IR 05000313/1980001
| ML19309C692 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 02/01/1980 |
| From: | Rich Smith, Spangler R, Westerman T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309C683 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-313-80-01, 50-313-80-1, 50-368-80-01, 50-368-80-1, NUDOCS 8004090159 | |
| Download: ML19309C692 (6) | |
Text
-
_
O U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'
0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Report Nos. 50-313/80-01 50-368/80-01
Docket No. 50-313 License No. DPR-51 50-368 NPF-6 Licensee: Arkansas Power and Light Company P. O. Box 551 Lactle Rock, Arkansas 72203 Facility Name: Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO), Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: ANO Site, Russellville, Arkansas Inspection Conducted: January 7-18, 1980 a >
Inspectors:
-- M-,
2-hNb R. G. Spangler, Reactor Inspector ~
Date
}'-N~hb
,
y n
R.' Smith, Reactor Inspector Date Reviewed By:
- 4 ' [b M-/ ~ 9 A T. F. Westerman, Chief, Heactor Projects Section Date Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted during the period of January 7-18, 1980
'
(Report No. 50-313/80-01)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of previously identified items, and control of design and design changes and modifications.
The inspection involved 67 inspector-hours on-site by two (2) NRC inspectors.
Results: Within the two areas inspected, two items of noncompliance were identified (infraction & deficiency - failure to comply with Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, paragraph 2).
'
g o 0 4 0 9 0M t
I
.
_
_
_
.
Inspection conducted during the period of January 7-18, 1980 (Report No. 50-368/80-01)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of previously identified items, and control of design and design changes and modifications.
The inspection involved 8 inspector-hours on-site by two (2) NRC inspectors.
Results: Within the two areas inspected, two items of noncompliance were identified (infraction & deficiency - failure to comply with Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, paragraph 2).
I f
I b
i
!
I
.
-.
.
.
,
'
.
DETAILS SECTION
1.
Persons Contacted J. Anderson, Acting QC Supervisor T. Cogburn, Plant Analysis Superintendent E. Ewing, Plant Engineering Superintendent F. Foster, Manager, Operations and Maintenance T. Green, Training Coordinator J. P. O'Hanlon, ANO General Manager G. H. Miller, Manager, Engineering and Technical Support J. Vandergrif t, Supervisor Training 2.
Inspector Follow-up on Previously Identified Items (Closed) Unresolved Item 313/79-06-03; 368/79-06-03 (Inspection Report 79-06, paragraph 12):
Lack of a comprehensive program for the scheduling and conduct of protective relay inspection and testing for safety-related switchgear.
During the review of documentation associated with the protective relaying (undervoltage, overcurrent, etc.) of Engineered Safety Features Devices, (Example HPI or LPI Pump Motor Breakers), the inspector determined that the calibration of these relay devices were accomplished under job orders issued by Planning and Scheduling during the 1978 refueling outage (Example JO 5804R2, Bus A3 Feeder Relay Checks).
From discussions with licensee personnel it become apparent that these job orders were issued by the Planning and Scheduling Supervisor on his own initiative.
,
The AP&L Quality Assurance Manual-Operations (APL-TOP-1A), Revision 4, i
in Section 14.2.1 states:
"14.2.1 Q-List items shall be subjected to a controlled program of surveillance testing and inspections to ensure that failures or snostandard performances do not remain undetected, and that the required reliability of safety systems is maintained.
The procedure for operational test control (QCP 1004.12) identifies the surveillance tests and inspections to be performed.
Nonconformances discovered shall be documented and resolved as prescribed in the procedure for nonconformances and corrective action (QCP 1004.13).
Controls for assuring that tests are scheduled as required and that test results are obtained are provided by a ccmputerized program or a master test control chart.
If a test or inspection is not performed within its l
,
_
.
-
.
required surveillance interval, the Plant Superintendent is info rmed.
He will take action as necessary."
The above is implemented by Procedure 1004.10, Calibration Control, which assigns responsibility for the calibration of all electrical meters and relays to the maintenance supervisor and requires him, in paragraph 5.2, to utilize some method for scheduling equipment calibrations such as Equipment Identification Lists, Control of Operational Testing Procedure 1004.12, or the Preventative Maintanance Program.
Contrary to the above, the inspector could find no ANO plant schedule of the types described by Procedure 1004.12 for performing protective relay testing.
Futhermore, Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 i
CFR 50 requires that activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by approved procedures and accomplished in accordance with them. The requirement is further amplified by APL-TOP-1A, Section 11.2.1, which states:
"11.2.1 Testing of Q-List structures, systems and components shall be performed by qualified personnel in accordance with approved written test procedures. The supervisor responsible for per-forming the test shall verify that all test equipment is properly calibrated."
Contrary to the above, no procedures were found for the performance of protective relay testing.
This failure to meet the requirements of Criterion V to Appendix B of 10 CFR 50, as amplified by the above referenced sections of APL-TOP-1A, and as implemented by Procedure QCP 1004.10, constitutes on item of noncompliance at the infraction IcVel.
Additionally, Criterion XVII of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 requires that test records be maintained and show, among other things, test results and their acceptability.
APL-TOP-1A amplifies this requirement in section 11.4.2 which states:
"11.4.2 Records of test results shall include at least the following:
(1)
Identity of part of material, system, structure, or component under test.
(2) Date of test.
(3) Data taken.
(4) Name and signature of individual performing test.
(5) Test results and conclusions.
,
!
-
.
(6)
Identity of portable test equipment.
(7) Recommendations for corrective action or retesting resulting from the test.
(8) Review signaturer of cognizant supervisors, and final review signature of Plant Superintendent when required.
Contrary to the above, the existing data sheets do not contain definitive acceptance criteria and therefore no conclusions can be reached based on the recorded test results.
Furthermore, the Maintenance Supervisor did not review the completed data sheets. This constitutes an item of noncompliance at the deficiency level.
The unresolved item is closed by virtue of these actions.
Through discussions with all personnel involved the inspector is confident that these relays have been properly calibrated and are set correctly.
3.
Design, Design Changes and Modifications The inspector reviewed Procedure 1004.01 (Rev. 4), Design Control for ANO Units I and 2.
The inspector also reviewed Draft Procedures 1000.13, Control of Stations Modification; 1032.01, Design Control; and 1032.03, Design Document Drawing Control. The inspector selected ten design changes to ascertain that the design changes were accomplished in accordance with the above procedure, technical specifications, and 10 CFR 50.59.
This review included verification that:
The design changes were properly reviewed and approved.
.
Procedures were required for accomplishing the modifications.
.
Acceptances testing was provided.
.
_
Procedures and acceptance testing was properly reviewed and
.
approved.
i
!
I Installation and testing was accomplished in accordance with
.
these procedures.
l l
Drawings were changed and used as part of the design control for these l
modifications.
!
No items of noncompliance or deviations were note.
..
4.
Independent Inspection - Plant Facilities The inspector noted that in the Engineered Safety Features Control Cabinets C-16 and C-18, located in the Unit 1 Control Room, there were numerous unmarked lifted leads in the cabinets.
Following discussions -
with the inspector, the ANO Maintenance Superintendent determined for a selected sample of these leads that they had been lifted under various design changes or modifications which are still open.
Although this does not appear to be a safety-related problem, it was agreed at the exit meeting that these leads should be removed or labeled
" spare." This item will remain as an open item (313/80-01-01).
5.
Exit interviews Exit meetings were held with Mr. J. P. O'Hanlon and other members of his staff on January 10 and 18,1980, during which time the items described in this report were discussed.