IR 05000313/1976017
| ML19319E490 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 01/13/1977 |
| From: | Dickerson M, Madsen G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19319E482 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-313-76-17, NUDOCS 8004110644 | |
| Download: ML19319E490 (12) | |
Text
-
.
.
_..
__ __
_
'
.
,
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
t I
t IE Inspection Report No. 50-313/76-17 Docket No. 50-313
.
Licensee:
Arkansas Power & Light Company License No. UPR-51 Sixth & Pine Streets Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71601 Category C Facility:
Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 Location:
Russellville, Arkansas Type of Licensee:
B&W, PWR, 2568 Mut Typs cf Inspection: Routine, Unannounced Datesofinspection: December 6-10, 1976
-
'
Dates of Previous Inspection: November 9-12, 1976
,
Principal Inspector:
. u./.
'A m_
/2//6/7/=
M. W. Dickerson, Reactor Inspector Date Accompanying Inspector: None
,
Reviewed By:
IN//schd h/M/ 7[,
G. L. Madsen, Chief, Reactor Operations and Date Nuclear Support Branch
,
,
e de g-m'en
,,_,
...
.
,
,
,y
-.
e--
I-'u-=
v
"*
-.
.
~
_.
.
-.
.-..-- - -....
..
.
.
.
2-
-
.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS I.
Enforcement Action A.
Violation-None identified during this inspection.
.
B.
Infraction I
contrary to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V and the lic nsee's Quality Control procedure 1004.01 " Design Control," Rev. 3, Temporary Change #4, paragraph 4.1.2, the issuance of Design Change Request Control Number and Maintenance of Design Control Register was not being performed by the Quality Control Engineer.
(DETAILS, paragraph 2)
C.
Deficiencies l
None identified during this inspection.
l II.
Licensee's Action on Previously' Identified Enforcement Matters i'~
75-07 1B/l Fire Stops Design Control The material required to complete the installation of fire stops has been received by the licensee and the installatica is expected to be completed by December 31, 1976. This matter remains open pending completion of the work.
.
75-14 A.1.c Procedures Not Approved The co;tective action described by the licensee in their letter dated March 1, 1976 remains to be completed and this matter remains open.
'
75-15 A.1.c Q Controlled Chemicals Primary Coolant and Secondary Steam Generator Chemicals are not
-
identified and controlled as "Q" list items. This matter was forwarded l_
to I&R headquarters on February 24, 1976 and was referred to NRR for (
action on March 12, 1976. Action by NRR is still pending. Based upon the transfer of the action to NRR, this matter is considered closed.
i j
76-01 A.1 PSC - Violation of Technical Specifications The corrective action described by the licensee in his letter to the NRC dated March 1, 1976, regarding the investigation by the Plant i
Safety Committee of reported instances of violations of the Technical Specification, has been reviewed by the inspector. This matter is considered resolved.
}
- L:_
g (continued)
g.
q;'
-_
i..y9---y-4-
--
-
+-
-
g.
m_,,g__
y-
-~
-.gy.
.
.,,r--.,,,.w
-.--,,,.y,.--yw-.w-e--
+-
g-w.-
T-t g.w g-
-_ _ __
-
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ -
.
.
.
,
_
..
-
I
.
.
A
'
.
76-15 T.B.1 Weld Rod Control The corrective action described by the licensee in their letter to the NRC dated December 1, 1976 has been reviewed by the inspector.
Based on this review and the corrective action taken, this matter is considered closed.
i
!
76-15 I.B.2 Drawing Control This matter remains open pending completion of the corrective action described by the licensee in their letter to the NRC dated December 1, 1976. Review of the ANO-Unit One drawing control program is expected to be completed April 1, 1977.
III. Design Changes Design Changes have been reviewed by the inspector. The results of this review are contained in paragraph 2 of the Details Section of this report.
IV.
Unusual Occurrences None identified during this inspection.
V.
Other Significant Findings A.
Current Findings
,
1.
Plant Status
-
During operations on December 9, 1976 it was d0cermined that
'
"A" condenser had a possible tube leak. The power was reduced to 95% and the water box for the south half of the condenser
'
was isolated. The leaking tube was isolated and plugged and l
the reactor subsequently returned to 100% power.
2.
Unresolved Items a.
DCR 435 - Cables Pisced in "Q" Trays Although DCR 435 " Modifications to Vibration and Loose Parts Monitoring System to Add Redundant Channels and
.
