IR 05000313/1974003
| ML19319E428 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 03/12/1974 |
| From: | Kidd M, Murphy C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19319E418 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-313-74-03, 50-313-74-3, NUDOCS 8004100706 | |
| Download: ML19319E428 (7) | |
Text
.
_
_
__ _
_ - _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _
.
EP.
m UNITED STATES g
.
[)
'
..TOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
- (e
!q~"J
.
o flur":onATr: OP TGFil ATWY CI'iGATIOiU
.
j
'),
.:
.
L y
_
na o..>
is so.re nu.
S 2,.......s,.....m.....--
-
,,,,['
..... _...............
,
r. r u n n r 4, c,e owe,i a suo3
.
.
.
RO Inspection Report No. 50-313/74-3 Licensee:
Arkansas Power and Light Company South and Pine Streets Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71601 Facility Name: Arkansas Nuclear Onc, Unit 1 Docket No.:
50-313 License No.:
CPPR-57 Category:
B1 Iocation: Russellville, Arkansas Type of License: B&W, FWR, 2568 Mwt Type of Inspection: Special, Announced Date of Inspection:
February 21, 1974 v
Dates of Previous Inapection: February 5-8, 1974 Principal Inspector:
M. S. Kidd, Reactor Inspector Facilities Test and Startup Branch Accompanying Inspectors: None Other Accompanying Personnel:
C. E. Murphy, Chief
Facilities Test and Startup Branch Principal Inspector:
l'
-
'
.?- // 7'I M. S. Kidd, Reactor Inspector Date Facilities Test; and Startup Branch Reviewed By: /
/
J/
W C. E. Murphy, Jhieff)
' Ddte Facilities Test and Startup Branch
.
00PT SElfT T0: PDR J LPDR /
\\
NSIC___
O)
IIC_
_
,'1j/
tv
?
-
@.004-100 [O (
_.
_,. _ _ _
, -
--
-
.
.
.
.
._
_._
_
_ _. __. -_-_
_
__
.
.
-
,
.
,
.
.
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/74-3-2-SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
'
.
.
This inspection consisted of a management meeting and was called with Arkansas Power and Light Company (AP&L) management to discuss concerns with certain areas in their preparation for operations. Previously identi-fied enforcement matters and unresolved items were not inspected. No new unresolved items or enforcement matters were identified.
,
!
i i
i
,
,
I,
.
f
'
'
.
i
,
I
I
=
,.-,-..=.n
. - -
.... -,.
.,-,..n<
,-,- -
,.-
. - _,,,. -
.,.
--
-,
-
.
-_. _ - _
_ _ _ _ -
i
-
.
-
s
,
.
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/74-3 I-1 DETAILS I 2repared by:
h 88' M
.
M, S. Kidd, Reactor Inspector Date Facilities Test and Startup Branch i
Date of Inspection: Febr ry 21, 1974
Reviewed by: /
t.A!
l/I N C. E. Murphy,,Chie,f/' Facilities Test 1) ate and Startup Branch
1.
Persons Contacted
,
The following AP&L representatives participated in the meeting:
J. D. Phillips - Senior Vice President
'
J. H. Woodward - Director, Power Production W. Cavanaugh - Production Project Managa.r N. A. Moore - Manager of Quality Assurance J. W. Anderson - Plant Superintendent 2.
Subjects Discussed by Kidd V
Kidd stated that these were four areas of concern relating to AP&L's
-
preparation for licensing of Unit I which he felt should be discussed.
These included the development of procedures, the status of previously identified unresolved items, adherence to procedures, and implementation of the operational quality assurance (QA) ptogram. The following dis-cussions ensued:
a.
Procedure Development
.
The inspector stated that shortly after Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.33 was issued in November of 1972, the position of Regulatory Operations (RO) concerning procedures required for operation of the plant was discussed with AP&L. He further stated that development of these procedures was identified as an unresolved item in June of 1973 in that AP&L had not identified several of the procedures which would be needed to cover RG 1.33.
He discussed information given him during the previous inspection which revealed that only about 250 of the 850
or more procedures listed on the station index for operations had been approved.
.
The RO position that a great numoer of all types of procedures must be approved at least 30 days prior to the estimated Unit 1 fuel
.
loading in order that they could be reviewed prior to implementation
%
-
!
'
>
.
.
--
-
-
., -
a---
-.-e,
, - - -,
,e-
, - - -.
my
,
-,v,
-. - -
-w
,,,
--,,-vry w-,-mw
,, - - *
- _-___
___ _ - _
-
~
.
.
-
.
'
R0 Rpt. No. 50-313/74-3 I-2
.
<
was reiterated. Also, the inspector stated that all of the procedures required by RG 1.33 must be approved at the time AP&L requests an operating license for Unit 1 in order that RO:II can make a favorable recommendation on issuance of the license. He further stated that the same position applied to the procedures to be used during zero
'
power physics and power ascension testing.
