IR 05000313/1973019
| ML19319E439 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 01/21/1974 |
| From: | Burke D, Kidd M, Murphy C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19319E427 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-313-73-19, NUDOCS 8004100716 | |
| Download: ML19319E439 (21) | |
Text
.
e i
+
H & L P I IV G B t.) I L 0 A R h.
49AB Q
_.s n
(
C:a1&
'
-
.
ARKANS AS POWER G LIGHT COMPANY
-
STH AVENUG ANO PINE STREE, * ptNE DLUFP, AAKANSAS 71801 e (5013 534-1330 February 15, 1974 i
United States Atomic Energy Cocmission
'
Directorate of Regulatory Operations f
Region II
.
230 Peachtree Street, N. W., Suite 818 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Attention:
Mr. Norman C. Mosely, Director Subject: Arkansas Power & Light Company Arkansas Nucicar One - Unit 1 RO:II:MSK 50-313/73-19
'
Gentlemen:
_
,
We ha-o reviewed the subject inspection report attached to your Januat,- 21, 1974, letter. The inspection report does not contain-any proprietary information. Therefore, we hava no objec-tion'to your placing the subject inspection report in the Public
'
Document Room.
.
,'
Very truly ycurs,,
-
{Q
/
(-
'
-
.
,,
LJ. D. Phillips
.
Senior Vice President JDP:mcc l
I
..
,
J'y
,
-
-
..,..
.
o
.
8 0 h'410 0 7C g,
... _,.<..
.
e.,<,,,.....f
,_
..,N..N....._N.e
_
.
- -
.
-
-
.
.
--.
_ _ _ - -
.
___ __
.__ _
.
. -
p.09
'
'
. ~
,
.,
!
.
- .
FEB 211974 I
Letter from Arkansas Power and Light Company, J. D. Phillips,
f dated February 15, 1974 50-313/73-19
-
!
t k
DISTRIEUTION:
j H. D. Thornburg
.c.$~ ----p : HQ (5)
'
'
DR Central Files Regulatory Standards (3)
,
Directorate of Licensing (13)
.
,
,
-
l
',
OIS, OR
'
State-
)
.
.
h.
E e
w
4 i
!
i'
I I
i
!
1-i
'
.
\\
.
I i
l'
I
!
I
"
,
.
.,_.,-,.;,.
-., _. - -.. -.. -.. - -..., _- --
. - -
- - - -..... - - _... - -... - - - _
.
.
.
,
'
O
_5
/*" ' 'g'
UNITED STATES
[(]!
o o
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
' !(l h. II DIRECTORATE OF REGUIATORY OPERATIONS
[' \\ !
[
REGION 88 - SUIT E 818 p
230 PE AC MT R E E ST R E ET. NORT HwEST
'
.*
,,
,,,,,, g,y,3 tr4rgg o%
AT L. A NT A, GEORGs A 30303 RO Inspection Report No. 50-313/73-19 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, 2568 Mwt Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced
'
Dates of Inspection: December 18-21, 1973 Dates of Previous Inspection: December 4-7, 1973 Principal Inspector:
M. S. Kidd, Reactor Inspector Facilities Test and Startup Branch
.
Accompanying Inspector:
D. J. Burke, Reactor Inspector Facilities Test and Startup Branch
.
Other Accompanying Personnel: None Principal Inspector:
N C[
/- /[- M M. S. Kidd, Rea'ctor Inspector Date Facilities Test and Startup Branch Reviewed By: N'
/
/
/ / # ' b '/
'C. E. Murphy,, Chief /
Date Facilities Test and'Startup Branch T
-
,
4.
%-
s.'{
\\ /
.-
8804 20o 7g
-
,
l.-
- _ _
. _.
,
_ _ _ _
_ _..
_ - - -
_
..
.
- .
.
.
<,
s
.
/' ).
.
(
'
s,,,/
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-19-2-
,
.
STIMMARY OF FINDINGS i
1.
Enforcement Action A.
Violations 1.
Improper Changes To Test Procedures The following violations are considered to be of Category II severity:
.
Licensee personnel had identified improper changes to test procedures 330.03, "CRD Mechanism Functional Test," and 220.03, " Spent Fuel Cooling System Functional Test."
The changes had not been ma'de in accordance with Procedure 1004.09,
" Plan for Preoperational Testing," and contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50.
Corrective action had been
<
completed and documented in the test packages; therefore, no response is requtred.
(Details I, paragraph 3.b, and Details II, paragraph 4.b)
2.
Failure to Follow Procedure The following violation is considered to be of Category III severity:
During the conduct of the integrated engineered safegurds test (TP 310.03), the procedure was not explicitly followed with regard to procedure step 5.1, a violation of Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50.
