IR 05000313/1974006
| ML19319E608 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 05/01/1974 |
| From: | Cunningham A, Kidd M, Robert Lewis NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19319E604 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-313-74-06, 50-313-74-6, NUDOCS 8004140614 | |
| Download: ML19319E608 (28) | |
Text
-
-
.
O
-
-g..~.-Q maco STATC5
m v!:;,.h i., dh.
'
c. :-
A.
M;C CNERGY COM. MIS 3iC M
.,
,:
'. m c.': ; ne n s* * '.~" ll rl'Y m'To:::'
,., }:'% ;. ?
-'f,)
re,o n
. m ri sin
.
t
,
L ',A s'/
Cg, gy
'
..n a.., n o.,. us;Li.*.
"i"at
i.......
o..s.
4 - 4 m.,...... wo.* a
'
.
RO Inspection Report No. 50-313/74-6 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:
El Locat-lon: Russellville, Arkansas Type.of License: B&W, PWR, 2568 Mwt Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced Dates of Inspection: March 19-22, and April 2-5, 1974 Dates of Previous Inspection: March 4-8, 1974 Principal Inspector:
M. S. Kidd, Reactor Inspector Facilities Test and Startup Branch
..
Accompanying Inspectors:
W. W. Peery, Radiation Specialist, Radiological and Environmental Protection Branch t
A. L. Cunningham, Environmental Scientist Radiological and Environmental Protection Branch
.
Other Accompanying Personnel: None
, Principal Inspector:
b rf-8d-h
,
M. 'S. Kidd, Rea'ctor Inspector Date Facilities Test and Startup Branch Reviewed By:
A am.
't-A2 A b^ 2 [
.
R. C. Ldw' is, Acting Chief Date
'
Facilities Test and Startup Branch
.
O v
,
8004140iI4
,
,
v
,
N.
l
'
,
l
- -
.
'
r~
.
('~'N..
.
\\s.
-
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/74-6-2-
.
EUKHARY OF FINDINGS
,
I.
Enforcement Action A.
Violations The following violations of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 are considered to be of severity Category III:
1.
Contrary to Criterion XVII, " Quality Assurance Records," test records for test procedures (TP) 600.01, " Unit Heatup Test,"
and 600.24, " Unit Cooldown Test," did not provide the identity of the observer on data recorder for certain test data and observations.
The necessary documentation was performed prior to the conclusion of the inspection.
(Details I, paragraph 3.g and h)
2.
Contrary to Criterion V, "Instructicus, Procedures, and Drawings,"
certain data gathered during the use of TP 600.30, "SG Relief Valves Test," were not reduced to meaningful and understandable
\\
foon as required by ANO procedure 1004.09, " Plan For Preopera-
/
tional Testing."
The data were reduced and results entered in the data sheets provided prior to the conclusion of the inspection.
(Details I, paragraph 3.1)
..
B.
Safety Items
'
None
,
II.
Licenseo A'etion on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters
.
A.
Violations A licensee response, dated March 28, 1974, to the violations discussed in RO Report No. 50-313/74-2, Summary of Findings, has been received. This response has not been evaluated; the items remain open pending evaluation and verification of corrective actions.
<
B.
Safety Items There were no previously identified safety items.
V<
.
.
y
,.
.
.
_.
- _
-
__.
...
_
. _ _.
'
.
.
'
,q
-
,
g i
-
.
.
's
/
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/74-6-3-
-
.
III. New Unresolved Items
'
74-6/1 Replacement of Quality Breakers with Non-Quality Documented Ones The inspector was notified by telecon April 1, 1974, of a breakdown in the licensee's quality assurance program involving the replacement of quality electrical breakers with non-quality documented ones. This mistake was discovered on a subsequent quality control review.
(Details I, paragraph 5)
'
74-6/2 Sensitivity of Plant Leak Detection Systems Results of testing during hot functional test do not appear
to confirm the sensitivity of the inventory balance method of leak detection described in the FSAR.
(Details I, paragraph 3.f)
74-6/3 Availability of Startup Test Procedures The majority of zero power physics and power ascension tect procedures have not been approved and made available for
-
RO:II review.
(Details I, paragraph 6)
74-6/4 Quality Documentation of Valves
Eight small valves were replaced in the main steam system because of a lack of proper quality documentation. This may have resulted from a breakdown in the quality assurance program.
(Details I, paragraph 3.e)
IV.
Status of Previously Identified Unresolved Items 72-12/2 Valve Wall Thickness Verification Program
.
Not inspected.
73-8/l ' Procedural Coverage per Regulatory Guide 33 The pace of procedure development has been intensified by the licensee. This item remains open.
(Details I, paragraph 7)
73-10/6 Respiratory Protection Program and Procedures
.
The status of this item remains unchanged. Assignments and
storage of respirators and training in their use has not been completed.
(Details II, paragraph 2)
s_s
.
,
,e+
w
+=
e-
+
9-w-
--
%-wy--,
,
w
-
--
v--
re-v
- - - -
ww,mi-
-e--wye me--
-www t-e-y-r-e e
N
--d w
_ __
~
.
.
r p) -
.
,
(N/
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/74-6-4-
,
.
73-10/7 Representative Sampling of Gaseous Wastes No change in status.
Sample delivery lines outside buildings still have not been insulated to minimize halogen condensation losses.
(Details II, paragraph 3)
73-12/2 Diesel Generator Trips
!
l No change in status. This item remains open.
(Details I, paragraph 8)
-,
,
73-12/3 Control Rod Trip Test
-
Not inspected.
.73-14/2 Initial Core Load Procedure A method of response checking source range instrumentation prior to the start of fuel loading has been found. The procedure has not yet been approved; therefore, the item remains open.
(Details I, paragraph 9)
73-16/1 Radiography Review No t - inspected.
73-17/1 Pressurizer Electromatic Relief Valve
.-
Not inspected.
73-17/2 Energency Operating Procedures
I
'
All of these procedures except two have been approved. Most -
'
are undergoing revision. This item remains open.
(Details I, paragraph 10)
' 73-17/3 Operational Test Program and Procedures Schedules for conducting surveillance tests have not been prepared. Also, not all test procedures required have been approved. This item remains open.