Recording Instrumentation" was considered non "Q" the cables were run in several safeguard related trays. No evidence was available which would establish that the placement of the cables in the "Q" trays had been considered relative to fill and other limitations. This matter remains unresolved pending a determination that cable tray routing and fill limitations have been satisfied.
(DETAILS, paragraph 2)
O
~ d. -
(continued)
- _ it.
.C.F-
._
W
+ --
n
,-
. - - - -
s.-
-,-vw
- -. - __ - _
___ _ -.
___
e
.
.
-..
..
.
m-4-
'
.
b.
DCR 145 - Modifications to Auxiliary and Fuel Handling Crane A Job Order for modification of the crane circuitry to permit the 100 ton and 10 ton Auxiliary Crane to lift 125% of design weight without saturation of its reactors
could not be located. This matter remains unresolved.
(DETAILS, paragraph 2)
c.
Procedural Conflicts - QA Procedure 1004.01 Lnd NSP II-5 Conflicting requirements have been established in the tuo procedures which govern the handling of design changes.
This matter remains unresolved.
(DETAILS, paragraph 2)
B.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items 75-14 E.b(2) Preventive Maintenance Activities The licensee has drafted a " Preventive Maintenance Control Procedure" No. 1005.02 which is presently under review by the PSC. The procedure, utilizing a computer program for the production of Master File Listings and PM Schedule, provides a program for the mechanical, electrical, instrumentation and control and HP groups.
h This matter remains open pending approval of the procedure and establishment of the program.
76-05 V.A.1 Failure to Provide Procedures Committed to in the FSAR Preparation of procedures 1101.01 " Plant Limits and Precautions" and 1101.02 " Plant Set Points," is continuing. This matter remains unresolved pending completion and approval of the procedures prior to plant startup following the refueling (scheduled for January 1977).
,
VI.
Management Meeting A.
Entrance Meeting A pre-inspection meeting was held with Messrs. J. W. Anderson and D. R. Hamblen on December 6, 1976.
Mr. Anderson was informed that the following items would be reviewed during the inspection:
1.
Design, Design Changes and Modifications
,
2.
Plant Operations 3.
Core Thermal Power
.
(continued)
-
,,
,
.T:;>
L. -
U.
.
__
- _.
p
_--
- _ _-., - - - - -
- -..
..
.. -.
-
_
- -
- _.
.
_. - -.__.- -
...
.
.-
.
.
--
.
,
.
-5-I i
.
l 4.
Shutdown Margin Calculations 5.
Previous Items of Noncompliance 6.
Previous Unreselved Items i
'
E.
Exit Meeting At the conclusion of the inspection on December 10, 1976 an exit i
meeting was held with representatives of the ANO-1 plant staff, t
^
The following individuals were present:
J. W. Anderson, Jr., Plant Superintendent G. H. Miller, Assistant Plant Superintendent B. A. Terwilliger, Supervisor Plant Operations
.
C. A. Italbert, Technical Support Engineer P. W. Jacobs, Production Engineer L. W. Humphrey, Quality Assurance Engineer D. R. Hambien, Quality Control Inspector The inspector discussed the following items:
1.
The noncompliance as a result of failure to follow the
'
,
procedure regarding design control.
(DETAILS, paragraph 2)
2.
The resolution of previous items of noncompliance.
(Section II of the Summary of Findings)
3.
The unresolved item regarding DCR 435.
(DETAILS, paragraph 2)
4.
The unresolved item regarding DCR 445.
(DETAILS, paragraph 2)
5.
The unresolved item regarding procedural conflicts.
(DETAILS, paragraph 2)
6.
The status of previously identified unresolved items.
(Section V.3 of the Summary of Findings)
.
(continued)
_....
_.
- -?;. ~~
~?
J
~
-r
.--
-
y---
,
.,wy.,
-n,
--
-.,,-..c
-.y
-,,-,
,,, -
9.--
r-,-. -
,y.
,.,.,y,,-
--my
- - ----
--wee--
._. -
.
.
,
--. - -
-~- =
..
r
s..
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
The following individuals, in addition to those listed under the Exit Meeting section of this report, were contacted during this inspection.
'
' !
Arkansas Power & Light Company (AP&L)
R. T. Elder, Assistant Iastrumentation & Control Supervisor
T. M. Martin, Supervisor Plant Maintenance B. G. Parker, Shift Supervisor J. Robertson, Assistant Operations Supervisor
- P. C. Rogers, Reactor Engineer R. M. Simmons, Plant Opera *or T. Templeton, Shift Supervisor l
R. L. Turner, Assistant Instrumentation & Control Supervisor
'
2.