The procedure was modified
'
i subsequently, such that it could be followed properly. No response is requested.
(Details I, parag :aph 3.b)
B.
Safe ty Items
.
None II.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters A.
Violations There were no previously identified violations open at the time of the inspection.
L.
Safety Items (
There were no previously identified safety items.
_
.
- - -
-
,-.,
,-
_.
.-v--
-
,
--
e
+
i m
.
/
%
\\s R0 Rpt. No. 50-313/73-19-3-III. New Unresolved Items 73-19/1 Inverter Malfiiaction The specific cause of loose connections in the Unit 1 inverters has not been described to RO.
Also, the inability of licensee's/ vendor's quality control program to identify the problem at an earlier date is of concern.
(Details I, paragraph 4)
73-19/2 Reactor Building Ventilation System Ductwork The inspector was given a verbal report per 10 CFR 50.55(e) of
,.
what appeared to be a significant deficiency in the design of the i
U it 1 reactor building ventilation system discharge ductwork.
n
'
AP&L was informed by Bechtel Corporation (Bechtel) December 20, 1973, that it was found during a design review that the duct-work might not be able to withstand the maximum pressure differential experienced during a loss of coolant accident (LOCA).
A final report is due January 20, 1974.
(Details I, paragraph 5)
73-19/3 Makeup and Purification ES Test J
The adequacy of documentation of significant events, including deficiencies, which occurred during the conduct of this test is questionable.
(Details II, paragraph 4)
IV.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items 72-9/1 Incorporation of Safety Related Equipment in the FSAR Q-List Not inspected.
72-9/3 Preparation of Test Procedures to Cover Tests in " Guide For
.
The Planning of Preoperational Test Programs" All test procedures previously identified as being needed have been written. This item is closed.
(Details I, paragraph 8)
72-12/2 Valve Wall Thickness Verification Program i
Not inspected.
..
73-3/1 Completion of Radiological Waste Disposal Systems i
The FSAR description of the solid radwaste system discusses s
a system which will not be installed - for Unit 1 operation.
<-s i
g (Details I, paragraph 9)
i
\\s
'
i
._._
-_
_
..-.
-
. - -
_
...
..
-
.
-
,
,
-
.
- '
.
r\\
O-G
.
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-19-4-73-5/2 Core Flood System Flow Rate Test No change in status.
(Details I, paragraph 10)
73-8/1 Procedural Coverage Per Safety Guide 33 No change in status.
See R0 Report No. 50-313/73-17, Details I, paragraph 11, and Details II, paragraphs 2 and 3 of this report.
73-10/1 Administrative Controls Manual Previous comments of this document have been resolved by the approval of a new revision. This item is closed.
(Details I, paragraph 11)
73-12/2 Diesel Generator Trips
Modifications _ to diesel and engineered safeguard circuity resulting from this problem have not been completed. This item remainc open.
(Details I, paragraph 12)
73-12/3 control Rod Trip "'en No action had been taken on previous comments on TP 330.05.
(Details I, paragraph 13)
73-14/2 Initial Core Load Procedure This procedure is to be revised.
No. progress had been made i
on resolving RO comments; therefore, the item remains open.
(Details I, paragraph 14)
.
73-14/3 Leak Testing of the Personnel Hatch Licensee personnel intend to revise the Unit 1 Technical
,
Specifications and make the testing requirements for the hatch comparable to Appendix J to 10 CFR 50.
This item remains open.
(Details I, paragraph 15)
..
73-16/1 Radiography Review Not Inspected.
..
73-17/1~ Pressurizer Electromatic Relief Valve AP&L has not yet been informed of any results of studies made on the valve by Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) and Dresser
'
x f
,
.-,y
..,. - - - - - -.,,, - - - - -,
, -,,. -.... -,.,,
,
e-
,
.---y
,,-,-,.,-,,---
-
__ __
..
~ _-__.
-
.
.
-
.
.
.
,
g'~'S
.
O,
'
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-19-5-Industries (Dresser). This item remains open.
(Details I, paragraph 16)
73-17/2 Emergency Operating Procedures Licensee personnel stated that they have completed their review of over 50% of their procedures and are revising most using our comments.
(Details III, paragraph 2 of 73-17).
They intend to complete their reviews within the next several weeks.
(Details II, paragraph 2)
-
73-17/3 Opprational Test Program
.
The licensee hss referenced in the operational test control procedure, 1004.12, the implementing procedures for their surveillance test program. However, since half of the 70 procedures have not as yet been approved, this item will remain open.
(Details II, paragraph 3)
73-18/l Emergency-Planning
\\
Construction of the emergency control center and other
~/
preparatione for implementing the emergency plan have not been completed.