(Details I, paragraph 11)
l
,
73-18/l Emergency Planning The ' emergency control center has not been equipped and corrective actions on problem areas discovered during an emergency plan drill have not been implemented. This item (~j
,
remains open.
(Details II, paragraph 4)
sm/
d
.
.
-- - - -- -
,
,
,
n m
---v-
,-
-
e
-
,
,-
.
.
'
p E_,Y
'
u RO Rpt. No. 50-313/74-6-5-
.
73-18/3 Calibration of Radiation Monitors
,
The calibration of area and process monitors has not been completed. This item remains open.
(Details II, paragraph 5)
73-19/1 Inverter Malfunction A supplementary report on this problem has been received. This item is considered closed.
(Details I, paragraph 12)
73-19/2 Reactor Building Ventilation System Ductwork No additional information on this matter was available for review by the inspector.
.
74-2/1 Vibrations / Noises in Reactor Vessel No change in status. This item remains open.
(Details I, paragraph 13)
74-2/2 Control of Maintenance Activities Not inspected.
74-2/3 Control of Temporary Circuit Modifications Not inspected.
,_
74-4/1 Leak in Pump P36B Recirculation Line
.
Analysis of this problem is underway. A final report is due April 22,1974. The item remains open.
(Details I, paragraph"14)
74-4/2 Erratic Behavior of CRD Position Indicators
Not inspected.
74-4/3 Main Steam Line Isolation Valves (Regulatory Operations Information Request 74-2)
,
A licensee response to the referenced ROIR has been received.
This item is closed.
(Details I, paragraph 15)
74-5/1-18 operational QA Program Implamentation Revised plans and procedures were not available for review.
.
[
These items remain open.
(Details I, paragraph 16)
'% d e
b
-
s
,
,
-.
.. -.
-
- -
_ _.
-
-
. -. -.
..
--.
,
e
r
,
D R0 Rpt. No. 50-313/74-6-6-
.
V.
Design Changes
,
Main Steam Dump Valves AP&L is installing a block valve upstream of each of the atmospheric dump valves to provide isolation capability in the event the dump valves do not reseat properly.
(Details I, paragraph 3.e)
VI.
Unusual Occurrences
.
None VII. Other Significant Findings A.
Project Status
!
The licensee estimate for fuel loading has slipped from May 1, 1974, to May 15, 1974.
(Details I, paragraph 2)
t B.
Environmental (Nonradiological) Inspection
)
A nonradiological environmental inspection of preoperational s/
baseline data and implementing procedures was conducted. No deficiencies were identified.
(Details III)
C.
Medical Arrangements and Radioactivity Controls The review of the status of emergency medical arrangements aInd
~
radioactive effluent control procedures was completed.
(Details II, paragraph 6 and 7)
- :
i VIII. Management Interview
'
'*
Management interviews were conducted by Kidd and Peery on March 22, by Cunningham on April 4, and by Kidd on April 5 to discuss findings of the inspection. The following licensee personnel attended these interviews:
i Arkansas Power and Light Company (AP&L)
- P. L. Almond - Reactor Technician J. W. Anderson - Plant Superintendent
i T. C. Baker - Chemical and Radiation Protection Engineer
'
- C. A. Bean - QA, Mechanical / Welding Inspector
- Attended the March 22, 1974 meeting only
- Attended the April 5, 1974 meeting only r
.
. _
_.
.....e
_,
_
- -, _
.. _ _
. ~..
_
.
.
.
.
G R0 Rpt. No. 50-313/74-6-7-
..
- R. G. Carroll - Chemical and Radiation Protection Engineer,
- W. Cavanaugh, III - Manager of Nuclear Services T. H. Cogburn - Nuclear Engineer
- R. R. Culp - Test Administrator C. A. Halbert - Technical Support Engineer
- H. Hollis - Administrative Assistant
- G. H. Miller - Assistant Plant Superintendent
- N. A. Moore - Manager of Quality Assurance J. L. Orlicek - Quality Control Engineer
- D. R. Sikes - Results Engineer C. N. Shively - Procedure Administrator B. A. Terw111eger - Operations Supervisor
- Ihese individuals attended the March 22, 1974 meeting only.
- These individuals attended the April 4,1974 meeting only.
- These individuals attended the April 5,1974 meeting only.
Peery discussed the status of previously identified unresolved items listed in Summary Section IV, which he had inspected.
(Details II, paragraphs 2 through 5)
Cunningham discussed the findings of his inspection effort.
(Details III,
'-
paragraphs 3 through 6)
Kidd discussed the violations in Section I in the April 5,1974, meeting.
(Details I, paragraphs 3.g - 3.1) He noted that corrective actions had been taken in all cases on the lack of documentation.
The new unresolved items in Summary Section III were discussed.
(Details I, paragraphs 3.f, 5, and 6)
-
The status of the previously identified unresolved items in Summary l
-
!
Section IV was discussed. The inspector stated that the items regarding malfunction of the plant inverters and RO Information Request 74-2 were considered resolved.
(Details I, paragraphs 12 and 15) He also stated that all other items in Section IV would remain open.
(Details I, paragraphs 7-11 and 13-16)
!
!
bb~
.
.
.f'
'~
..,,
.,, -
.--.
,
--
.,,...
__ _
_ - _ - _
.
-
O
.
L.,]
'
R0 Rpt. No. 50-313/74-6 I-1 l
DETAILS I Prepared By:
[z
- - 8-7d
'
M. S. Kidd, Reactor Inspector Date Facilities Test and Startup Branch Dates of Inspection: March 19-22 and April 2-5, 1974 Reviewed By:
t.. d'.
,$ O,M R. C. Lewis, Acting Chief Date Facilities Test and Startup Branch 1.
Person contacted In addition to those listed in the Management Interview section, the following individuals were contacted during the inspection:
Arkansas Power and Light Company (AP&L)
B. A. Baker - Shift Supervisor T. A. Martin - Maintenance Supervisor j
Babcock and Wilcox (3&W)
%./
K. R. Ellison - Test Program Coordinator 2.
Project Status
~
The inspector was informed by telephone April 11, 1974, that AP&L's estimate for the start of fuel loading had been changed from May 1, 1974 to May 15, 1974. Major areas of delay involve construction and testing of the hydrogen purge system and penetration room ventilation system and completion of the physical security systems.
