DG) number 1 was being load te.sted when the breaker connecting emergency bus A3 to normal bus Al tripped due to overcurrent on DG No.1.
(DG No. 1
feeds A3). After the breaker was closed, it tripped again. Also, the inverters fed from A3 which supply powcr to one half of the vital a.c. instrument buses were completely deenergized due to the loss of A3 and simultaneous loss of feed from the backup battery source. The loss of feed from the batteries was caused by the voltage spike from the DG.
D t
l
<
s
-
.,
.
.
,
.
.
.-
l l'
.
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-12-5-
Subsequent testing on DG No. 2 resulted in a similar occurrence.
i Preliminary investigation revealed that the overvoltage conditions were caused by heat failure of a potential transformer in the voltage
regulator for each of the DG's.
AP&L will submit a report on this problem per 10 CFR 50.55(e) by September 6,1973.
(Details I, paragraph 4)
VI. Management Interview
/
A management interview was held August 10, 1973, to discuss findings of the reactor coolant system hydrotest.
J. W. Anderson, Plant
<
Superintendent, R. R. Culp, Test Administrator, and J. L. Orlicek, Quality Control Engineer attended this meeting. The violations des-ribed in Section I of this summary of this report were discussed.
-
-
Details on these matters, including licensea management positions
are given in Details I, paragraph 2.
A second management interview was held August 24, 1973. The following j,
licensee representatives attendad:
(g[\\
~
Arkansas Power and Light Company (AP&L)
J. W. Anderson - Plant Superintendent C. L. Bean - QA Engineer T. H. Cogburn - Nuclear Engineer
.
R. R. Culp - Test Administrator
,
J. L. Orlicek - QC Engineer M. A. Shanbhag - Procedure Administrator
.
-
The violations in Section I were discussed. Details are.given in Details I, paragraph 2.
The new unresolved items in Section III were discussed. Details and management positions on these matters are given in Details I, paragraph 3,4, and 5.
'
Previously identified unresolved items listed in Section IV were also discussed. The inspector stated the reactor building ventilation system test, control rod mast problem, and fuel pellet crossover items were couaidered resolved. Further information is given in Details I, para-graphs 6 through 14.
.
l
.
-.
---
-, - -
___
.
_ _ _
_
.._ _
- _
_
_ _
_ _.
_
!'.
'
'
.
.
'
- -,
,
.
B0 Rpt. No. 50-313/73-12 I-1
.
' DETAILS I Prepared By:
[f.5 j
M. S. Kidd Dite
'
'
Reactor Inspector
i Facilities Test and Startup
'
Branch
!
Dates of Inspection: Au t 7-10 and 20-24, 1973 Reviewed Byt, c2
-
i C. E. Mutphpf Chpf
/ D6te Facilities Test and Startup
'
Branch
.
1.
Individuals contacted
,
Arkansas Power and Light Company (AP&L)
i J. W. Anderson - Plant Superintendent
'
P. Almond - Reactor Technician T. H. Coghurn - Nuclear Engineer
-
R. R. Culp - Test Administrator T. M. Martin - Maintenance Supervisor
-
G. H. Miller - Assistant Plant Superintendent
,
'
N. A. !"oore - Chief Quality Assurance Coordinator
,
J. L. Orlicek - Quality Control Engineer
'
P. C. Rogers - Maintenance Engineer D. R. Sikes - Results Engineer M. H. Shanbhag - P"ocedure Administrator
'
B. A. Terwilliger - Operations Supervisor Four Shift Supervisors
.
'
'hro Plant Operators
,
Four Assistant Plant Operators One Waste Control Operator Bechtel Corporation (Bechtel)
-
,
D. Brime - Startup Engineer, Mechanical J. W. Jamieson - Startup Engineer, Electrical 2.
Rasetor Coolant System Hydrotest
a.
General
>
,
,
'
Portions of the conduct of the reactor coolant system hydrostatic test per TP 200.04 were witnessed on August 7-10, 1973. Documents reviewed included the test procedure and revisions to it, the (
,
.
.
,
.
-
-.-
-
- ~.. -
e
,,,
,
y n--..
,,.
---p,
,---w..--em-
,,,,
e---4,,-y v-----,
.
-
ww ww--em w-- r
_-_____ _ _________
~ '.