(Details I, paragraph 17)
73-18/2 Location of Radiation Monitor Readouts Monitoring requirements for the radiatien monitor recorders, not vialble from the control room, are yet to be defined.
(Details I, paragraph 18)
,
73-18/3 Calibration of Radiation Monitors Not inspected.
V.
Unusual Occurrences
None VI.
Other Significant Findings Project Status
..
AP&L's estimate for core loading remains March 2,1974. Hot functional
,
testing (HFT) had been scheduled to start about December 29, 1973, but will slip until about January 7, 1974, due to extra work encountered N
on pipe hangers. The hangers are being adjusted and cold readings
/
taken as ' baseline for hot deflection measurements to be taken during g'
HFT.
.
,e,
,-
-
- -
,
-
.
.-.
..
.
e e
.s s
/\\
,
'
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-19-6-
.
Of the 131 tests to be performed prior to core loading, 43 have been 100% completed. Of those completed,16 have received final endorsements and 2 interim endorsements (with exceptions).
VII. Management Interview A management' interview was conducted December 21, 1973, to discuss i
findings of the inspection. The following licensee representatives attended:
.
Arkansas Power and Light Company (AP&L)
J. W. Andersen - Plant Superintendent C. A. Bean - Quality Assurance Engineer R. A. Culp - Test Administrator
'
J. A. Orlicek - Quality Control Engineer
- M. H. Shanbhag - Procedure Administrator B. A. Terwilliger - Operations Supervisor i
The violationn in Section I were discussed.
Details are given in Details I, paragraph 2, and Details II, paragraph 4.
j The new unresolved items in Section III were discussed.
Information on these items, including management positions, is given in Details I, paragraphs 4 and 5, and Details II, paragraph 4.
'
The status of previously identified unresolved items listed in Section IV was also discussed. The inspector stated that the items concerning preparation of test procedures and the administrative controls manual were considered resolved.
Information on these and other previous unreso? red items is given in Details I, paragraphs 8 t
through 18 and Details II, paragraphs 2 and 3.
d
!!
e
- .
e d
>
9
,
.,
.. - _.,
,-.__m_.
. _ _ -,. _ -, _. _ _
_
.
_, -,.
..
..
..,...,...,-_-.m
.
,
.
.*
.
.
.
O l
\\w/
R0 Report No. 50-313/73-19 I-l DETAILS I Prepared by:
M';
h L
/~/I' N M. S. Kidd, Reactor Inspector Date
<
Facilities Test and Startup Branch Dates of Inspection: December 18-21, 1973
- e /
d/r/
Reviewed by: -'
/
/
/
Date C. E. Murphy, Chief /
-
Facilities Test ana Startup Branch 1.
Individuals Contacted In addition to those listed in the management interview section of the report, the following persons were contacted by the inspector:
Arkansas Power and Light Company W. Cavanaugh* - Production Proj ect Manager T. H. Cogburn - Nuclear Engineer C. A. Halbert - Technical Support Engineer s _,/
J. H. Marlin ** - Assistant Production Project Manager s
W. McClintock* - Operations and Maintenance Coordinator N. A. Moore - Chief Quality Assurance Coordinator M. Pendergrass* - Assistant Engineer, Production Department J. H. Woodward * - Director, Power Production Middle South Services, Incorporated -
,
Dr. C. G. Chezem* - Manager, Nuclear Activities Department Graduate Institute of Technology Dr. D. M. Mathews* - Department Head, Physical and Radiochemiatry Department
.
Bechtel Corporation J. R. Judd - Startup Engineer
..
SRC members
Alternate SRC member
-
.,
-
.
.
p
_, -
p
, - ~.
< -
e-~
'
.
-
}
-
.
,
.
'
O
's../
R0 Rpt. No. 50-313/73-19 I-2
'
2.
Personnel Changes
,
Dr. D. M. Mathews, head of the Physical and Radiochemistry Department at the Graduate Institute of Technology in Little Rock, Arkansas, has joined the Safety Review Committee (SRC) as a radiation and health physics consultant.
3.
Test Procedure and Test Results Reviews
.
A.
Test Procedures Test procedures 200.11, " Reactor Coolant Pump Flow Test," 600.23,
" Reactor Protection Systeu Functional Test, and 800.11, " Core Power Distribution," were reviewed and discussed with licensee personnel. The inspector stated that R0 had no questions or
comments on 200.11 and 600.23. Regarding 800.11, he noted that the maximum acceptable linear heat rate was not in agreement with the value given in the FSAR. This is due to the fact that the FSAR limit has been decreased as a result of the fuel densification studies. A licensee representative stated that fg
I the procedure would be changed to agree with FSAR values.
