IR 05000313/1974013
| ML19309D890 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 11/04/1974 |
| From: | Kidd M, Robert Lewis NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309D879 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-313-74-13, NUDOCS 8004110724 | |
| Download: ML19309D890 (11) | |
Text
.
.
.
.
m
'
O
" "' '%,,
UNITED STATES
,
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
\\
/
!
r.
,
DIRECTORATE OF REGULATORY OPERATIONS E
l'
J
'
-
.
nEoioN n - suit E 818 p
.
230 PE ACHT R EE sT REET. NORT HwEST
,,
,,
g
% ps AT L ANT A. GEORGI A 30303
- h s 9 t
RO Inspection Report No. 50-313/74-13 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. :
DPR-51 Category:
B2 Location: Russellville, Arkansas Type of License: B&W, PWR, 2568 Mwt Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced
,
Dates of Inspection: October 1-4, 1974 Dates of Previous Inspection: August 21-23, 1974 Principal Inspector:
M. S. Kidd, Reactor Inspector Facilities Section Facilities Test and Startup Branch Accompanying Inspector:
R. H. Wessman, Reactor Inspector g
Nuclear Engineering Section Facilitics Test and Startup Branch
'
Principal Inspector:
(
/d-29 7g
M. S. Kidd, Reactor Inspector Date
,
Facilities Section
.'
Facilities Test and Startup Branch r
Reviewed by:
[ [+
cw*
//
7f -8 R. C. Lewis, Senior Inspector
-
Date Facilities Section s.
Facilities Test and Startup Branch f)\\
<%
800 4110 7%p'
.
..
,
,
.
.
. 7%
-
.
(
.
.
Qi R0 Rpt. No. 50-313/74-13-2-
.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS I.
Enforcement Action A.
Violations
>
1.
The following violations are considered to be of severity Category II:
Contrary to Technical Specification 6.7.1, the requirements a.
of procedure 1005.04, " Control and Use of Bypasses and Jumpers," were not met for certain jumpers, bypasses and/or lifted leads effected from May 21, 1974, to September 29, 1974.
0 Details I, paragraph 2.d)
b.
Contrary to Technical Specification 3.3.3 (A), which requires a minimum level of 12.6 feet in each core flood tank, the licensee determined on October 3, 1974, that the level in tank "A" was only.12.4 feet. This item will remain open pending evaluation of the Abnormal Occurrence Report to be
's
)
submitted by October 13, 1974.
(Summary Section V.A)
B.
Safety Items None II.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters A.
Violations,
.
.
1.
Conduct of Test Without an Approved Procedure (R0 Report No.
(
50-313 / 74-9, I. A)
.
Corrective actions on this matter have not been completed, thus it remains open.
(Details I, paragraph 4.a)
2.
Documentation of Flushing Results (R0 Report No. 50-313/74-10, I.A.2.b)
A response has been received on this item and corrective action has been completed.
This item is considered closed.
(Details I, paragraph 4.b)
O%
l
.
- -, _
. - -, - -
~
~
.
,.
.
.
...
.
-
a
-
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/74-13-3 -
3.
Failure to Conduct Sampling and Analysis in Accordance with Technical Specification Requirements (RO Report No. 50-313/74-11, I. A.2.a and b)
Not inspected.
B. Safety Items Not applicable.
.
III. New Unresolved Items None IV.
Status of Previously Identified Unresolved Items 74-11/1 Control Room Ventilation System Not inspected.
-
V.
Unusual Occurrences
,
A.
Core Flood Tank Levels
.i On October 3,1974, station personnel initiated an investigation of the core flood tank level instrumentation because of increases in indications for several days prior to that time. It was found that the level in the partial wet leg reference standpipe had dropped, thus the true level was lower than indicated. The level in tank "A" was found to be below the Technical Specification limit. The exact t.
cause of the loss of water from the reference leg had not been determined as of October 4,1974, when the abnormal occurrence was verbally reported. A written report is to be submitted by October 13, 1974.
B.
Reactor Internals Handling Fixture The inspector was informed of a problem with the reactor internals handling fixture which had occurred at another Babcock and Wilcox
,
.
(B&W) site prior to the receipt of an operating licensing at ANO, 1, and which should have been reported as a significant deficiency
per 10 CFR 50.55(e), had AP&L known the significance of the problem.
,
During an internals handling operation at another facility, it was
noted that the spherical nuts (three) on threaded rods on the fix-ture were free to rotate, potentially allowing them to back off the rods, which would allow the internals to drop. Depending on
,
tx
..
_.,
,
.