,_
3.
Test Results Reviewed Results of the following test procedures were reviewed and discussed with licensee personnel:
a.
TP 204.03, " Reactor Building Spray System Functional Test" I
This procedure was used to test the operability of the reactor building spray pumps and spray nozzles, to demonstrate the ability to take suction from spray tanks and the borated water storage tanks and to check associated level and flow alarms. The test was started March 13, 1973, but was delayed for several weeks O
k_
<
.
-
-. _.
.
.
.
.
.
..--
.
.
e
.
r q,i
-
'
R0 Rpt. No. 50-313/74-6
'I-2
.
.
1/
due to overheating of the spray pumps thrust bearings.7 This i
was resolved by changing the lubricating oil used in the bearings.
The test was completed October 28, 1973, and the results were approved with no exceptions February 16, 1974. -Review cf the
.
package indicated that the acceptance criteria were met, that all
,
deficiencies had been resolved, and that documentation was complete. The inspector stated that he had no questions on this test.
b.
TP 203.08, " Decay Heat Suction Valve Auto Close Functional Test" This procedure was. used to demonstrate the automatic closure of i
DH valves CV-1050 and CV-1410 upon high reactor coolant system (RCS) pressure as discussed in FSAR Section 9.5.2.7 and Item number
9.1 in the AEC questions section of the FSAR. CV-1050 closed at an RCS "A"-loop pressure of 315 psig (acceptance criteria was 320 psig t 25 psig), and CV-1410 closed at a
"B" loop pressure of 390 psig (acceptance criteria of 385 psig 25 psig). These two valves were also checked for automatic closure upon the opening of the core flood tank discharge valves. It was also verified that the DH valve could not be opened using the control
'
.
room handswitch until its interlock was removed by opening the appropriate core flood tank discharge valve. In that all acceptance criteria were met, the inspector stated that he had
,
no questions on this test.
c.
TP 210.01, " Chemical Addition and Sampling System Hydro Test"
This procedure was used to conduct hydro tests of the chemical addition and sampling system and portions of connecting systems.
,
,
Several sections of piping and vessels were hydroed or leak
,
tested in
,cordance with USAS B31.1 and B31.7 at the test
-
'
' pressures reflected in Table 9.6 of the FSAR. All test pressures were maintained for a minimun of ten minutes as required by code. No leakage occurred in piping, welds, or vessels. The inspector stated that he had no questions on this test.
d.
TP 600.25, " Quench Tank OP Test"
This procedure was used to demonstrate the ability of the quench
.
tank to quench steam relieved from the pressurizer without l'
sustaining undue increases-in pressure or temperature. The test i
was conducted at a pressurizer temperature of 240*F and pressure at 480*F. The pressurizer electromatic relief valve was opened for over eight minutes and quench tank conditions compared to s
those at the start of the test.
ts'
1/ See R0 Report No. 50-313/74-1, Details III, paragraph 2.d.l.
.
._
...
. - -. _.
.
--
-
,
.
.
-
,
- - -, -.. - - - - _. - -.,.-.,
.-
'
-
.
R0 Rpt. No. 50-313/74-6 I-3 Start of Test End of Test Quench Tank
Temperature 70*F 88'F Level 62" 66" Pressure 2 psig 3 psig Pressurizer Temperature 240*F 270* F Level 200" 200"
,
Pressure 480 psig 330 psig The increase in quench tank temperature and pressure were well within the acceptance criteria of less than 80*F increase and a maximum of 100 psig. The inspector stated that he had no questions on this test.
e.
TP 200.09, " Steam Generator Secondary Side Hydro Test" A hydro of the steam generators (SG) secondary sides, including main steam lines up to the turbine throttle valves was conducted using this procedure. A rerun was required on both SG's due to the replacement of eight valves due to the lack of quality documentation on the originally installed valves and a leaking weld on a SG "A" root valve. A second rerun was required on SG
"A"
.due to the addition of a new valve. AP&L is installing block valves upstream of the atmospheric dump valves on both steam headers, which will require yet another hydro of both SG's and lines. The hydro tests were conducted at a pressure of 1335
-
psig (design is 1050 psig).
The inspector asked for information regarding the valves which had to be replaced due to lack of quality documentation. In that the history of what had transpired concerning them was not available, the inspector stated that this matter would be carried as an unresolved item. Licensee personnel stated that information on the' valves would be gathered and discussed on the inspector's next visit to the site.
O
.
!
s j-
.. _..... ~..
- - -
-_.
-
_
-__-_-
.
e
'
,,
r I
v RO Rpt. No. 50-313/74-6 I-4
,
f.-
TP 600.10, "RCS Hot Leakage Test"
,
Testing was conducted per this procedure to demonstrate that non-recoverable RCS leakage was within technical specification limits (10 gpm) and to verify that a leak of one to two gpm is detectable within one hour. Data taken, over a six and one-half hour period resulted in a calculated leak rate of only 1.07 gpm, of which
.306 gpm was identified. A known leak rate was imposed via sample lines of 1 gpm and the leakage recalculated. The result was 1.69 gpm over a one hour period (2.07 gpm expected) 'and 1.95 gpm over a ninety minute period. The inspector commented that these results did not appear to demonstrate the sensivity of the inventory balance method of leak detection described in Section 4.2.3.8.B of the FSAR, which indicates that a 1 gpm leak can be detected in 1.1 hours1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />. This subject was discussed in the management interview, at which time the inspector stated that it would be carried as an unresolved item. The inspector asked if the known leak rate test would be conducted during power ascension testing. Licensee personnel stated that the leakage rate determination was scheduled for 15% and 100% power testing, but that a known leak test had not O
been planned. They stated that a repeat of this type test would s
be considered.
'
g.
TP 600.01, " Unit Heatup Test" This procedure conducted heatup operations for hot functional testing (HFI). One of its purposes was to verify the adequacy of portions of operating procedure 1102.02, " Plant Startup." 'Docu-mentation for this test was completa except that a signature and date had not been recorded on Form A-33, Test Sunnary Sheet.