-
B.
Completed Test Results The test results packages for completed test procedures 310.03,
,
"Intergrated Enineered Safeguards Actuation Test," and 330.03, i
"CRD Mechanism Fu.ctional Test," were reviewed and discussed with station personnel.
1.
TP 310.03
,
,
This test had received an interim acceptance in that numerous
.-
-
F3 components had not been installed. The inspector was
'nformed that it would be rerun in its entirety after all omponents are installed.
-
Step 5.1 of the procedure directs the user to stop any high pressure inj ection (HPI), low pressure inj ection (LPI), or reactor building spray (RBS) pump if its suction pressure falls below certain values. These values are given in psig.
The inspector noted that data recorded for 3 of the pumps fell l
l
/'~'N
.
!
k_l s
i
!
,
!
'
.
.
-
_._
-
.
..
.
.
.
t
/
. -
t
Ns_ '
-
20 Rpt. No. 50-313/73-19 I-3
-
below the values listed in 5.1, yet the pumps were not stopped. He stated that this appeared to be in violation of Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 in that the procedure was not followed.
The test package contained a letter from B&W to AP&L, dated subsequent to the performance of the test, stating that the values in step 5.1 should have been in psig (absolute) rather than psig (gauge). The inspector asked
-
,
if test personnel were aware of the problem in pressure designation prior to the test. Licensee representatives indicated that they were, but failed to change the procedure inadvertently. It was noted that if the values had been changed to psig, the recorded data would have been within tolerance.
The inspector stated that if a procedure is inadequate and cannot be used properly, it should be revised prior to being used. He stated that the practical effect of this particular case was minimal, but was concerned that licensee personnel
^
(/)
might not view the intent of Appendix B as Regulatory x_-
Operations (RO) did. He was assured that it was AP&L's intent that procedures be followed and if they couldn't be, then the test coordinator is responsible for getting the necessary changes made.
The inspector stated during the management interview that this item would be considered an apparent violation of Criterion V of Appendix B, but that no formal response on it would be requested in that corrective action had been
,
taken.
2.
TP 330.03 This test results package had received final endorsement.
Questions which the inspector has were resolved.
,
The package contained a report generated by the test coordinator of apparent unauthorized changes to the procedure.
,
!
The report resulted from questions within APSL's review
.
process and was written prior to endorsement of the results.
'
The report discussed changes which had been made by the
.
[N
\\ _-]
.
'
'
s
-.
-
. -,. ~
...-m.
y_..
,
y-.
-r
-
-
.
. _
_
_
,
l
'
.
-
,
-
-
-,
i Ro Rpt. No. 50-313/73-19 I-4
!=
test coordinator as minor changes per 1004.09, which
were reviewed as major changes during review.
(Maj or
'
changes require the approval of the plant superintendent.)
<
'
It' states that the problems arose due to differences in interpretation of the definitions of major and minor
,
.
changes in 1004.09. The report also discussed corrective
!
actions taken, action taken to preclude repetition, and-included an endorsement that no adverse effects to this test or other tests had occurred due to the apparently
-
unauthorized changes.
,
The inspector stated during the management interview that no response on this item would be requested in that it had
,
been identified and corrected by AP&L prior to the inspection.
4.
Inverter Malfunction I
Loose wiring connections in the inverters which supply power to Unit 1 engineered safeguards busses was discussed in RO Report No.
50-313/73-17, Details I, paragraph 6.
A licensee report dr.ted
'
October 31, 1973, entitled, " Inverter Malfunction," was submitted
!
per 10 CFR 50.55(e). The report attributes the cause of the j
malfunction to a warranty problem, but does not discuss the specific
'
nature of the cause.
i The inspector ststed that he was concerned that the loose connections had not been discovered until late in the testing program and was interested in the details of the cause of the. problem. He further
stated during the management interview that this would be carried t
as an i.nresolved item.
t 5.
Reactor Building Ventilation System Ductwork The inspector was informed at the plant site December 20, 1973, that a potential design deficiency existed on the reactor building
-
ventilation system discharge ductwork. AP&L was informed by Bechtel on that date that during a design review of the ductwork prompted by problems at other facilities, it was found that it probably would
,
not withstand a 2 pounds per square inch (psi) differential pressure
.
expected during a LOCA. This design requirement is discussed in FSAR Sec lon 6.3.3.3.
.
e.,
l'
,
.
V
-
.
..
.
.
.
. -...
,.
..
.
.
.
.
-s
[
.
,
w/
R0 Rpt. No. 50-313/73-19 I-5 The review of this problem had not been completed but planned corrective actions included strengthening of the ductuork using externa.'. bracing and/or installation of more pressure relieving devices in the ductwork. Licensee personnel stated that a report
per 10 CFR 50.55(e) would be submitted by January 20, 1974. This matter was discussed during the management interview, at which time the inspector stated that it would be carried as an unresolved iceb.