'
.
-,
l I'
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-12 I-2
-
A
.
station test coordinator's (STC) pretest checklist, instrument calibration records, and prerequisite test results. Portions of the installation and testing of hydro-pumps were observed.
Conduct
of the test at design and test pressures was also observed. The test pressure of 3125 psig was held for eleven minutes and pressure was then reduced to 2625 psig for inspection of components and piping by a code inspector. Primary pressure boundary double isolation valves were also cycled and tested for leakage at this pressure. Leaks through valve packings, gaskets, etc., have been tabulated and will be rechecked at design pressure.
A leakage test on the reactor vessel head seal, originally i
incorporated in IP 200.04, was deleted and will be run during hot functional testing. Another hydro of the reactor coolant system will be run af ter installation of the crossover piping in the low pressure injection (decay heat renoval) system,
b.
Deficiencies J
During the review of prerequisite test procedures on August 9,1973,
.
it was noted that certain procedural steps were not properly
)
documented and that certain chang 6s had been made to the procedures which had not been properly approved. Specific examples included:
(1) Documentation J
(a) TP 200.06 - Step 7.2.4.16 was not s'igned off for C
-
reactor coolant pump.
(b) TP 300.04 - Verification of completion of prerequisites y
and initial system conditions was not documented.
,,
.1
.
l (c) TP 210.03 - Verification of completion of prerequisites was not documented.
(d) TP 271.04 - No entries had been made in the chronological log for this test.
-
'
Review of test data on August 22, 1973, revealed that the data sheet on which component and pipe wall camperatures had been recorded was not signed or initialed by the data recorder.
The inspector stated that the lack of documentation appeared to be
,
in violation of Criterion XVII of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50.
A licensee management representative stated that documentation did appear to be a problem and that AP&L would take steps to improve l
this for the balance of the testing program. This position was reiterated during the second management interview.
.
i
.
.
!
'
.
.
,
l RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-12 I-3 (2) Improper Changas to Procedures
(a) TP 200.06 - Major changes were made to the procedure without the approval of the plant superintendent as
~
required by QC 1004.09, " Plan for Preoperational Testing."
(b) TP 200.07 - Srme as (a) above.
(c).TP 271.04 - Addenda items 6 through 9 for this procedure had no authorization signatures.
The inspector stated that the apparent lack of proper authoriza-tions for procedure changes was contrary to QC 1004.09 and thus in violation of Criterion V of Appandix B.
i A licensee management representative agreed that the changes
)
-
referred to above were not made in accordance with 1004.09. He
stated that the subject of procedure changes had been discussed again with test personnel. Test personnel have been requested to review 1004.09 again and if there were any questions, they should be discussed with AP&L station management.
{
)
The examples of unauthorized changes above were authorized by the plant superintendent August 23, 1973. The items in TP 271.04 were approved by the STC. The inspector was informed that chese items were inadvertently overlooked while the test was being run.
.
In that the problems were corrected and preventive measures had been taken prior to the management interview, the inspector stated
~
that he had no further questions on this matter.
)
3.
Administrative Controls for Maintenance
.
Administrative controls for maintenance activities were discussed with station personnel in conjunction with a review of quality control (QC) procedure 1004.13 " Nonconforming Material, Parts, or Components." This procedure describes the sequence of events involved y
.in maintenance activities.
The inspector stated that there were three items which needed clarification.
The requirement for written proce'dures should be discussed.
~
a.
When will a written procedure be required and who will decide
]
if one is needed?
i b.
The procedure which defines how aquipment is to be cleared for I
maintenance should be referenced.
i (
.
e
~.
-
.
.
m
.
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-12 I-4 The nature and extent of checkout and testing on equipment which c.
has undergone repair should be defined.
The inspector noted that sections 5.1.S and 5.1.6 of ANS 3.2, " Standard for Administrative Controls for Nuclear Power Plants," discuss these subjects and could be used as a basis for defining controls in these are as.
These subjects were discussed in the management interview. A licensee representative stated that these comments would be considered and incorporated either in 1004.13 or 1005.01, " Administrative Controls Manual." The inspector stated thae the item would be carried as unresolved.
4.