.
.
-
_
.
.
-.
.
.
-
-
-. _
-
_
-
.
...
-s
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/74 -13-4 -
-
the distance of the drop, fuel and/or reactor internals damage could result. The problem was corrected at ANO,1 by assuring that
- set screws in the nuts were of proper length and by providing staking devices for them.
In that.this matter is being reported per 10 CFR 50.55(e) by a B&W facility which does not yet have an
,,
operating license AP&L will not report it as such.
VI.
Other Signiricant Findings A.
Review of Plant Operations A general review of plant operations was conducted, including review of operating records and a tour of accessible plant areas.
(Details I, paragraph 2)
B.
Abnormal Occurrences Review
,
A review of previously reported abnormal occurrences was conducted
>
to assure completion of corrective and preventive measures.
-
(Details I, paragraph 3)
~
h C.
Review of Test Results A review of certain post-fuel-loading and power ascension test
results packages was completed.
(Details II, paragraph 2)
VII. Management Interview A management interview was conducted October 4,1974, to discuss find-ings of the inspection. The following licensee representatives attended:
.:
l Arkansas Power and Light Company (AP&L)
!
l J. W. Anderson - Plant Superintendent
'
C. A. Bean - Quality Assurance Inspector T. H. Cogburn - Nuclear Engineer r
R. R. Culp - Test Administrator C. A. Halbert - Technical Support Engineer G. H. Miller - Assistant Plant Superintendent J. L. Orlicek - Quality Control Engineer
-
B. A. Terwilliger - Operations Supervisor e
The violations in Section I were discussed.
(Details I, paragraph 2.d)
The status of previously identified violations in Section II was dis-
cussed.
(Details I, paragraph 4)
-
x
_
-
.
.. -.
.
..
.
.-
-.
.- -
--
.
.
_.
.
',
b)
-t
-
R0 Rpt. No. 50-313/74-13 I-1
,
DETAILS I Prepared By:
/O-29-74 M. S. Kidd, Reactor Inspector Date Facill. ties Section Facilities Test and Startup Branch Dates of Inspection: October 1-4, 1974 Reviewed By: /3. 6, c_LM1
/// /74 R. C. Lewis, Chief Date Facilities Section Facilities Test and Startup Branch 1.
Persons Contacted In addition to those listed in the Management Interview Section of this report, the following individuals were contacted during the inspection:
Arkansas Power and Light Company (AP&L)
Two Shift Supervisors Two Plant Operators One Assistant Plant Operator One Waste Control Operator 2.
Review of Plant Operations A general review of plant operations was conducted October 2-3, 1974, and consisted of the following items.
t a.
Station Log Review Entries in the log were reviewed for the time period of September 20, 1974 through October 1, 1974. Log entries were compared with the requiremencs of Sections 6.1.4 and 6.1.5 of 1005.01, " Administrative Controls Manual." These observations were made:
(1)
Entries were fairly dett.iled and provided descriptions of
.
plant problems, equipment failures, etc..
(2) Log reviews had been completed by shift supervisors and station management as indicated by initials on each page.
b.
Data Sheets
-'
O.
Control room and balance-of-plant data sheets for October 1 and 2,
-(
1974, were filled out completely and signed.
..
I-
-. -
,
.. -
[
.
._
~
.
.
.
<
.,
.
~
.1 s_ '
R0 Rpt. No. 50-313/74-13 I-2
,
c.
Operating Orders A review of Standing Orders and Special Orders (Sections 5.10 and 5.11 of 1005.01) revealed no instructions contrary to Technical Specification requirements.
d.
Jumper and Bypass Log Entries in the Jumper and Bypass Log from May 21, 1974, to September.29, 1974, were reviewed to verify that temporary modifications were in compliance with Technical Specifications, and that the log was being maintained in accordance with 1005.04,
" Control and Use of Bypasses and Jumpers." Findings were as fcilows:
(1) No violations of Technical Specification requirements regarding equipment availability were noted.
(2) Several instances of failure to maintain the log in accordance
'
with 1005.04 were found, including these examples: Independent verification of installation and/or removal of a jumper or
.
bypass, as required by Section 6.1.2 of 1005.04, was not indicated on log sheets 24, 26, 40, 41 and 42.
The last two sheets in the log were not sequentially numbered, as required by Section 4.4 (should have been numbered 46 and 47). Two log sheets, 23 and 34, did not indicate that systems bypassed for surveillance tests had been returned to normal as required by Section 6.1.6 even though the tests were conducted several weeks previously.