'
This sheet was cubsequently signed and dated by the test coordinator in charge of the test. The inspector stated that l
-
this omission appeared to be in violation of Criterion KVII of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, " Quality Assurance Records."
h.
TP 600.24, " Unit Cooldown Test" This procedura was used to conduct the plant cooldown following HFT and to verify the applicable portion of operating procedure 1102.10.
Documentation was in order except for missing initials and date on one column of date on page 12 of the procedure. Also, step 8.2.9 of the copy of 1102.10 used was not completely filled out.
The inspector stated that this lack of documentation appeared to be in violation of Criterion XVII of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50.
These
[
)
omissions were rectified prior to the conclusion of the inspection.
Y t
kj'
o s
e s.-
-
-,
R0 Rpt. No. 50-313/74-6 I-3
-
1.
TP 600.30, " Steam Generator Relief Valve Test"
,
This procedure was used to verify proper setpoints of the SG code relief valves. This was accomplished by in-place testing with a system pressure of 700 psig and the use of an hydraulic pressure assist device on the valves. Two valves on each header are set to relieve at or near 1050 psig,1070 psig,1090 psig, and 1100 psig. The actual lift pressure is calculated by adding the
,
system pressure and the input in terms of true.lif ting pressure from the assist device. The inspector noted that the actual lift pressure had not been recorded on the data sheets provided for certain of the tests. He stated that this appeared to be in violation of Section 8 of Procedure 1004.09, " Plan,for Pre-
,
operational Testing," which requires that test results be reduced to meanink ul and understandable form. These values were sub-f sequently calculated and entered on the data sheets.
4.
Procedures Reviewed The following station procedures were reviewed using appropriate sections O
of ANSI N18.7, " Standard for Administrative Cantrols for Nuclear Power (
Plants," and Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 as a review basis. Comments on the procedures and licensee responses are discussed.
a.
General Operating Procedures Certain of these startup, operstion, and shutdown procedures were
~
discussed in R0 Report No. 50-313/73-17, Details I, paragraph 5.
During the current inspection, the initial review of all of these procedures not previously done was accomplished and revisions to
,
certain ones previously reviewed were reinspected.
Inspection of the revised procedures revealed that checklists were being or had'
been added where needed, more detailed instructions were being provided, and references to other procedures was being incorporated.
(1) 1102.01, " Plant Preheatup and Precritical Checklist"
)
The initial review of revision 0 of this procedure resulted in these coments:
(a) The purpose and intended use of the checklist should be defined.
(b) The procedure does not give acceptance criteria for the RCS leak test per Attachment G.
,
'
m
-
v
.
.
.
- - - -
,
e
.
s O
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/74-6 I-6
.
A licensee representative stated that the comments would be
'
considered and the procedure revised appropriately.
(2) 1102.02, " Plant Startup" - Revision 2 The inspector stated that he had no further questions on this procedure.
(3) 1102.04, " Power Operation" - Revision 1 The inspector stated that the revisions to the procedure in Revision 1 had resolved his comments.
This revision had been typed and was ready for review.and approval by AP&L.
(4) 1102.06, " Reactor Trip Recovery" - Revision 1 Status same as (3) above.
(5) 1102.08, " Approach to Criticality" - Revision 1 This procedure had not been revised since RO:II comments were initis11y given. A checklist is needed, and a pre-caution should be added to step 6.2.3 (withdrawing rods to criticality)
A licensee represcatative stated that the procedure would be revised to resolve these comments.
,.
(6) 1102.10, " Plant Shutdown and Cooldown" - Revision 2
.
The inspector stated that he had no further questions on-this procedure.
-
b.
Emergency Operating Procedures The initial review of the station emergency operating procedures was documented in RO Report No. 50-313/73-17, Details II, paragraph 2.
Certain of these procedures we're reviewed again after revision and were discussed in RO Report'No. 50-313/7A-2, Details II, paragraph 2.
During the current inspection, additional procedures that had been revised were reviewed to determine if previous concerns had been resolved.
i O
~
s
.
g
- ----.
L
..
-
-
...
.
.
O
,
~
.,
-s s
D'
R0 Rpt. No.- 50-313/74-6 I-7
.
.
(1) 1202.06, " Loss of Reactor Coolant / Reactor Coolant Pressure" -
Revision 2 Review of the revised procedure revealed that all previous comments except one had been resolved.
It still does not provide instructions for. final conditions desired.
(2) 1202.07, " Moderator Dilution" - Revision 2 Review of Revision 2 revealed that most comments had been resolved. Licensee personnel agreed to add additional procedures references and provide instructions for ensuring that if the purification demineralizers have been, charged with new resins, these resins have been previously borated.
(3) 1202.09, " Loss of Condenser Vacuum" - Revision 2 Reviewed of Revision 2 revealed that previous questions had been resolved. The inspector stated that he had no further questions.
i (4) 1202.12. " Loss of Instrument Ai';" - Revision 2
.
Additional valve references and the system P&ID reference were added to the procedure to aid in the search for leaks.
Licensee personnel agreed to provide the maximum unit load reduction rate to be followed in Section II.
..
.i (5) 1202.13. " Loss of Service Water" - Revision 2
.
References to other procedures and desired plant parameter values were added in Revision 2 of the procedure. Licensee
personnel agreed to add additional instructions for followup action and for obtaining desired final plant conditions.
(6) 1202.14, " Loss of Reactor Flow --RC Pump Trip" - Revision 1-Previous comments were resolved by revisions to this procedure.
The inspector stated that he had no further questions on it.
c.
Surveillance Test Procedures
,
The following test procedures, which will be used to conduct
'
testing and calibrations required by technical specifications,
were reviewed and discussed with licensee representatives.
Specific and general comments and licensee responses to them are given below.
o e
[
,
-
'
-
.
.
.
.
.
. --
- -
. -
-
.
~
.
.
.
.
/~
s (\\s_ /.
-
)
-
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/74-6 I-8
.
(1) General Comments (a) Data sheets should provide spaces for as-found 'and as-left data such as instrument set-points.
(b) Where vendor's instructions (manuals) are used to
,
accomplish testing, the portions of the manuals used must be reviewed and approved by AP&L.