6.
Startup Test Program Controls and organization for the startup testing program for Unit 1 were discussed. Licensee personnel stated that review of the test procedures is being conducted in accordance with the " Plan For Preoperational Testing," 1004.09. The inspector asked if special input to the review of procedures and evaluation of test results would be made by B&W.
It was noted that B&W is preparing almost all of the procedures. Also, licensee personnel stated that the Test Working Group (TNG) would be receiving more aid from B&W f'~'}S personnel in evaluating the test results. The general organization t
\\--
for the testing is given is Section 13.1.1 of the FSAR.
7.
Safety Review Committee (SRC) Audit The SRC conducted an unannounced audit of testing activities at the site December 19, 1973. In discussing audit techniques, the inspector asked how the SRC indoctrinated audit team members i a the, use of its audit procedure and assured familiarization with regulations and other r.-quirements against which verification of activities is to be made. he was informed that the methods for accomplishing these tasks would be described in the SRC Charter or audit procedure. The inspector stated that he had ro other quest'.ons at that time.
8.
Preparation of Test Proceduren This unresolved item was last discussed in R0 Report No. 50-313/73-17, Details I, paragraph 8.
As of that inspection date, procedures to test pneumatic valves under loss of air conditions and to test the audibility of the evacuation alarm had not been written. During the inspection, the necessary procedures were available for the current inspector's review. He stated that this matter was considered closed.
-
(m)
'
-,
.
.
.
.-
..
^
..
.
,
'T N
7s
-
.. s,,.[
\\
l
'
.
~RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-19 I-6
9.
Couplet' ion of Radiological Waste Disposal Systems This unresolved item was initially discussed in RO Report No. 50-313/73-10, Details II, paragraph 4.
During that inspection the inspectors were
_.
informed that the solid radwaste system would not be available for fuel
'
l loading and that the system was considered a Unit 2 system.
The inspector stated during the current inspection that the FSAR de-scription of the system (Soction 11.1.3.3) did not define it as a Unit.
'
2 system and did not allude to the fact that it would not be operational at the time of Unit 1 fuel loading. He asked how the discrepancy in the FSAR description and the as-built plant could be explain.d. Licensee representatives stat.ed that the FSAR would be amended to reflect the
.
'
fact-that the system would not be ready for Unit 1 operation and indicated that this agreement had previously been reached with the Directorate of Licensing (DL). The inspector stated that the item would remain open.
,
10.
Core Flood System Flow Rate Test
' This unresolved item was initially discussed in RO Report No. 50-313/73-5, Details I, paragraph 11. Licensee personnel have identified a schedule for the test, but details of the test have not yet been defined. The
!
inspector.sta'.ad that a position on the test for Unit 1 should be forthcoming soon from R0 and DL.
He also stated that the item would
remain open.
ll
<
.
11. Administrative Controls Manual This item was initially discussed in RO Report No. 50-313/73-10, Details
.
I, paragr.1ph 6.
The manual.has been revised, and RO comments were resolved in Revision 1, which was approved November 16, 1973. The inspector inforr.ed licensee management during the management interview that this item was considered closed.
,
12. Diesel Generator Trips
,
Loss of power to vital busses due to a trip of DG No.1 because of voltage and frequency spiking is described in RO Report No. 50-313/73-12, Summary of Findings, paragraph V, and a licensee report per 10 CFR 50.55(e)
-dated October 31, 1973, entitled, " Loss of Power to Vital Busses." The
'
licensee ' report discusses the failure of a potential transformer in
,
n-
-
...
,
,
,,
,,
,
-.,
.- -
-. -..,.,
-.. - --
- -.. - - -
.
.
..
-
.
..
...,
.-
_
..
-.-
, x...
u
.
.
'
m
,
'
Ob
- i
.
!
]
~RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-19 I-7
.
- _
the excitation cubicle of DG No. 1 and the resultant spiking. It failed
~
to disclose, however, the fact that an identical failure occurred on DG No. 2.
The report also describes modifications to be made to DG and inverter
.
[
circuitry to alleviate similar problems in the future. The modifications
'
described will be or have been made to both DG's and to all Unit 1
inverters. As of the current inspection, not all modification and j
retesting had been completed; therefore, the inspector stated that this'
item would remain open.
j 13. ~ Control Rod Trip Test
i
-
'
RO comments on TP 330.05, a startup test procedure, were documented in RO Report No. 50-313/73-12, Details I, paragraph 5.
Licensee personnel intend to revise the procedure if needed prior to the start of the startup test program. The inspector stated that the item would remain
.
l open.
