IR 05000313/1976016
| ML19319E476 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 11/24/1976 |
| From: | Dickerson M, Madsen G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19319E473 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-313-76-16, NUDOCS 8004110587 | |
| Download: ML19319E476 (11) | |
Text
_ _ _
--
--
-
.
.
.
n.
U U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
IE Inspection Report No. 50-313/76-16 Docket NO. 50-313 Licensee:
Arkansas Power & Light Company License No. DPR-51 Sixth and Pine Streets Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71601 Category C Facility:
Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 Location:
Russellville, Arkansas Type of Licensee: B&W, PWR, 2568 mit Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced Dates of Inspection: November 9-12, 1976 l
Dates of Previous Inspection: September 20-24, 1976
.
Principal Inspector: r$ :s mulaw air 3/oc M. W. Dickerson, Reactor Inspector Date
.
Accompanying Inspector: None e
Reviewed By:
' [ d b c t_-
/ / O v/ ?.
'G.
L. Madsen, Chief, Reactor Operations and Date Nuclear Support Branch i
s 8004110 I
- - -.
-
_
..,
_
..
-
.
.
.
s-2-SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 1.
Enforcement Action A.
Violation None identified during this inspection.
B.
Infractions None identified during this inspection.
C.
Deficiencies None identified during this inspection.
II.
Licensee's Action on Previously Identified Enforciment Matters 75-14 A.l.a QA Committee - Quorum The corrective action discussed by AP&L in their letters to the NRC dated December 22, 1975 and March 1,1976 was reviewed by the inspector.
As a result of this review the matter is considered resolved.
75-14 A.l.b PSC Review of Proposed Design Changes or Modifications The inspector reviewed the licensee's response relative to review by the ESC of proposed design changes or modifications contained in their letters dated December 22, 1975 and March 1, 1976. As a result of this review and discussions with the licensee regarding a pending change to procedure 1004.01, " Design Control," this matter la considered resolved.
,
75-14 A.l.c Procedures Not Approved Pending completion of the corrective action described by tha licensee
!
in their letter dated March 1, 1976, this matter remains open.
75-15 A.1.a Inspections Not Perforned The inspector reviewed the licensee's response relative to the performance of inspections as outlined in their letter dated March 1,1976. The inspector also reviewed a change which had been made to procedure 1004.14,
" Initiating and Processing of Job Orders," 1.e., Revision 0, Temporary Change #4, dated November 3, 1976. The changed procedure now requires
.
designation of all points of inspection to be performed including hold points and documentation of the inspection. This =atter is considered closed.
I (continued)
s_
-
-. _ _ _.,,
,
,,,,,, - -
_
-
--
-. -
-
, _,.
_.
_._
_ __
_ ___
-
.
\\
. *
l
-
l-3-v
.
75-15 A.l.b PSC Review of Procedures and No Maintenance of Department Test Control Charts The inspector reviewed the licensee's response dated February 5,1976, Procedure 1304.58, the final pre-service inspection report and the test control charts for the Technical Support Group and the Maintenance Group. The procedure and the pre-service inspection report were found to have been reviewed by the PSC on March 22, 1976 and February 12, 1976, respectively. Additionally, the test control charts were complete and current. This matter is considered closed.
75-15 A.l.d Change to Main'.enance Procedure Not Approved The licensee's corrective action concained in this response dated February 5,1976 has been reviewed by the inspector. This matter is considered resolved.
III. Design Changes Not inspected.
IV.
Unusual Occurrences None identified during this inspection.
'
,
N V.
Other Significant Findings m
A.
Currew F1-ding 1.
Plant Status During the inspection, the plant operated between 98% and 100%
power. Preparations for the refueling outage in January 1977 are in progress.
- 2.
Unresolved Items No new unresolved items were noted during this inspection.
B.
Status of Previousiv Repor'.ed Unresolved Items 75-14 E.b(2)
Preventative Maintenance Activities
!
The inspector reviewed the licensee's computer scheduled program from which schedules of preventive maintenance activities is produced and j
verified that safety related items are included. A licensee repre-sentative indicated that a procedure for the handling of PM activities
is under development. This matter remains open.
(DETAILS, paragraph 2)
g (continued)
N
,
a
,,-
,-
-. -. -. ~.. _.