Licensee representatives agreed with the inspector's comments.
(2) Comments on Specific Procedures
-
(a) 1304.02, "ESAS Analog No.1 Periodic Test" The inspector stated that use of Tables 5.1 and 5.2 to delete steps not applicable to the monthly (Table 5.1)
on the refuelin3 (Table 5.2) test could lead to errors in that many procedure steps were affected.
Licensee personnel stated that the two tests were being
'
- [
separated in new procedures being written.
\\s (b) 1304.05, "ESAS Digital Subsystem No. 1 Periodic Test" General comment number 2, regarding use of vendor's instructions, applied to this procedure.
.-
(c) 1304.07, "ES AS Trip and Timed Trip Test" 1,.
In discussing the use of check marks in margins to
,
denote completion of steps, licensee personnel stated that boxes would be provided for initials
-
and dates.
2,.
The procedure does not require comparison of data gathered to predefined acceptance criteria. Licensee personnel stated that this provision would be added.
(d) 1304.08, " Integrated ES Systems Test"
~
1.
The inspector commented that the procedure did not provide for a one hour test of the penetration room ventilation fan totors as discussed in the purpose section.
7 ~x A licensee representative stated that provisions for i
this testing would be added.
l i
j
\\.
'
,
!
!
,
.
.. --.. -..
l
-
_
-_.
.
- -
-
.
-
.
.
-
.
>
.
,
m O
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/74-6 I-9
.
2.
In discussing the one hour load test of th,e emergency diesel generators, a licensee representative stated that steps 9.14 and 11.14 would be clarified to avoid confusion as to the intent of the test.
-
(e) 1304.22, " Pressurizer Level and Temperature Instrumentation Surveillance Test" The data sheets need spaces for setpoints. A licensee representative stated that these were being provided.
d.
Refueling Procedures
!
(1) 1502.01, " Refueling Operations Sequence of Events'"
!
(a) The inspector stated that procedures references should be provided for all activities listed in Section 2.0.
He was informed that this would be done.
(b) The inspector noted that Section 2.3, as written, provides
['~'
for only a complete defueling and refueling for an (
inservice inspection. It does not provide the sequence nor references to specific implementing procedures for a normal refueling. A licensee representative stated that i
such provisions would be added.
(c) During discussions on the fuel transfer tube blind flange '
cover, (step 2.5.7) it was agreed that a procedure for installation, leak testing, and removal of the flange should be written and referenced in this procedure.
(
(2) 1502.02, " List of Refueling Equipment"
--
The inspector had no questions or comments on this procedure.
'
(3) 1502.03, " Preparation for Refueling" (a) The inspector stated that spaces for initials and dates should be provided in Section 6 for those steps not referring to an Attachment, in which esse documentation is provided in the attachment. A licensee representative stated that this would be done.
J
.
,
e.
-
-
,e-
--w w
y ~--
gn n----v m-m-q
,
,
e
.
-
.
..
,.
.
- J RO Rpt. No. 50-313/74-6 I-10
,
.
(b) The inspector noted that several steps in Attachments D, E, and F, such as D.33.A and D, and D.34.B, requi're reading and recording certain data without providing acceptance limits for the data. He was informed that limits would be provided.
e.
Annuncistor Corrective Action Procedures Procedures which provide operator response instructions for the control room alarm annunciators are to be contained in one large procedure, 1203.12, " Annunciator Corrective Action." This is a
,
volume of individual procedures, basically one for each annunciator, representing a total of approximately 600.
Each procedure title includes a number which identifies it with a specific ~ panel and a location on that panel.
None of these individual procedures had been approved; therefore, the inspector. selected several at random for review to determine if the format and general content conformed to the guidelines of ANSI 18.7.
The inspector offered two general comments based on his review:
_ (1) Licensee personnel should assure themselves that automatic actions resulting from the abnormal condition are discussed in the procedures and that operators are required to assure that automatic functions have taken place.
(2) The use of these procedures should be discussed in the" plant administrative procedures. For example, the operators should
be expected to acknowledge alarms quickly, assure auto actions
,
have occurred, and take corrective actions promptly such l
that abnormal conditions can be restored to normal as quickly-as practical.
Licensee personnel agreed to consider these comments.
f.
Abuormal Operating Procedure 1203.03 i
The inspector reviewed Revisioti 1 of " Control Rod Drive Malfunction Action" and noted that a new section had been added to cover inability to drive control rods. He stated that he had no further questions on this procedure.
.
/
d
.
.
..
- -
- -. _ _ _ _,.
-
-
,,,,,
--,-y-,.,,
y
- - -,,p,m,
,
-
,~ ___
.
.
-
.
.
. *
-
.
~
.-
~
. e"-
.j
.
,
R0 Rpt. No. 50-313/74-6 I-11
.
.
5.
Replacement of Quality Breakers with Non-Quality Documented Ones The inspector was notified by telecon April 1, 1974, that electrical breakers B.5144 and B.6144-had been replaced with non-quality breakers. These breakers feed the pressurizer heaters from engineered safeguards buses B5 ~and B6 through 480V motor control centers B51 and B61 respectively. The breakers were replaced with non-quality _ documented breakers February 5,1974, after they were in-advertently identified as non-quality items. This error was discovered March 22, 1974, through routine quality control review of.the documentation associated with the job. A written report on the
>
!
matter per 10 CFR 50.55(e) is due May 1, 1974.
The inspector stated
during the management interview that this matter would be. carried as an unresolved item pending receipt and evaluation of the written report.
i 6.
Zero Power Physics and Startup Test Procedures
!
i In discussing the status of the procedures to be used to conduct zero power physics and power ascension testing, licensee personnel stated j
that most of these procedures had been written. The status sheet maintained by the test administrator indicated that of approximately twenty procedures needed, five had been reviewed and approved. The inspector.reiteraty proceduresbyAP&Lptheneedfortimelyapprovalofthese such that RO:II can review them prior to implementation. He further stated the availability of these pro-cedures in approved form would be carried as an unresolved item in that AP&L's estimated core load date was May 1,1974, less than a month away. The fuel loading date was subsequently changed to May 15, 1974.
(Paragraph 2)
,
,
,
7.