Design. Design Changes and Modifications
,
The object of the inspection was to verify that:
i a.
Design changes were made in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59.
b.
Design changes were reviewed and approved in accordance with Technical Specifications.
c.
Design changes were conducted in accordance with formal procedures.
d.
Specifications and codes governing the work were identified.
- e.
Inspections required by code or standards were identified.
f.
Acceptance test procedures which define acceptance values or standards were provided where required.
g.
Test records confirmed the warformance of equipment modified conformed to Technical So..:ifications and acceptance standards and the performance was rev1 sed and approved.
.
h.
Operating proceanres were modified and approved in accordance with Technical Specifications.
1.
As-built drawings were changed to reflect the modifications.
(continued)
u-3-
m
- ~ ~ - -,.
-
.-
n
,r--
,- -
,
--,,,,.
,
- - -
- - - - - -,-
.
.
_.
-_ _
_
_._.
___
- _____
_- _ __
__
.
-
..
O
~
~
_7_
V l
,
i A number of Design Change Requests from the period December 1975 to' December 1976 were selected for detailed review. These were:
.
410 1/14/76 Non "Q" CRD Modification to Gate Drive Circuit 412 2/9/76
"Q" Add Provisions for Batch Make-up to Core Flood
,
,
Tank 421 3/18/76 Non "Q" Addition of Lapsed Time Counters to Control System of FEF-8 A&B, 14 A&B, 15, 37 A&B, 38 A&B,
'
VSF-9
435 5/7/76 Non "Q" Modification to Vibration and Loose Parts Monitoring System to Add Redundant Channels and'
Recording Instrumentation 441 6/9/76
"Q" Sealing of Incore Instrumentation Guide Tubes for Failed Incore Instrumentation Strings to Enable Removal and Examination of the String e
.
4A2 6/22/76
"Q" Connection of Vibration and Loose Parts Monitor-
"l ing System to Nuclear Instrumentation System to
'
Provide Signal for Neutron Noise Channel
,
444
'6/25/76
"Q" Reroute Piping on Emergency Feedwater System to Facilitate Repair of Leak
,
,
,
445 6/21/76
"Q" Modifications to the Auxiliary Building Fuel Handling Crane to Permit the Crane to Life 125% of Design Weight and to Extend the Travel to Provide Access to the New Fuel Pool 455 10/12/76 Non "Q" Add Reset Inhibit Contacts to CRDM Control Circuitry
,
Review of the DCR's, records, the procedures controlling the issuance, review and approval of DCR's and discussions with representatives of the licensee established that the objectives of items 'a' through
'h'
above were being met. However, it was determined that contrary to Procedure 1004.01 " Design Control," Revision 3, Temporary Change #4, paragraph 4.1.2, the Quality Control Engineer was not issuing Design t-
'
Change Request Control Numbers nor was he maintaining the Design
Control Register. Paragraph 4.1.2 states in part that "The cognizant supervisor obtains a Design Change Request Control Number from the Quality Control Engineer. The Quality Control Engineer maintains the Design Control Register for status control of pending or completed Design Change Requests." This particular responsibility was being Performed by a Production Engineer.
(continued)
_ _.;..
-
.
..T'
,,., - +
... _
_. _ _ _ _ _,.
_,,,
,, _ -
. __,
,
,, _... _ _.., _ _. _ - _....,. _.,, _. -,
, ---,_,,.
_
-
.
.. --
-
- - _ _ _
_ _ _ _
_ __.
.__ ____
__
_
_
.
.
.
.
- -.-.
-
'
t
.
.
8-
-
,
The inspector informed the licensee that failure to follow this
- procedure was an infraction and was contrary to the requirements of l
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V.
l Item 'i' above was not reviewed since AP&L is in the process of j
evaluating their Drawing Control Program which is not expected to j
be complete until April 1, 1977 (see 76-15 I.B.2 under Section II l
of the Summary of Findings section of this report).
l[
Additional problems were also found in the review of DCR's 435, 445 and
in the review of procedures 1004.01 and NSP II-5, as follows :
DCR 435 " Modification to Vibration and Loose Parts Monitoring System to Add Redundant Channels and Recording Instrumentation," is considered.
l non "Q".
However, the routing of the cables utilized "Q" cable trays SR405, SR406, ER401, ER402, ER404, ER405, ER406, ER4005,
.