Diesel Generator Trips _
-
Section V of the summary of this report provides details on the overcurrent trips which have been experienced on the Unit 1 emergency diesel generators. Preliminary evaluation indicates that the overvoltage-overcurrent conditions were caused by heat failure of a potential transformer in the voltage reguator for each of the diesel generators.
AP&L believes that relocating these regulators to avoid heat exposure I
will remedy this problem. Additionally, a trip circuit to sense high voltage and frequency may be installed in the inverters to prevent damage to them due to surges in the diesel generator feed to them. The
'
inverters are also being evaluated to determine if they need to be up-graded in any manner.
.
l The inspector stated in the management interview that this item would be carried as unresolved and discussed further af ter the report, which is due by September 6,1973, is received.
/
5.
Control Rod Trip Test
.
Test procedure 330.05 will be used to trip test control rods after core loading under cold no-flow, cold flow, hot no-flow, and hot flow condi-
,
'
tions. The inspector offered the following comments un the procedure
-
based on his review:
Step 5.4 should reference the method of calculating shutdown margin.
a.
k b.
As uritten, the plant conditions for tests 5 and 6 are lef t to the discretica of the test coordinator. These conditions should be pre-determined and reviewed as part of the procedure,
{
c.
When are all rods tripped simultaneously?
d.
The procedure calls for tripping the slowest and fastest rods an (
additional 10 times. These should be tripped 25 times each in that
,
this type mechanism has not been fully proven during testing and fj operations.
(
,
.
.
-
-
.
.
-
-...
-. _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
-
-
.
.
..
_
.
.
.
g RO Apt. No. 50-313/73-12 I-5
.
This procedure was discussed during the management interview.
Licensee personnel stated that their proposed resolutions to the comments would be given during the inspector's next visit.
The inspector stated that the subject would be carried as an
m resolved item.
{
6.
Preparation of Test Procedures This aresolved item was discussed in RO Report No. 50-313/73-10,
,.
i Details I, paragraph 11. The inspector was informed during the current inspection that flow balancing and filter tests in ventila-l tion systems will be accomplished by TP 165.01, which has been approved.
Not all of the procedures which will test valves for proper action i
ader loss of air conditions have been written. Also, a test for I
.
the station evacuation alarm has not yet been written. Licensee personnel expect that it will be covered in TP 420.01, "Communica-t tions System" test.
'
,
t The inspector stated that this item would remain open.
7.
Reactor Building Ventilation System Test
- As discussed in RO Report No. 50-313/73-10, Details I, paragraph 13, one comment rerained open on TP 160.34 at the conclusion of the previous inspection. Licensee personnel have determined that the
,
loss of power tests on this equipment, which was the basis for the
{
'
!
open comment, will be run in TP 310.03, " Integrated ES System Test."
The inspector stated during the management interview that this matter
,
was condidered closed.
.
8.
Core Flood System Flow Rate Test This unresolved item was initially discussed in RO Report No.
50-313/73-5, Details I, paragraph 11.
AP&L has been communicating with BW on this test, but no progress has been made in arriving at a suitable test method. This item remains open.
9.
QA for Operations A review of Revision 1 of 1004.15, " Arkansas Nuclear One Quality Control Program," revealed that all previous comments on Revision 0 had been reso).ved. Revision 1 had been retyped and was ready for
,
review at the time of the current inspection. The inspector stated in the management interview that this previously identified unresolved
item would be resolved if Revision 1 were approved in its form at the
time of inspection.
l l
.
_ _.
_ - -.
_ _
.-
_
--
._
- -. -
- -
_ -_ ____-_ ____
_
_-_.
- .,
.
,
_
.
.
.
m
.
R0 Rpt. No. 50-313/73-12 I-6
,
The QA plan for operations (1004.15) and all of the implementing procedures for it except one have been reviewed. QC 1004.' 2
" Operational Test Control," will be reviewed later in the test 'ng
.
program but before core loading. The only outstanding comment on
,
QC procedures involves controls for naintenance activities as dis-cussed in paragraph 3.
In all other areas, the QA program and plan for operations appear to meet the intent of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50.
10. Procedural Coverage - Safety Guide 33 Development of procedures to cover the requirements of SG 33 was discussed in R0 Report Nos. 50-313/73-8, Details I, paragraph 4, and 50-313/73-8, Details I, paragraph 17.