Procedural Coverage Per Regulatory Guide 1.33
"'
,
[
The following procedure status information was provided for the j
' inspector during the current inspection.
Identified Written Approved
'
I Quality Control
13
(
Administrative
9
Operating
77
1/ See RO. Report No. 50-313/74-1, Management Interview
.
.
.
.
A ** ~
.,,
,
-
-
-, -
-
-.
-...
.-- -- -
-- - -... - - - - -
-. -..
.
.
.
-
-
r (O.
l RO Rpt. No. 50-313/74-6 I-12
.
.
Emergency, Abnormal,
,
and Security
50
Tests and Inspection 134 113
Maintenance
19
Refueling
16
Chemical and Radiation Protection
29
362 326 238 These totals do not include annunciator response procedures. There are approximately 600 of these, of which approximately 75% have been written. None of these have been approved.
The total of approved procedures (238).does not include those already approved but which have been rewritten and are being reviewed for approval again (approximately 41).
8.
Diesel Generator Trips This unresolved item was initially discussed in R0 Report No. 50-313/
N 73-12, Details I, paragraph 4.
The inspector was informed during the current inspection that testing of the generators and inverters after modifications discussed in the licensee report dated October 31, 1973, titled " Loss of Power to Vital Buses" had not yet been completed.
This item remains open.
"~
9.
Initial Core Load Procedure
'
This unresolved item was initially discussed in RO Report No. 50-313/
73-14, Details I, paragraph 4.
The status was discussed in R0 Report No. 50-313/74-4, Details I, paragraph 12.
At the inspection documenetd in the latter report, the only outstanding comment involved response checking nuclear instrumentation prior to core loading. During the current inspection, the inspector was informed that a method of response checking the source range (SR) instruments prior to the start of fuel loading had been found. Licensee personnel had determined that a source could be inserted into the shield area close to the instruments through the openings in the shield for the reactor vessel cold legs. With this ability to response check both the SR's and
,
the temporary incore detectors prior to the start of fuel loading,
'
the plan is to calibrate the SR's against a known source within a month before fuel loading, to check the calibration within eight hours of the start of fuel loading, and to response check both the SR's and temporary detectors within eight hours of the start of fuel loading.
~
,
The inspector stated that this approach would resolve his concerns.
I The procedure has not yet been approved, thus this item remains open.
v e
f e.=*
.v
-..
..
._
.
__
_
_
. _ -. _
.
.
~
.
- ..
.
-
'
'
s nO
.
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/74-6 1-13
-
,
,
10. Emergency Operatirg ?rocedures This item was initially discussed in R0 Report No. 50-313/73-17, Deta/1s III, paragraph 2.
As of the current inspection, most of these procedures had been revised and several of these revisions had been approved.
(See paragraph 4.b of this Details section.) The
.
only procedures which have not been approved by AP&L and reviewed by
the inspectors are 1202.05, " Degraded Power," and 1202.19, " Remote Shutdown." Most comments on these procedures have been resolved. The
item remains open.
11. Operational Test Program and Procedures
,
This unresolved item was initially discussed in R0 Report No. 50-313/
73-17, Details III, paragraph 3.
During the current inspection, the inspector discussed provisions for scheduling of the surveillance tests, calibrations, and inspections to be required by technical specifications with each individual designated responsible for such g
tests by procedure 1004.12. " Operational Test Program." It was found that preparations for maintaining a system of schedules had not been made by most individuals. The inspector stated that not only would
the procedures need to be written and approved, but that each responsible group must develop a mechanism for assuring that tests will be conducted in accordance with frequencies given in the specifications. This item remains open.
._
12. Inverter Malfunction This unresolved item was initially discussed in R0 Report No. 50-313/
.
73-17, Details I, paragraph 6.
As discussed in RO Report No. 50-313T 73-19, Details I, paragraph 4, a licensee report on the problem of loose wiring connections in the plant inverters, dated October 31,
'
1973, and entitled " Inverter Malfunction " did not describe the exact cause of the problem or the corrective actions taken. A supplementary report dated March 6,1974, does discuss the cause of the loose connections, attributing them to improper setting of a crimper tool, and corrective action taken.
The matter was discussed during the current inspection. The inspector.
stated that he had no further questions and that the item was considered closed.
U)
l
i
l
.
e-
-
-
,
_4,_
.
-,,_,,..,.,.mw
.
.
_
._.
-
.
.
.
.
, _ -
s
.
k R0 Rpt. No. 50-313/74-6 I-14
.
.
13. Vibrations / Noises in Reactor Vessel
,
This unresolved item was initially discussed in R0 Report No. 50-313/
74-2, Details I, paragraph 2.
Noises and vibrations were heard in the upper and lower sections of the reactor vessel.on the loose parts and vibration monitor during hot, functional testing (HFr). During the current inspection, licensee personnel stated that a report of
-
j the problem had been received from B&W, but that it was not ready for presentation to the inspector since AP&L had not reviewed it.
This item remains open.
14. Leak in P36B Recirculation Line As reported in RO Report No. 50-313/74-4, Details I, paragraph 4, a small leak was discovered in the recirculation line flow orifice for high pressure injection (HPI) pump P36B during HFT. During the current inspection, the inspector observed that one of the elements in the orifice had been eroded severely and that a portion of the wall of the orifice was also eroded. The orifice had been cut out and was being prepared for shipment to B&W for analysis. Preliminary information indicates that a possible cause was to great a pressure drop across the element which eroded. An interim report per 10 CFR 50.55(e), dated April'4,1974, has been received. A final report is due April 22, 1974. This item remains open.
15. Main Steam Valves (Regulatory Operations Information Request 74-2)
,
ROIR 74-2, dated February 20, 1974, requested information on the' main steam isolation valves installed for Unit 1.
A licensee reply, dated
,
March 14, 1974, hr.s been received. The inspector informed licensee
,
personnel that the matter was considered closed in that the desired information had been received. He further stated that if there
-
were questions on the information af ter evaluation, AP&L would be
'
"'
contacted.