_.,...... _ _.,. - ~
_
_..,.
-_,..-----#,_
, - _ _. -
.
-
l-4 75-15 E.1.a(1)
Schedule for Inservice Inspection A schedule (10 year plan)~of examination is included in the B&W
" Inservice Inspection B&W Construction Company Inservice Inspection Manual for Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1," dated June 7, 1976. The schedule as yet has not been approved by AP&L but is presently undergoing review prior to its approval.
In addition, a detailed plan for the refueling outage scheduled in January 1977 will be approved prior to the commencement of inservice inspection activities. This matter is considered resolved.
!
75-15 E.1.a(2)
Tests and Experiments - 10 CFR 50.59 Review While no specific procedure exists for review of tests and experiments in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59, the specific review requirements are enumerated in the facility Technical Specification.
Results of the review are contained or referenced in the appropriate
.
PSC or SRC meeting minutes. This matter is considered resolved.
75-15 E.1.a(3)
Calibration Control Procedure 1004.10 " Calibration Control," Revision 4, has been revised by temporary change #1, dated February 2,1976, to include specific requirements for "as found" and "as left" calibration data for test equipmene. Additionally, it requires that when found defective that the calibration sticker be removed and a tag placed on the equipment stating the probable defect or defects. This matter is considered closed.
75-15 E.1.a(4)
Hydrostatic Test Procedures Hydrostatic test procedures for the Building Spray and Residual Heat Removal Systers were available for review by the inspector. This
,.
matter is considered resolve.,.
(DETAILS, paragraph 3)
,
_
VI.
Management Meeting A.
Entrance Meeting A preinspection meeting was held with Mr. J. W. Anderson on November 9, 1976.
Mr. Anderson was informed that the following items would be reviewed during the inspection:
1.
QA Program 2.
Review and Audits 3.
Calibration
Previous Items of Noncompliance 5.
Previous Unresolved. Items (cantinued)
I
.__
_
.
_.
.
-.
-.
- - _
_ _ _,
_.
_
-
._,
.
.
.
-5-
-1
'
3.
Exit Meeting At the conclusion of the inspection on November 12, 1976 an exit meeting was held with representatives of the ANO-1 plant staff.
,
The following individuals were present:
'
.
J. W. Anderson, Jr., Plant Superintendent G. H. Miller, Assistant Plant Superintendent L. Alexander, Quality Control Engineer D. N. Hamblan, Quality Control Inspector The inspector discussed the following items:
1.
The resolution of previous items of noncompliance.
(Section II of the Summary of Findings)
2.
The status of previously identified unresolved items.
(Section V.B of the Summary of Findings)
e i
.
i e
!
!
l (continued)
!-
!
.
.
--,--
.
.. - -
-
-
- -.. -. -...
- - - - -.. -, -., - - -. -
-- - _ _. _ _____ - - - _ - _ _____ __
.
,
-6-
.
.
'
DETAILS
'
1.
Persons Contacted The following individuals, in addition to those listed under the Exit Meeting section of this raport, were contacted during this inspection.
Arkansas Power and Light Company (AP&L)
J. A. Allen, Plant Operater F. B. Foster, Production Engineer L. W. Humphrey, Quality Assurance Engineer P. Jones, Instrumentation and Control Supervisor T. M. Martin, Supervisor Plant Maintenance J. E. Maxwell, Shift Supervisor S. S. Strausner, Quality Control Inspector 2.
Preventivc Maintenance Activities The inspectot reviewed the licensee's computerized preventive maintenance program and determined that the program, as it is now set up, does include j
safety related equipment. A representative of the licensee indicated j
that PM logs for safety related equipment are kept by each responsible
,
supervisor who schedules the preventive maintenance. The representative also stated that a procedure for the handling of PM items is presently in progress, however, the individual responsible for writing of the procedure was not available for discussions on the subject. This item remains open pending a full discussion with representatives of the
licensee relative to.the preventive maintenance program for ANO-1.
.
3.
Hydrostatic Test Procedures
,
During a previous inspection (75-15) a review of Job Order 0963 " Hydrostatic Test of Decay Heat System and Reactor. Building Spray System" did not reveal whether a maintenance precedure for accomplishing the tests had been required or was utilized. Powever, the licensee had indicated that a procedure was used.