These procedures were discussed in more detail during the current inspection. The following i
paragraphs give the status of those procedures discussed:
,
-
a.
Administrativa Procedures
<
(1) Equipment control is described in Office Procedure No.11,
"Use of Hold Cards."
i (2) Bypass of safety functions and_ jumper controls is covered by I
I administrative procedures 1005.01 and 1005.04 Controls for bypass keys are described in section 6.1.6 of 1005.01. These keys will be kept in a locked cabinet under the control of the
shift supervisor. Control of jumpers and bypasses (physical)
is given by 1005.04.
-
(3) Recall of standby personnel to the plant is covered by the emergency plan for emergency conditions. The licensee does not have an established call list for station personnel during normal operations. A call list is used, but is not
,
formalized nor part of the station administrative controls.
i
'
The inspector stated in the management interview that a l
formalized call list should be developed.
Licensee personnel stated that they did not believe such a list to be necessary to meet SG 33, but agreed to discuss the '
'
item further during the inspector's'next visit to the site.
'
l b.
General Plant Ooerating Procedures
)
OP 1102.06, " Reactor Trip Recovery," has been written and approved.
c.
Procedures for Startup, Operation, and Shutdown of Safety
Related Systecs The subject areas listed represent procedures which had not
{
g initially been identified. The procedures whose numbers are
'
given have now been written and approved.
-
k
t a
.
.,.
.
.
"
.
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-12 I-7 (1) Containment Cooling - OP 1104.34 (2) Auxiliary and Radwaste Building Ventilation Systems - OP 1104.35 (3) Electrical Systems - OP 1107.01
~
(4) Communications System - OP 1104.37 d.
Emergency Procedures Emergency procedure 1202.12 has been written and approved to cover loss of instrument air. The inspector was infomed that partial loss of power and/or degraded power sources have not yet been covered, but will be.
It has not yet been verified that all expected
,
transients are covered by emergency or abnormal procedures. The inspector was informed that this subject will be resolved by the
.
inspector's next visit.
Procedures for Control of Radioactivity e.
OP 1104.18 has been written and approved to cover drum handling l
and storage.
The procedures on which more work is needed were discussed ds 'ng the management interview.- The inspector stated that this item would remain open.
11. Main Fuel Handling Bridge ~;ontrol Rod Mast
'
This unresolved item was initially discussed in R0 Report No. 50-313/73-8, Details I, paragraph 15. A licensee report of July 16, 1973, entitled
" Main Fuel Handling Bridge," discusses the evaluation of the problem by
'
B&W and proposed corrective action. New bolt holes have been drilled and j
tapped. Also, the capscrew heads have been countersunk and will be staked during final assembly. A vendor representative has visited the site and was in agreement with action taken.
The inspector was informed that the repairs and final assembly will be '
audited by AP&L QC personnel. The inspector stated during the management interview that he had no further questions on this matter.
12. Administrative Controls Manual
.
Comments on 1005.01 were given in R0 Report No. 50-313/73-10, Details I, paragraph 6.
Licensee personnel stated that the manual was being revised to incorporate those comments and for other reasons. A licensee representa-tive stated in the management interview that the manual should be revised
.
and approved within a month. The inspector stated that this item would remain open.
i U
k
.
'
- .
j
~
-
-
l
.
-s
,
l
.
-
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-12 I-8
l i
i 13. Emergency Diesel Generator Test This unresolved item was discussed in R0 Report No. 50-313/73-10,
'
)
Details I, paragraph 9.
During the current inspection, licensee
,
personnel stated that a full load test of the a.c. vital buses will be run but that provisions have not been made in TP 410.24. A representa-tive stated that this item will be evaluated and that provisions for this testing will be made by the inspector's next visit. The inspector stated
-
that this item would remain open.
(
14. J[wal Pellet Crossover j
This unresolv'ed item was initially discussed in RO Report No. 50-313/73-10, Details I, paragraph 10.
A licensee letter of August 6,1973, forwarded a
~;
~
B&W report, entitled " Evaluation of Enrichment Crossover - Arkansas Power and Light Company." This report discusses the cause of the crossover and corrective measures taken to prevent recurrence.
During this inspection, the inspector reviewed a report of an audit con-ducted by a Middle South Services, Inc., representative for AP&L at the B&W Commercial Nuclear Fuel Plant on August 10, 1973. The report concludes that B&W had conducted an adequate investigation of the problem and that corrective actions taken were satisfactory.