16. Operational Quality Assurance (QA) Program
,
RO:II findings regarding the implementation of the operational QA program for Unit 1 are presented in RO Report No. 50-313/74-5. The inspector-i was informed by telephone April 11, 1974, that those documents which were being rewritten or developed to upgrade the implementation of the program would be available for his review by April 16, 1974. These items remain open.
j
.
v v
.
-.
-,,
,-,
-., -.
-,
,,, - - - -,.,
.-
. _ _ - _ _
.
-
--
.
,-
s
.
,
'%
.
R0 Report No. 50-313/74-6 II-1 DETAILS II Prepared Sy:
[/M./
m/
'[ 7 /
'
W. W. Peery, 2a pation Specialist
' Date Radiological anH Environmental Protection Branch Dates of Inspection: March 19-22, 1974 Reviewed by:
/
//
- w
// M g( T. Sutherland, Chief
/ D4(e Radiological and Environmental Protection Branch 1.
Individuals Contacted J. W. Anderson, Plant Superintendent C. A. Halbert, Technical Support Engineer J. L. Orlicek, Quality Control Engineer T. C. Baker, e sud Radiation Protection Engineer j
R. G. Carrol?
.macal and Radiation Protection Engineer
./
2.
Respiratorv Protection Program This unresolved item was previously discussed in RO Report Nos. 50-313/73-10, Details II, paragraph 11, and 50-313/73-18, Details I, paragraph 7.
The respiratory protection program remains incomplete in that storage for respirators and train-ing in their use has not been completed. A licensee repre-sentative stated that storage will be provided on shelves
in a small closet just outside the health physics office. He stated
-
that if this is not adequate space, steel cabinets with doors will be provided in the same general area which is the radiation protection
...
control point for entrance into controlled areas. The licensee repre-sentative stated that the respirators will be inspected prior to storage and stored in plastic containers in an orderly fashion. A management representative acknowledged this storage proposal and a management memorandum, dated March 19, 1974, which instructs that a respirator training schedule will be carried out during the period April 8 through May 2, 1974.
3.
Representative Sampling of Gaseous Wastes
This unresolved item was previously discussed in RO Report Nos. 50-313/73-10, Details II, paragraph 9, and 50-313/73-18, Details I, paragraph 8.
The sample lines located outside build-s
)
ings still have not been insulated to minimize halogen condensa-
,
I N- /
tion losses, in accordance with previous management commitment.
?
/'
.
-
.-
_
.
__
._
_
___
-
,
,
.
C.
.
,
,
.
RO Report No. 50-313/74-6 II-2 Hanagement indicated that it was thought that the insulation had already been installed and acknowledged that a work order e.xists with the prime contractor to install the insulation.
,
4.
. Emergency Planning a.
This unresolved item was previously discussed in RO Report No. 50-313/73-18, Details I, paragraph 2.
A licensee repre-
,
,
sentative verified that the filter for the ventilation system of the decontamination facility at the St. Mary's Hospital, Russellville, Arkansas, has been installed. This part of the unresolved item is considered closed. A drill for the emergency plans was held on Jar.uary 11, 1974. A review by the Plant Safety
-
Committee of inadequacies, revealed.by the drill, resulted in a list describing the areas of weakness and recommendcd corrective l
actions. A licensee representative stated that the corrective measures had not been implemented. Management stated that the corrective measures will be implemented without delay.
In a letter to the Directorate of Licensing dated February.i*-,
A.'7'-
the licensee described a temporary emergency control center to
contain all of the equipment as detailed in the Emergancy Plaa except that relief was being asked from having decontamination facilities in the temporary controa center until the permanent facility is completed in the visitors' center about six to seven months beyond the presently expected fuel load 1(g date for ANO-1.
The licensee's Emergency Plan includes a telephone in the equipment to be instaligd in the control cents:r.
A'
'
licensee list of equipment to be provided in the cont.tol center i
'
did not include a telephone. The inspector pointed out to a licensee representative that Section 4.3(c) Emergene r Control Center, i
.
ANO-1 Emergency Plan, states that a telephone will be available
-
in the control center. It was also pointed out that the letter of February 21, 1974, did not ask for exemption from the requirement
-
of providing a telephone in the control center. The licensee
representative stated that a telephone will be inst:11sd. This was confirmed by management in the exit interview.
i bU
.
f a
m -gr
._
..
- - _
_
_ _
,.
_ _ _ _.
. _,- _--
_
_
..
~.
__
__
-.
_. _ _ = _
. - _
_.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_.. -
-
!
-
-
,
,
r
-
,.
..
-
.
s s m_-
.
R0 Report No. 50-313/74-6 II-3 b.
Licensee emergency implementing procedures examined were as
,
follows:
1202.34 Perconnel Response and Accountability 1202.35 Radiological Incident 1202.37 Determining the Magnitude of a Release 1202.39 Personnel Injury 1202.41 Evacuation
-
1202.42 Recovery and Ra-entry 1202.43 Uncontrolled Toxic Gas Release a
Comments on items of a minor nature were furnished to the licensee.
,
5.
Calibration of Radiation Monitors f
This unresolved item was previously discussed in RO Report No. 50-313/73-18,
Decnils I, paragraph 4.
The calibration of the thirteen process monitors was in progress at the time of this inspection. A licensee representative furnished information indicating that five of the thirteen process monitors have been initially calibrated. The calibrated instruments are as follows:
RE-1237 Failed Fuel I
AE-3632 Main Condenser RE-4830 Gaseous Radwaste
$
RE-3618 Discharge Flumes RE-7400 Stack
,,
The inspector pointed out to the licencee representative that the exhaust line to the stack monitor was not connected. He stated that the line would be connected as soon as the back panel is placed on the monitor j
cabinet. The process monitors that had hot been calibrated were as
-
follows:
,
RE-2236 Intermediate Cooling Water A RE-2237 Intermediate Cooling Water B RE-3809 Decay Heat A l
RE-3810 Decay Heat B
'
RE-3814 Service Water 1 RE-3815 Service Water 2 RE-4642 Liquid Radwaste
RE-2400 Reactor Coolant Leak Detector
'
!
Management was informed of the findings of the status of the calibra-
'
tion of the process monitors and the fact that it was observed that the calibrations were in progress. The time required for the calibra-tions done thus far indicated that a few additional days (4-5) will be (
required to complete the calibrations of process monitors.