During this inspection, the procedures used for the tests were reviewed by the inspector and found to be complete but no evidence of approval of
.
the Bechtel procedures was available. The inspector stated that failure to indicate approval of the procedures, in accordance with Technical Specification 6.7.2, was an infraction. However, the licensee indicated that this problem had been recognized and corrective action had been t4. ken to assure that approval for conrractor/ construction / vendor procedures
-
(cont'inued)
!
)
I
,
.
S
-
- - -.
. -... - _. _
-.
-e.
.w.,-.
,..r--e,.,,.__._
_,,,,
-.-__-m r-.,.----.,mg
+
-,.,
e we.
-,
.
.
.
.
O
.(
I)
-7-
.
in accordance with the TS requirements was obtained. This had been accomplished by tementary change #2 to procedure 1004.17, Revision 1
"On-site Contractor /Ccastructor/ Vendor control" dated March 31, 1976.
To substantiate this, t.e inspector selectively reviewed several contractor procedures produced since the revision. All those reviewed
,
were found to have been properly approved. This matter is considered closed.
The three hydro test procedures and data reviewed were as follows:
a.
Hydro Test of Suction Piping from T3, T9 and T10 for Trepanned Areas 1, 21, 26, 31 and 33 and twc caps at Former RBS Pump Suction Crossover - April 23, 1975
,
b.
Hydro Test of the RBS Pump P35B Discharge Piping for Trepanned
!
Areas Nos. 22, 23 and 24 - April 19, 1975 i
c.
DH Pump P34B Discharge Piping for Trepanned Areas 6, 35, 4, 37 and 36 - April 30, 1975.
4.
QA Program Review iO The inspector reviewed all changes or revisions to the licensee's QA program that were made since the previous QA inspections to verify that they are in conformance with the program described in the application relating to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, and applicable codes, standards, or regulatory guides.
The previous QA inspections 75-14 and 75-15 resulted in a number of items of noncompliance and unresolved items. Their resolution or status is discussed in the Summary Section of this report. One additional change to the QA Program Manual regarding tempocary deviation from established
,
instructions, procedures or drawings resulted from inspection 76-6 and was reviewed in inspection report 76-15.
I-Verification that implementing procedures associated with the identified program changes or revisions have been revised, are included as referenced previously. Additionally, discussions with the licensee personnel having responsibility for implementing the QA program changes indicated that they understand the significance of the specified changes.
5.
Calibration The object of this inspection effort was to verify that:
a.
Specific requireme-s have been established for calibration of components associated with safety related systems or functions l
(continued)
,
.
,
- - - -. - -
--
,
-., -
.
'
.
.
-9-
.
Hydrogen Purge Lead Analyzer Standby Analyzer
)
Procedure 1304.30
+
Quench Tank LT 1051
-
Fisher-Porter Product Inst. Manual Reactor Coolant Pump Seal PDT 1280 Pump P32A PDT 1281 Pump P32B PDT 1282 Pump P32C PDT 1283 Pump P32D Bailey Product Inst. Manual
Discussion with a representative of the licensee established that j
instruments, not requiring TS specified calibration or surveillance,
are currently incorporated into a computer program which provides
,
scheduling of the instrumentation for periodic calibration. The
!
program is presently being evaluated and will be updated to provide corrective input to the program where required.
In general, procedures utilized for calibration were found to be
'
approved as required. However, as noted in the table above, some
,)
instruments are calibrated ut111 zing vendor product instruction
~
manuals. Additionally, some procedures are in the process of being written or are being revised.
The technical content of the precedures listed above were examined and considered adequate. Records of the calibration of the instruments i
enumerated above were also examined by the inspector. The records contained both the "as found" as well as the "as left" settings.
.
.
.
The inspector had no additional questions in this area.
I 6.
Review
,
The object of this inspection effort was to verify Technical Specification i
requirements that:
{
l All Plant Safety Committee Meetings convened during the previous a.
year were held at the required frequency and that at the meetings l
the requirements for a quorum were satisfied.
b.
All Safety Review Committee Meetings scheduled during the previous year were held at the required frequency and that at the meetings the requirements for a quorum were satisfied.
l l
\\,_ /
(continued)
-
4-
-
-
~,-,e r
,
,,---,-y,.v=.