This matter was discussed in the Management Interview, at which time the insp2ctor stated that of approximately twenty to twenty-five log sheets reviewed, some ten contained deficiencies of the types described above. He stated that failure to maintain this log in accordance with 1005.04
-
appeared to be in violation of Technical Specification 6.7.1.
Licensee personnel stated that the log had been reviewed and
.
corrected following the inspector's initial comments and that an audit of the use of it would be performed by station QC personnel approximately two weeks later. '
e.
Trouble Reports
A review of selected trouble tickets wrirten from May 21, 1974, to October 1,1974, to flag equipment problems to management did p
not reveal any instance of noncompliance with Technical Specification (
)
equipment availability requirements.
I
,
-
.
'.
. _...
_
,.
_.
-.
,. _...
-
".
.
n (
'
RU Rpt. No. 50-313/74-13 I-3 f.
General Plant Tour A tour of accessible plant areas was conducted October 3, 1974.
The following observations were made:
,
(1) Selected instrumentation were recording properly and parameters were within Technical Specification and/or procedural limits.
(2) A discussion of selected annunicators in alarmed status revealed that operators were aware of the plant status and reasons for the alarms.
(3) Staffing requirements were being met for the shift observed.
(4) Radiation controls appeared to be properly established.
(5) Housekeeping was good, in general, but was spotty in selected areas.
Licensee personnel indicated that overall housekeeping would improve as plant repairs decreased with f
normal operations. Protective clothing had backlogged at the
,
\\
dirty laundry facility due to the insufficient capacity of the laundry waste drain tank.
Licensee personnel recognized this problem and stated that Unit 2 will have a system of greater capacity, which should alleviate this problem.
(6) No fluid leaks or unusual piping vibrations were noted. No abnormal hanger cettings or shock absorber oil levels were noted.
(7) Selected valves were confirmed to be in the positicns required by Technical Specifications or procedures.
(8) Selected equipment caution tags reflected placement dates which were fairly recent.
(9) The retraining program was discussed with two licensed operators.
This revealed that a review of plant procedures had been initiated. The inspector was informed by plant management that the retraining program would be further implemented in November of 1974 through testing of operators to be followed by lectures as needed.
3.
Review of Abnormal Occurrences
.Certain abnormal occurrences which had been reported per Technical
[V i
Specification 6.12.3.1 since May 21, 1974, were reviewed to verify that the cause of each and details concerning each had been reported.
~
.
-
..
j
\\
.
(
' RO Rpt. No. 50-313/74-13 I-4 Also, an attempt was made to verify that corrective actions described in the licensee's reports had been completed, that each item had been evaluated properly, and that safety limits or limiting safety system settings were not exceeded during the occurrences. This was accomplished by reviewing each licensee report and Job Orders, Plant Safety Committee and Safety Review Committee records, and various correspondence relating to each of the occurrences. The abnormal occurrences reviewed were:
a.
74-3 - Failure of a reactor building purge system isolation valve.
b.
74-4 - Primary makeup pump P36A bearing failure.
74-5 - Leaks in 3-inch cast valves in the makeup and purification c.
and radwaste systems.
d.
74-7 - Improper calibration of the reactor flow input to the RPS power / imbalance / flow trip.
Reviews indicated that each occurrence had been reviewed, evaluated and
'
reported as required and that corrective actions had been completed as specified in the licensee's reports with the exception of 74-5.
As noted in RO Report No. 50-313/74-11, V.D., an additional valve was found to be leaking after the written report of July 19, 1974. Licensee personnel reaffirmed their inrent to submit a supplemental report to
<
provide additional information on findings on these valves.
In addition to the above, the inspector reviewed maintenance records for certain safety related components to assure that other potential abnormal occurrences had not been overlooked. No instances of this were identified.
.
4.
Status of Previously Identified Enforcement Matters
. --
l a.
Conduct of Test Without an Approved Procedure
!
This matter, involving testing of the control room "Halon" fire control system, was last discussed in R0 Report No. 50-313/74-12, Details I, paragraph 2.a.
A supplemental response on the item, dated August 30, 1974, stated that the vendor's, test procedure would be reviewed and approved and that test results would be reviewed and approved by September 18, 1974.
Another letter, dated October 1, 1974, indicated that final review of the procedure and test results had been delayed due to the need for services of outside experts in interpreting the test results.
It states that corrective action should be complete by November 1, 1974. Discussions with station personnel revealed that the test (i procedure.did not contain acceptance criteria specific enough
)
to allow an expedient judgement on the acceptability of results..
isN- /
This item remains open.
.