It.was observed that the detectors for monitors RE-3814, Service Water 1 and
'
'
.
.
,
.
_
mg
---r.
-
-e
,-
,
,w
--
..
,, - -,
-,-,
,,,--.-,----n e--n-
_
--
a
-
.
.
}
-
c
l l
~
RO Report No. 50-313/74-6 II-4
.;
RE-4642, Liquid Radwaste, were not in place. A licensee representative stated that. the t.wo detectors were being repaired or replaced. The
,
calibration of area monitors, RE-8001 through RE-8020, had not been com-pleted. These instruments are to be calibrated in accordance with licensee procedure 1304.28, Radiation Monitoring System Calibration.
Management acknowledged the reminder of the incomplete status of
-
calibration of the area monitors. Previous commitment had been received from management to have this completed before fuel 3,oadin:;.
6.
Radioactive Effluent Control Procedures An examination was made of an additional group of effluent control procedures and comments on minor items furnished to the li'censee.
The procedures examined were as follows:
1104.18 Solid Waste Management 1104.21 Solid Waste Baler System 1602.12 Radioactive Waste Disposal
!
.
!
b
..
e e,
l l
~
.
f
!
!
I r
I.
l
,
-,
--
.
-e
.---.s.-
-, -- -.,
-
-
-
, - -.. -,..
- -.. -,,
-
-..,,
-
..
.
--
_
._
-
. -.. _ -. --. - -
'
-
.
,
.
O
.,
N
)
R0 Rpt. No. 50-313/74-6 III-1
'
/
A
.
DETAILS III Prepared by: [
.
.,.. e EF 6'/'/M 8/
~
'
A. L. Cunningham; Epf6nmental,
'e Dat'e i
Scientist, Radiological and
!
Environmental Protection Branch Dates of Inspectio April 2-4,
,
,.
!
k N-Reviewed by:s (A..
<s
-
.
J.[diological and Environmental T. Sutherland, Chief Date Ra
[
-
Protection Branch t
I 1.
Individuals Contacted
!
C. Halpert - Technical Support Engineer T. Baker - Chemical and Radiological Protection Engineer
!
D. Rueter - Assistant Engineer
'
.
J. W. Anderson - Plant Superintendent
!
2.
Scope of Inspection
The inspection consisted of the following: (1) a detailed review of preoperational nonradiological environmental baseline data and
,
studies involving water quality, aquatic biology, and special studies including three dimensional thermal plume modeling of the Dardanelle Reservoir; (2) examination of procedures for implementing the non-radiological environmental technical specifications.
3.
Water Quality Studies
.
Inspection revealed that extensive baseline water quality and temperature data bss been complied for the Dardanelle Reservoir and the Illinois Bayou enbayment by the University of Arkansas as part of the preoperat.ional
environmental study conducted for Arkansas Power and Light. The program was initiated in July 1968, and also included meterology (solar radiation, wind velocity and direction, air temperature) and detailed acquatic
'
biological studies involving plankton, periphyton, benthos and fish population / reproduction dynamics. Water quality parameters studied were dissolved oxygen, chlorine demand, pH, specific conductance, total dissolved solids, turbidity, total hardness, and baseline concentrations
!
of iron, boron, manganese and chlorine. -Daily water. temperature surveys
,
j consistently showed an absence of thermal stratification throughout the Dardanelle Reservoir and the Illinois Bayou embayment.
Semiannual-i progress reports on preoperational studies submitted by the University -
l of Arkansas' covered the period January 1969 through July 1973.
\\
i
0-
.
,
_
.
2-
'
_, _. _ _
..
..
..
-
.
.
._
,_-
_ _.
.
_
_ -.
.
.
-.
.
.
.
,
RO Rp t. No. 50-313/74-6 III-2
.
- 4.
Thermal Plume Studies
,
Preoperational thermal plume analytical and model studies (based on operation of AND Unit No. 1 at full power and under low flow conditions in the Dardanelle Reservoir) were conducted by Bechtel Corporation.
Licensee representatives submitted the reports for inepection and
,
review. An additional eeries of studies will be conducted by Geo-Marine, Inc. of Richardson, Texas, in compliance with the requirements of
,
Environmental Technical Specification 6.1.
An initial quasi-synoptic survey of the predicted thermal plume was conducted on October 28, 1973; to obtain background temperature and dissolved oxygen data. Twelve
'
monthly surveys will be conducted af ter ANO U it 1 has achieved full n
power operation in order to define the three dimensional aspects of the plant's thermal discharge during maximum power production.
5.
Fish Impingement Licensee representatives stated that the monitoring frequency for fish impinged on the plant cooling water intake screens, as required by Environmental Technical Specification 4.1.2, should be reduced.
They also stated that a proposed revision of the specification is currently being drafted for su'bmission to the Directorate of Licensing.
Licensee represencatives stated that a statistical analysis for a program designed to minimize screen monitoring and required fish sampling has been conducted by an Arkansas Power and Light consultant (Texas Instrument, Inc.). According to the analysis, an eight-hour monitoring period every four days was recommended and is included as part of the proposed specification revision.
6.
Innlementation of Environmental Technical Specifications Inspection revealed that detailed written procedures for implementatidh of the environmental technical specifications, as required by Section 5.5 of the Administrative Controls - Appendix B Environmental Technical Specificacions, are currently being finalized and compiled. Licensee representatives stated that all required procedures will be completed
,
prior to issuance of the operating license. It was also stated that draft procedures are being prepared.for the proposed revision of intake screen impingement monitoring and fish sampling (ETS-4.1.2).
f
%
.
e em
,-
-
-
,,, _. -
.__y
,, -
- -,,,,
w
r
.
. '. 4
.
.
,
,
'T.
-
)
Arkansas Power and Light Company MAY 13 W4 ANO-1 RO Inspection Report No. 50-313/74-6 cc w/ encl:
II.
D.' Thornburg, RO
- HQ (5)
DR Central Files Regulatory Standards (3)
-
Directorate of Licensing (13)
cc enc 1. only:
- PDR e
- Local PDR
- NSIC#
- DTIE, OR
- State O
- To be dispatched at a later date
.. _
_
.
._
S ()
.