-m,
,.--nmn,-mm,
-m--,
--w,---,
,-m-,,,,
-
py---,4---,,v,e,wv.+~m-a e - - m-y y - p
.
.
.
s f
\\
\\
}
.g_
v but are not specified in the technical specifications as j
requiring calibration.
1 b.
The operating range / accuracy of components selected in 'a'
above are consistent with applicable technical specification /
)
-
SAR specified range and accuracy criteria.
Procedures used to calibrate components selected in 'a' above:
{
c.
(1)
were reviewed and approved as required by technical specifications (2)
contain acceptance criteria consistent with technical specifications /SAR criteria (3)
contain detailed instructions commensurate with the
'
complexity of the calibration.
The instruments selected for review were:
Service Water System PI 3609 Pump P4B PI 3610 Pump P4C PI 3611 Pump P4A
)
Procedure 1303.39 d
Spent Fuel Cooling System PI 2002 Borated Water Recire Pump P-66 Procedure 1303.39 Decay Heat Removal' System PI 1404, Pump P34A PI 1405 Pump P34B Procedure 1303.39 Steam Generator LT 2651 Full Range LT 2601 Full Range Vendors Manual Diesel Generator Storage Tank DPI 5211 Tank 57A DPI 5212 Tank 57B Vendors Manual (Being written into procedure 1304.37)
High Pressure Injection Eump PDT 1209 Loop A PDT 1210 Loop A PDT 1228 Loop B PDT 1230 Loop B Procedure 1304.13
\\
(continued)
-/
l
.
, _,,,
-
-w
--- - - -
e-
- _ _
i
.
.
.
-10-
.
Proposed tests and experiments which affect nuclear safety or whose c.
' performance may have constituted an unreviewed safety question were reviewed.
d.
Violation of facility Technical Specifications or rules and regulations were reviewed.
e.
Proposed changes to Technical Specifications were reviewed.
To verify the foregoing requirements, the inspector reviewed the PSC and SRC Meeting Minutes for the period November 1975 to October 1976.
Specifically included were the following:
(1)
Tests and Experiments
'
(a) DCR #432 Modification of Surveillance Specimen Holder Tubes and Appurtenances (b) Procedure 1304.93, Rev. O, Reactor Vessel Intervals Vent Valve, Stroke Test (c) DCR #444 Rerouting Section of Emergency reedwater Pump Discharge Piping (d) Test Run of "D" Reactor Coolant Pump at Low Pressure (2)
Infractions
'
(a) Pilot cell voltage readings station batteries not taken February 27, 1976 to March 1, 1976.
(b) Liquid release made without circulating pumps in operation (Rad. Rpt. 75-1)
t (c) Fxceeding power level cut-off by 0.09% Xenon (3)
TS Changes l
'
(a) 76A-5 Inspection of Locking Caps during refueling or I
maintenance shutdown.
(b) 76A-1 Safety related hydraulic shock suppressors.
.
The inspector had no questions in this area.
I (continued)
,
e
--r-g ge-
,,,,,<
-. -,,
,-
r
..-,.,y
-
-,-, -. - - - -,
r.,---w- - -
.-.
.
.
.
.
f 11-b
-
.
7.
Audits The inspector reviewed records relating to all audits conducted during the previous year to verify that they were conducted as follows:
a.
In accordance with written procedures b.
By trained personnel not having direct responsibility in the area being audited c.
Audit results were documented and reviewed by management having responsibility in the area of audit and by corporate management d.
Followup action, including reaudit, was either taken, being initiated, or in progress.
Frequency of audits was in conformance with Technical Specifications.
e.
Audit reports available for review were of two types. The first, general audits, were conducted by personnel from the Little Rock offices of AP&L in conformance with QA procedure ANO-14 "AP&L Quality Assurance General Audit" and the associated checklists. These reports were for the period December 10, 1975 to September 23, 1976. The second type was operating plant audits conducted by the QA Engineer and accomplished in accordance with QA procedure ANO-17 " Operating Plant Surveillance Audit" and associated checklists. These reports were for the period December 30, 1975 to October 8, 1976.
The inspector had no questions in this area.
,
,
,
l
,
\\
.
e,
-
- -. -
.
-
.
_, -