!.
' 14. - Initial Core Loading Procedure if Comments on this draft procedure are given-in R0 Report Nos. 50-313/73-14,.
!
Details I, paragraph 4, and 50-313/73-17, Details I, paragraph 18.-
i Licensee personnel stated that the procedure had not been finalized in that a detailed fuel assembly loading scheme had not been received from B&W until thu week of the current inspection. Plans are to prepare a i
,
~
final draft incorporating the detailed loading scheme and RO comments
,
within a few weeks. The' inspector stated that the final procedure would be reviewed when it is approved, and that the item would remain open.
'
,
15.
Personnel Air Lock-Leak Testing
This unresolved item was initially discussed in RO Report No. 50-313/73-14, Details I, paragraph-5. - The Unit 1 Technical Specification requirements
- -
.regarding leak testing of the personnel hatch and its outer door seals are less restrictive than Appendix J to 10 CFR 50.
Licensee representatives
,
'
stated that a change to Technical Specification.4.4.1.2.5(b) would be
. proposed. The proposal will include a test of the total air lock every
'
six monthe and a test of the outer door seals after each opening, the
- .
latter frequency to be modified'during periods of heavy usage, such as
refuelings. The inspector stated that this item would remain open' until the specification has been changed.
'
.
...
m
'
+
,
G
,..w-.
Ymn..ww'
,-m w-
-.--,-,.,,,-,-e
,.ar-e e e m, -.r w -'~.,,,
,,
.
_
_
.
-
_.
.
__
%
.
g s.
^.
.
,
O-
.
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-19 I-8
.
-16.
' Pressurizer Electromatic Relief Valve This unresolved item was initially discussed in RO Report No. 50-313/73-17, Details I, paragraph 4.
Licensee personnel stated that B&W was seeking a resolution on this problem with Dresser. This type valve is used at
'
j several other B&W facilities, and the problem is being treated as generic
for all of them.
l The inspector stated that unless the adequacy of the valve to withstand'
,
postulated stressed were proven prior to licensing of Unit 1, operational i
limitations on the use of this valve would be recommended by RO.
He j
further stated that the item would remain open.
j 17.
Emergency Planning
!
-This unrev ived item was initially discussed in RO Report No. 50-313/73-18, i
Details I, paragraph 2.
The inspector asked what progress had been made on preparation of the emergency control center (visitor's center)
described in Section 4.3 of the Arkansas Nuclear One Emergency Plan.
He was informed that a decision was pending as to whether the visitor's
'
center would be coastructed or a temporary structure used for this l
purpose. The ins:ector expressed concern over the relatively short period of time in which the control center will have to be prepared (prior to licensing) and other preparation made such that the
,
!
Emergency Plan can be fully implemented. Licensee personnel expressed i
confidence that preparations would be completed in a timely manner.
The inspector stated that this item would remain open.
-
18.
Radiation Monitor Rendout Location This unresolved item was initially discussed in RO Report No. 50-313/73-18, Details I, paragraph 3.
RO's concern is that the recorders and in-
i dicators used to monitor plant radiation and activity levels are not located in the control room propar and are not visible from the control ~
room. The inspector asked what monitoring tecl ciques would be used to detect trends in radiation monitor outputs. Licensee personnel indicated I
that periodic readings would be taken on these recorders. The inspector stated that if there were only one operator in the control room and an alarm were received, another operator would have to be called upon to i
look at the recorders. Licensee personnel indicated agreement.
.
i
,
t.
1.
,
r
_. a
-
.. -....
.
,... _,
-
l,.
'
_ _,,, _ _. -.. _ _ _
-..m
.
.
_. -.... _. _.. _ _ _, - - _. _.. _ _,,
-
.
'
.
.
.
.
,.
.
.
h
)
.
v
-
.
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-19 I-9
,
.
The inspector stated that further discussion would be needed on the frequency of readings taken and that the item would remain open.
19.
Procedure Status The following represents the status of procedures needed for pre-fuel load testing, post-fuel load testing, and operations. The listing ddes not include alarm procedures (approximately 500).
IDENTIFIED WRITTEN APPROVED Pre-Load Testing 131 130 129 Post-Load Testing
7
Quality Control
12
Administrative
9
Operating
80
Emergency
46
Periodic Testing 116
57 t
'
Maintenance
10
,
Refueling
16
,
,
Chemical and Radiation Protection
20
Totals 479 403.
367 20. Reactor Coolant Pump Clutch Damage
,
Damage to the Unit 1 B RCP anti-reversing clutch was discussed in
,
RO Report No. 50-313/73-14, Details I, paragraph 8.