ER4009 and ER4013. No evidence was available which would establish
,
that placement of the cables in the "Q" trays was considered relative
to fill and any other required limitations. The inspector indicated that this would remain as an unresolved matter DCR 445 " Modification to the Auxiliary Building Fuel Handling Crane to Permit the Crane to Lift 125% of Design Weight and to Extend the Travel to Provide Access to the New Fuel Pool" was designated as a i
-
"Q" item. However, a job order for modification to the 10 ton
anvilfary and the 100 ton crane circuitry to prevent saturation of the crane reactors could not be located. JO #1566, dated July 23, 1976, for modification of the stops was available for review and was completed and approved as required. This item will remain open pending deteruination of the status of the modification of the control circuitry.
Review of QC Procedure 1004.0.'. " Design Control," Revision 3, temporary
change #4, dated January 7, 1976, and Nuclear Services Procedure
,
NSP II-5 " Design Change," Revision 5, dated October 1, 1976, established that the two procedures contain conflicting requirements. QC Procedure
,
1004.01, in paragraph 2.0, states that the procedura controls the design activittaa of the Nuclear Services Section. Paragraph 4.1 stateis that design changes are initiated by plant personnel and reviewed and
spproved under this procedure and paragraph 4.1.3 states that design
_
change requests are submitted to the QCE for review of the "Q" determination.
Nuclear Services Procedure NSP II-5, in paragraph 4.3.1, states that personnel may initiate a design change request and paragraph 4.3.3 states that design change requests are submitted to the QAE or to the
,
'
QCE for review of the "Q" determination.
i a
(
(continued)
g Y.I
.
, emm,q m e y,. n -
o
'e a
a a-
&
- *
v
+
w y gv-
- w. *-
yw.y- -. -
,9 y-v
+-
-wr-+w5+,e-
--,-w-seww---,--m---m-+vw-gg
.ww w-me*g--y,gew w
.
_
_ _
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _._-__
,
.
.___ __ _. _.. -
.
_9_
DCR 455 is an example of a design change which was initiated by
-
the Nuclear Services group under NSP II-5 and was reviewed for the
"Q" determination by the QAE in Little Rock.
t This matter will remain open pending' resolution of the apparent I
conflicting requirements between the two procedures.
.
3.
Review of Plant Operations During the inspection, the conduct of plant operations was reviewed to determine that selected phases of facility operations conform to requirements of the facility license and the licensee's administrative procedures.
a.
The inspector reviewed Shift Logs and Operating Records and verified the following:
(1) Control room log sheet entries for the period 9/22/76 to 12/8/76 were filled out, initialed and reviewed.
(2) Auxiliary log sheet entries for the period 9/22/76 to 12/8/76 were filled out, initialed and reviewed.
(3) ANO-1 Station Log: entTies made in this log from 9/22/76 to 10/8/76 were observed to be filled out, initialed and h
reviewed.
V (4) Log book reviews were being conducted by the staff.
('5) Standing orders and special orders did not conflict with the intent of Technical Specification requirements.
(6) Bypass and Jumper Log entries from 9/22/76 to 12/7/76 did
,
not contain bypassing that conflicts with Technical Specification requirements.
,
(7) Trouble reports from 11/1/76 to 12/8/76 to confirm there were no violations of Technical Specification reporting
,
or LCO requirements, b.
The inspector conducted a tour of accessible areas and included the following observations:
(1) Monitoring instrumentation was recording as required.
(2) Radiation controls were promptly established.
(continued)
W
.f..
.-
L m
=
.
.
.
-
- - _
--
_.
.-. -
_ _ _
._
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
A
'
n
J (3) Plant housekeeping conditions were adequate.
~
(4) There was a significant fluid leak from drip pump A.
However, the licensee is aware of the leak and is continuing to monitor it, i
(5) There was no excessive piping vibrations. Pipehangers/
seismic restraint settings and oil levels were satisfactory.
(6) Selected valves were properly positioned.
(7) Discussion with a control room operator pertaining to tne reasons for selected lighted annunciators.
(8) Plant tours are conducted by the plant superintendent and the shift supervisor on duty consistent with QA program /
admit 1strative procedures.
(9) The control room manning was in conformance with the require-ments of 10 CFR 50.54(k) and the facility Technical Specifi-cations.
(10) Equipment caution and lockout tag information was reviewed.