The inspector stated in the management interview that he had no further questions on this item.
.
15. Nonconforming Items _
Implementation of the requirements of the QC program for operations in regards to nonconformances and corrective actions was discussed. Sections 15 and 16 of 1004.15, " Arkansas Nuclear One Quality Control Program," (QC program) discuss nonconformances and corrective actions, respectively.
QC procedure 1004.13, " Nonconforming Material, Parts, of Components," is the primary implementing procedure in this area.
~
Three methods of identifying nonconformances exist during the testing program. AP&L personnel use a " Trouble Ticket" which is used to notify maintenance or technical support personnel. Bechtel uses a " Trouble and Incident Report," while B&W uses a standard letter to notify AP&L
,
of problems encountered. A " Job Order" is written after receipt of a
" Trouble Ticket." The " Job Order" as well as the Bechtel and B&W correspondene,e referred to above are maintained in the station QC
,
j files.
Several examples of each of the three documents referred to above were
{
)
reviewed by the inspector. Of interest was a '*Irouble and Incident Report" dated July 19, 1973, regarding damage to the disc of high pressure
.
,
-
.,_
.
.
.
.
m
,
l RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-12 I-9 injection isolation valve CV-1219. This valve displayed a leak rate slightly higher than normal during a local leak rate test. The valve was disassembled and it was found that a smal: chip had broken off the radius of the valve plug. The valve seat was also damaged. The report
-
indicated that the plug was probably tightened down on a foreign object which was lodged between the plug and seat.
Several methods were used to try to locace the chip unsuccessfully. AP&L personnel feel that the chip probably was flushed out during construction or proof flushing.
The inspector stated that he had no questions on the documents. reviewed.
16. Technical Specifications surveillance Requirements This subject was initially discussed in RO Report No. 50-313/73-8, Details II, paragraph 3.
During the current inspection, a licensee management
-
representative stated that the possibility of obtaining relief from cer-tain Technical Specifications requirements during shutdown had been dis-cussed with management and suggestions for changes in certain requirements made. The inspector stated that he had no further questions on this.
q (
17. Procedure Reviews
%.
The inspector stated 'that he had reviewed QC 1004.01, " Design Control,"
and QC 1004.11, " Handling, Storage, and Shipping of Q-List Materials,"
and had no questions on them.
-
Questions raised on QC 1004.06, " Control of Purchased Material, Equip-ment and Services," and QC 1004.04, " Procedure for Turnover of QA Documents from Construction to AP&L," were satisfactorily answered during the inspection.
'
,
In discussions on a draft of OP 1005.03, " Document Control," the inspector asked whether an official form would be used to initiate procedure changes. He was informed that such a form will be used and that OP 1005.02, " Handling of Procedures," was being revised
.
to reflect this.
The following consnents on OP 1105.09, " Control Rod Drive System,"
were given:
a.
How are Group 8 rods to be handled in Section 8.0, " Shutdown of the CRD System"?
b.
The data used to compare relative and absolute rod position indicators in step 9.5.4 should be recorded.
Q The inspector was informed that th'ese comments would be acted upon.
(
.
.
.
-
-
,
^
,,
l I
RO Report No. 50-313/73-12 I-10
.
.
.
Four preoperational test procedures were reviewed and discussed with station personnel. No questions remained open on TP 200.09, " Steam
,
Generator Secondary Side Hydrotest," or TP 271.08, "0TSG Level Verifi-cation." The inspector commented that TP 300.02, " Reactor Pressure
Instrumentation Preoperational Calibration," did not give provisions for adequate documentation of conduct of the test. Comments on IP 330.05 are given in paragraph 5 above.
18. Status of Procedures
The following information regarding procedure development was given the inspector during the current inspection:
l
'
Number Number Number q
Identified Written Approved
-
Preoperational and i
Initial Startup Tests 146 129 114
Quality Control
12
l
}
Adminis trative
6
-
Operating
-
79
Emergency
_
34 Calibration and
58
Surveillance Tests Maintenance
9
.
'
Refueling
-
11
Chemistry and
Radiation Protection
19
-
Totals 445 365 319 l
a
.
<
J l
t l
.