A licensee i
report dated November 19, 1973, entitled, " Reactor Coolant Pump Motor Backstop Failure," discusses the cause.of the damage and modifications made to.the clutch assembly to assure proper operation.
All four of the Unit 1 motor-clutch assemblies have been modified,
-
'
-
S
,
,
y
-
, _. _
, _. -
~
-
- _,,
,,
,,
.- -.
-.. _ -
-.. - -.
-
-
.
.
-
.
i
..
.
.,
'
.
.:
.
-l l
'
.
.
)
.
'
,
R0 Rpt. No. 50-313/73-19 I-10
1
'
reassembled, and retested. The testing was similar to that in TP 200.06, "RC Pump and Motor Initial Operation Test," which was l
' being run when the damage to the B clutch occurred, and demonstrated
proper operation of all four clutches. The inspector informed
!
licensee personnel that he had no further questions.
.
W
-
- .
$
I i
!
-
.
.
l.
a
I i
,
i i
i
}
$
!
!
,
!
I-
>
J
-
.
lI
!
i
.
,
.
,
!
,
.... ---
..
..
.-..-
.----,,--$-,------
- - -. -
- --
v-
=r
- - - -- --* ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ' ' ' ~ ' * ' ' ~ ' ' ' ' ' ~ ' " ' ^ " " ' ' * * ^ ' ' ' ' ' ' * * ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' " " ' " ' ' ~ ~ ~
'
.
.
_ _ _ -
- -
.
-.
-.
.
.
'
.
.
s _/ -
m R0 Rpt. No. 50 313/73-19 II-1 s
DETAILS II Prepared By: [. /
v L
1-/7-vi D. Si B6rke, Reactor Date Inspector, Facilities Test and Startup Branch Dates of Inspection: December 18-21, 1973
~
'.b
-[ 4v Reviewed By:
'/
C. E. Murphy, Chief
/ Date Facilities Test and Startup Branch 1.
Individuals Contacted:
l Arkansas Fower and Light Company (AP&L)
J. W. Anderse.. - Plant Superintendent R. R. Culp - rest Administrator
\\s J. L. Orlicek - Quality Control Engineer M. H. Shanbhag - Procedure Administrator B. A. Terwilliger - Operations Supervisor Bechtel Corporation i
J. R. Judd - Station Test Coordinator
-
2.
Emergency Operating Procedures
The licensee is approxinately 50% complete with his review of the emergency procedures and claims to be incorporating or considering
-
the inspector's general and specific comments (R0 Inspection Report No. 50-313/72-17, Details III, paragraph 2).
Licensee personnel are providing more detail in the procedures, referencing other emergency and/or operating procedu.es more frequently, and detailing direction for establishing the final conditions after the emergency.
Specifically, the "High Activity in Reactor Coolant", procedure, 1202.11, is the only one they are having difficulty rewriting since a gross fuel failure and certain electrical failures in the detector systems are so similar.
s
,
'
..
.
.. - - -
-...
.
-..
.
-- - --
., _..
-
.
.
.
_
__-
-_
_ _ _ _
_____
-
_
,
,
e
~
% \\
/
RO Rpt.'N. 50-313/73-19 II-2 o
,,
3.
Surveillance Test Program The licensee has referenced in 1004.12, " Operational Test Control,"
.
l the implementing i.rocedures for AP&L's surveillance test program.
A licensee representative presented a revised draft of 1004.12 to the inspector and stated that official publication and approval is expected next month. Many of the operational checks that are per-formed each shift'or less frequently will not have procedure references because they will be covered under the station logs, which require the samq approvals, filing, etc., as procedures. A few of the station logs (i.e., control rod position comparisons) will consist of a computer printout sheet which will be approved and filed in the same' manner.
All the surveillance tests and calibrations have implementing procedures. However, at this point in time, the licensee has only approved one-half of the 70 implementing procedures referenced in t004.12 above.
So, although the surveillance test program has been fully defined, the procedures not yet written and/or approved will ressin as the unresolved item.
4.
Teet Results Review The inspector reviewed the test results of TP 202.07, " Makeup and
.
)
Purification Engincered Safeguards Test," and 220.03, " Spent Ft'l
'
Cooling System Functional Test."
The following comments were dis-cussed with licensee and contractor perscr.nel:
a.
TP 202.07 'Tbkeup and Purification ES Test."
i (1) Section 6.1.3.1 of the FSAR requires that each HPI pump deliver 500 gpm at a vessel pressure of 600 psig.
Upon examination, the inspector observed that on the four TP data sheets, the vessel pressure never reached 600
.
psig. Upon questioning, the inspector found that the
"true" data was to be found on the strip recorder charts attached to the TP.
These charts did, in fact, show that the FSAR requirements were met.