Hold tag 7232, which was installed on P-50B on April 2, 1976, O
was observed to still be in place. However, the hold card index maintained in the control room indicated that it had been removed October 12, 1976. The inspector informed the licensee that this was a nonconformance for failure to follow QC Procedure 1004.19 " Hold, Caution and QC Tagging Procedure." However, an audit of hold tags was performed December 3 and 6, 1976 during which similar problems were found. Corrective action is underway and a reaudit is scheduled for December 17, 1976.
,
The inspector also conducted drop-in visits to the control room throughout the inspection and at shift changeover. Control room manning requirements and other operations were observed to be
.-
acceptable.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
4.
Core Thermal Power The inspector reviewed the licensee's core thermal power evaluation procedures and records to verify that:
a.
Initial conditions required 1, the plant procedure were met.
{ continued)
(Av)
.. _.
7.-.-
- 7
_
,
.
-
.
.
..
.
....
.
-
.
.
-11-
'd b.
Test instruments utilized meet the applicable accuracy and
-
calibration specifications.
c.
Physical properties obtained from figures and curves correspond-
-
ing to specific reactor conditions have been accurately established and are properly translated and recorded on data
-
forms.
.
d.
The configuration of the Steam Generator Blowdown System is established in the procedure and during the data acquisition Period as required by the plant procedure.
a.
The licensee's equation and calculations are correct.
f.
The frequency of evaluations is as prescribed by the Technical Specifications.
Procedure 1103.16 " Heat Balance Calculations" Revision 0, temporary change #1, dated November 25, 1975, is utilized for hand calculation of core thermal power. However, normal core thermal power information is extracted from the computer and is utilized in the calibration of the power range linear amplifier. Procedure 1103.16 is utilized if the computer is not working or if a hand calibration is otherwise required.
The inspector reviewed the procedura and found it to contain the O\\
attributes of items 'a' through 'e' above. However, a hand calculation had not been required in 1976. No Technical Specification requirements are specified other than for the calibration of the power range linear amplifiers. The latter is performed utilizing procedure
.
1304.32 " Power Range Linear Amplifier Calibration at Power" Revision 0,
'
terporary change #6, dated November 11, 1975.
A number of the latter calibrations were reviewed by the inspector for the period Octo'cer 29, 1976 through November 23, 1976. All were considered acceptable.
e The inspector had no additional questions in this area.
5.
Reactor Shutdown Margin The inspector reviewed the licensee's determination of reactor shutdown margin procedure and records.o verify that:
a.
The procedure is technically adequate.
b.
The most recent crit al condition, prior to shutdown, have been accurately provided.
(continued)
.,.
O
..
' ' '....
f
$
I
.
. _.,. -.
_..
. -
- -
. -. -
..
-- _ _._. ~.,
. -.
.
~ -.. -.
,
.-
.
-..
-
.
..
_12_
c.
The core reactivity change due to boron, full length control
.
rod banks worth change, part length rods, temperature, changes in power, xenon, fuel burnup, burnable poison depletion, samarium and other fission products, have been properly obtained.
,
d.
Conditions and actions prescribed by the Technical Specifications
-
were met.
e.
Shutdown margin calculations have been performed at the frequency
'
specified in the Technical Specifications.
f.
Changes made in boron concentration are verified by chemical
. analysis.
g.
Changes in shutdown margin due to rod misalignment has been addressed as required by the Technical Specifications.
The inspector reviewed Operations Procedure 1103.15 " Reactivity Balance Calculations,".Rev. 3, temporary change #3, dated November 13, 1976 and records of calculation made one per shift for November 12, 1976 through November 14, 1976.
The inspector had no additional questions in this area.
6.
In-offica Review of Event Reports
\\s
~
The inspector performed an in-office review of the following licensee event reports.
76-24 Leaks 12 Socket Welds in Discharge of Decay Heat Cooler E35A 76-25 Leak in "B" Decay Heat Discharge Line 76-26 Socket Weld Leak in Primary Makeup Pump P36C Suction Relief
'
Line 76-27 Exceeding Power Level Cutoff Without Proper Xenon Reactivity Conditions 76-28 Leaks in Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System 76-29 Leak in Primary Makeup Pump P36C Suction Relief Line
'
76-30 Failure of Primary Makeup Pump P36B The above reports have been closed out based on review within the regional office.
g..
..
.
g
\\g,,
.
..
.-
._. _ _ _ -
_ _.. _.
.. _.. _ _ _.. _
_
__
_.. _
_...
-