-
,
r
-
, -
- -,, -
_
.
. _-
.
i s
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/74-13 I-5
,
t i
,
Completion of measures to prevent recurrrence of this type of I
problem, involving a request of the Manager of Nuclear Services
'
to schedule all LSsting through the station Test Administrator,
,
was verified during this inspection.
b.
Documentation of Flushing Results This matter was last discussed in RO Report No. 50-313/74-12,
'
Datails I, paragraph 2.d.
A supplemental response on this matter, dated August 29, 1974, indicated that the results of inspection of debris flushed from the incore guide tubes after reaming had been documented on August 23, 1974, to complets corrective action on this matter. During the current inspection, the documentation
,
of these findings was verified. This matter is considered closed.
O
.
)
'
-
,
l O
l
!
{
l L
.
~
y
.
-
, _ _ _..
-
- - - - - -,
-r-
_.
,
_
_.
.
-
%
<-~x
.
,,
s. /
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/74-13 II-1 DETAILS II Prepared By:
!-
'*. )J *. - -
~,.
,'
e/
-
-
-
R. H. Wessman, Reactor Inspector Date Nuclear Enginaring Section Facilities Test and Startup Branch Dates of Inspection: October 1-4, 1974 Reviewed By:
8. 6.
b'
//!/! M W. C. Seidle, Chief /
Date Facilities Test and Startup Branch
1.
Persons Contacted T. H. Cogburn - Nuclear Engineer P. Almond - Reactor Technician 2.
Review of Test Data Completed test results data was reviewed by the inspector. The following test results packages were reviewed:
_s TP 402-01
" Shutdown From Outside The Control Room" TP 305-01
" Reactor Protective System Preoperational Calibration" TP 600-23
" Reactor Protective System Functional Test" TP 710-01
"Zero Power Physics Test" Several weaknesses in test program control were observed. Review of these completed test package indicated that, in some cases, the licensee was not maintaining an adequate chronological test log to record significsnt events and particular conditions incurred during the
,
conduct of the test. Also, it was observed that Form A-27, "FSAR Compliance Check by Writer," was not included with the test results packages on two of the test results packages reviewed. These items do not' meet the intent of AP&L Procedure 1004.09, Rev. 3, " Plan for Preoperatienal Testing."
The licensee has committed to rectify the discrepancy concerning Form A-27 and to maintain the chronological logs in accordance with AP&L Procedure 1004.09. Since form A-27 is redundant with Form A-24, also required by AP&L Procedure 1004.09, this inspection item is considered complete.
a.
Comments on TP 402-01
" Shutdown Frem Outside the Control Room."
(1) Form A-27, "FSAR Compliance Check by Writer," was omitted.
O'
(2) The chronological log failed to specify equipment failures encountered during the conduct of the test.
!
!
l
\\
.
.
-
- -, _
. -.
__. _,,
__
_
- _ _ _
..._ __
. _ - _ _
- - -.
_.. _
_ _ _
-
.
.
- :
,
T
.
.
t R0 Rpt. No.'50-313/74-13 II-2 i
i (3) Um licensee is committed to include instrumentation calibration data in the tests results package (See RO Rpt.
'
No. 50-313/74-11). The inspector determined that instru-mentation used for this test did have calibration stickers attached prior to the conduct of the test. Consequently the licensee's commitment has been met and this item is
,
closed.
'
b.
Comments on TP 305-01
" Reactor Protective System Preoperational
' Calibration."
j; (1) The chronological log was incomplete. The commencement of several field changes was indicated; however, their completion
'
and system retest was not documented. Additionally, one portion of the RPS underwent two recalibrations and the reason for the recalibrations was not documented in the chronological log.
This test pre-dates Revision 3 to AP&L Procedure 1004.09 (which gives specific guidance concerning chronological
.
logs). Since subsequent operation of the system has demonstrated operability of the RPS, this omission in the chronological log is considered resolved.
Comments on TP 600-23
" Reactor Pro,tective System Functional c.
Test."
(1) The chronological log was incomplete. The commencement of Field Change _102 was indicated; however, the completion of this field change and system retest was not indicated.
The licensee stated that these items had been accomplished
-
and this item it, considered closed.
,
'
d.
Comment's on TF 710-01
"Zero Power Physics Test."
'
-(1) Form A-27, "FSAR Compliance Check by Writer," was omitted.
.
i O
.
,
. +
w
+-w-r
,,
... _ _ -.. -.,,
_
-_-,_ --.,,_---,_,
m_m-,,,,,,m,,
.
..,__-...,,._,,
+,m,