The inspector commented that the charts should be referenced adequately in the TP and Addenda and questioned why all the data sheets had been required in the first place. The inspector noted that since the initial run did not deliver 500 gpm (498 using worst statistical error), the station test coordinator (STC) simply scratched out the data sheet readings and repeated the test.
The inspector noted that situations 1.%ke this should be fully explained in the TP test deficiency record or in the STC's chronological log.- In light of this, Licensee personnel were notified by the telephone subsequent to the inspection, that this matter will be carried as an unresolved item.
r s
L l~
.
~
,
_
.
_
.__
_
.
_,
.
fl., _ _
'
._
. _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _
.
-
..
'
s RO,Rpt. No. 50-313/73-19 II-3
.
d (2) The inspector questioned how the ES valves CV-1219 and CV-1220 cycle times were recorded when the valves were not 100% open, but were throttled to prevent pump run-out as per test deficiency record item No. 2.
According to enclosure 2.3.11 in TP 202.07, the final light indications were not received, yet on enclosure 2.3.15 the valve cycle times were recorded using the lights. The STC stated that the valves were allowed to swing 100% open and the times recorded before the subsequent throttling. The inspector
~
stated that this information belongs in the STC's.
chronologien1 log, if not the test deficiency record.
(3) Section 6.2, "Special Conditions Required," of TP 202.07 states, in part, that:
The RCS letdown be secured. The STC, however, opened the RCS letdown bypass so the HPI pumps were not initially deadheaded. The inspector agreed that once the ES signal was actuated, the ES isolation valves did, in fac t, close and isolate this letdown so the speci ' con :.tions were met during the test. The inspector cuamented again that problems or circumstances
\\
such as this, which arise during the tests, must be fully documented. The STC should have detailed in his log the reason for opening the letdown and the subsequent isolation with the ES actuation signa 12 (*) The inspector had a few general comments on TP 202.07.
The test could have been more uniform if minor changes were followed through. Occassionally, changes were
'
made in the TP section that tested the first pump and
,
-
loop, but were not changed for the remaining three pump and loop combination 9.
Also, the BWST units were delineated in inches instecd of feet.
Since the safety relief valves had not been cested, the procedure was changed so the pressurizer electro /matic relief valve would
'
be used if the RCS pressure ever rose to 1000 psig.
The STC stated that he never had to use the valve therefore, he withheld any comment in his log about it.
In conclusion, the inspectu. stated that the TP logs and attachments should more fully describe the actual conduct of the test, especially <aen problems arise.
The STC and licensee agraad. The test met all the acceptance criteria and is complete.
- _
.
.
- - - -,
r
-
e,
,-,--,a e-
. -,,,
w r,-
,. - - - - -
.
.
_ _
,
.
. _
__
_.. _
.
_
.
~
,
,
,
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-19 II-4
.
,
(b) TP 220.03, " Spent Fuel Cooling System Functional Test" (1) There was an apparant test procedure violation dis-covered and documented by the licensee on October 15, 1973.
All the prerequisites were not completed prior to initiating testing; two associated systems hydrotests were incomplete.
The documentation and corrective action has been completed.
)
(2) The licensee recently discovered that one of the SF pump
.
screens failed, but thir apparently occur *:d after the
functional test. The inspector had no fur ner comment
,
on this TP.
!
l
.
I l
i
'
!
.
.
l
i
,
'
j
^
-
'
.
$
N
.
e'--
-
..
.-,w
-
e,
, - --,-<-
w
---,
eserr---r-w---we+--
- - -- -- -*---- -
we v-=
-r-w-,--w-*-e=w,-n------e---
-,a--
,a-w--
,
.
-
..
.
..
.-.
. - -
...
.
_....
- -. -
.....
.-..-
-. - _
-
.
,
-
!
N*
~
,
)
<;7
,
J
. --
Arkansas Power and Light Company l
ANO-1 JAN 21 374
!.
_ BO Inspection Report No. 50-313/73-19 r
cc w/ encl:
H. D. Thornburg, RO
- HQ (5)
,
.
DR Central Files Regulatory Standards (3)
i Directofate of Licensing (13)
>
ii j -
cc encl. only:
- PDR l'
- Local-PDR
'
'NSIC
- 0IS, OR
- State
'
'To be dispatched at a later date.
i i
I-
~
I i
k*
.
e i
+
,
i (
,
o L
G
-.e
[,,.
,,,,,. -, -.. -.,.,,,, - -,
,,,,,,-,w---
.,.,,, _,
,
-c,,-w,_--
.. -,,,, _,,.
-w
.___mm.__._._,,,_...--,,...,_,,,,_m.,,-.
. -, -
ee.