Licensee representatives stated that they felt the procedures needed would be written and approved within dhe time frames discussed with possibly a very few exceptions.
b. - Status of Unresolved Items The inspector stated that of the 18 open unresolved items which had
-
been identified prior to the previous inspection, the time elapsed since the items were identified through February of 1974 ranged from 2 months to 12 months, with the average time since identifica-
,
!
tion being 6 months. He stated that these items must be resolved prior to his making a favorable recommendation on the issuance of an operating license for Unit 1 and that based on past performance it would appear that AP&L would have to strengthen its efforts to close them out considerably.
\\
A licensee representative discussed the status of several items noting progress being made on closing them out.
He stated that
AP&L expected to be in a position to close alrost all of die #.tems on the list out in two or three weeks.
c.
Adherence to Procedures The inspector stated that his observations at ANO during the
previous year led him to feel that there may be a difference in philosophy on the use of procedures that some of the Unit 1 staff held and that of AEC. The inspector offered his philosophy that qualified, trained personnel, plus viable procedures, plus direction in the use of procedures by management gives a utility
!
the only realistic approach to the unique problems that face nuclear power plant operators.
He stated that AEC takes a literal position on Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50; activities affecting quality shall be accomplished in accordance with procedures. He also stated that if a procedure is not correct, it must be changed according to a predefined, approved mechanism before being used.
,
k i
.
~_
m m
-
,
v pp
--,
-,m w,
,-
,w-
-w
--w,-w,w,---
e
-- ->- - - -m
,-wr-m,--w s
ww--,,-
_ _ _
.
'
s
.
/<~s
-
,
-(
s N _,/ *
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/74-3
. I-3
'
s
.
Licensee management stated that they expected their personnel to adhere to procedures a,nd not to use one if it is not correct or
<
to perform a function different from that called for by the proce-dure wit. tout having the procedure changed first. Management agreed to assure themselves that all personnel were aware of their positions given abo /e.
d.
Operational QA Program
!
The inspector noted that during the previous inspection * areas of concern were found in the Unit 1 operational QA program involving design control and reporting of, design deficiencies, storage of quality (Q-List) material, requirements for review of the station log, control of lifted ' leads and jumpers, and others. He stated that RO:II would perform an in-depth audit of the implementation of the operational QA program at ANO, Unit 1, in the near future to
determine the degree of implementation and ro verify that it is fuactioning as described in the FSAR, program manual, and implementing
'
procedures. He also stated that the capability of AP&L's audit pro-gram to inform management on the effectiveness of the QA program would be studied.
7sg
\\s_,j/
Some weaknesses already observed in the program were discussed.
'
Control of temporary circuit changes was singled out for detailed discussion by the. inspector, who described RO's position on the use and control of lif ted leads, jumpers, and bypasses, stating that installation of a jumper or lifting of a lead in a nuclear safety circuit constitutes a modification to die circuit; therefore,
management controls must be adequate to assure that jumpering or lifting of leads are limited to those for which reviews have been performed. He stated that the controling procedure for these functions (1005.04)** does not exercise d21s degree of control and j
will be discussed further.
Licensee management did not offer a definitive position on this matter.
J j
3.
Subjects Discussed by Murphy Murphy contributed to the discussions outlined in paragraph 2 and discussed the release of newsworthy occurrences at operating nuclear
,
j power plants to the public through the news media. He explained the
.
- RO Report No. 50-313/74-2, Summary i
.
of Findings Y
i
- RO Report No. 50-313/74-2, Details III,
'
paragraph 2.f
.
W
_
.
-
,
.,.
. m.
,.
_
,
. _ _.,
,
,. _.. -,.. _...,
.._
-
..
.
-
-
_
.
-
s-
-
.
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/74-3 I-4
criteria which AEC uses in making press releases and stated that if utilities do not make cand,id, timely releases, then AEC will.. He
-
further stated that more information on this subject would be provided to AP&L before Unit 1 becomes operational.
Murphy also u.
.ussed briefly the manner in which inspection responsibility for Unit 1 will be transferred to the Facilities Operation Branch from the Facilities Test and Startup Branch at about the time that the unit assumes commercial operations status.
.
l
1
.
i
l F
.
t T
i J
.
.
i
- )
l
'
.-. _
..
-
,_
. _.. _..
.
- -
.
-. - -
-..
- -..
_.
...,. -
..
.
..
....
-. -
.
.
t
-
-
N
.
.
.
i
.
..
-
Ltr to Arkansas Power and Light Company
d"d
MAR 141974
,
I
'
DISTRIBUTION:
,_. D. Thornburg, RO
,_
RO:HQ (4)
Directorate of Licensing (4)
DR Central Files
!
- PDR
- Local PDR
- NSIC
'
- IffIE, OR
- Sate
- To be dispatched at a later date
4
,
'
]
- I
'
l l
'
I
!I
'
,
!
'
,.
l.
.
.