IR 05000313/1980002
| ML19309D400 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 02/06/1980 |
| From: | Callan L, Johnson W, Westerman T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309D388 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-313-80-02, 50-313-80-2, 50-368-80-02, 50-368-80-2, NUDOCS 8004100335 | |
| Download: ML19309D400 (8) | |
Text
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Report Nos. 50-313/80-02 50-368/80-02 Docket No. 50-313 License No. DPR-51 50-368 NPF-6 Licensee: Arkansas Power and Light Company P. O. Box 551 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Facility Name:
Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO), Units 1 and 2 Inspection at:
ANO Site, Russellville, Arkansas
-
Inspection Conducted:
December 22, 1979 - January 21, 1980
'
Inspectors:
O/6/f0 W. D. Johnspa, flesiddnt Inspector
'Date
...
/
M p J/.' Callph, M6sident Reactor Inspector Uatd Approved by:
I'
[
2 -[YO
'
T. F. Westerman, Chief, Reactor Projects Section Date Inspection Summary Inspection conducted during period of December 22, 1979 - Januarv 21, 1980 (Report No. 50-313/80-02)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, announced inspection plant of procedures and routine plant operations.
The inspection involved 47 inspector-hours on-site by two NRC inspectors.
Results: Within the two areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were identified.
,
<
'
8 0 0 410 0 ~33f r
.
l'
I
_ _ _.
-
-
-
.
-
.
-
.
2-
..
Inspection conducted during period of December 22, 1979 - Janua ry 21, 1980 (Report No. 50-368/80-02)
Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection of plant procedures and
'
power ascension testing.
The inspection involved 81 inspector-hours on-site by two NRC inspectors.
Results: Within the two areas inspected one item of noncompliance was identified (infraction - failure to adhere to procedure, paragraph 3).
t A
.
t I
!
!
I f
t
,
L
.
>
.
.
t
l f'
'
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Arkansas Power and Light Company Employees
.
J. P. O'Hanlon, ANO General Manager G. H. Miller, Engineering & Technical Support Manager B. A. Baker, Operations Superintendent T. N. Cogburn, Plant Analysis Superintendent E. C. Ewing, Plant Engineering Superintendent P. Jones, Maintenance Superintendent F. Foster, Operations and Maintenance Manager J. McWilliams, Assistant Operations Superintendent J. Albers, Planning and Scheduling Supervisor D. D. Snellings, Technical Analysis Superintendent The inspectors also contacted other plant personnel, including operators, technicians and administrative personnel.
2.
Procedures (Unit 1)
The inspector continued the procedure review effort which was stated during the previous inspection.
Following discussions with the Assistant Operations Superintendent, the following items remain open.
(a)
Procedure 1202.11, High Activity in Reactor Coolant.
The basis for the action level of IE7 CPM on RE 1237, including the assumed E, in Section I of this procedure was unclear.
The licensee representative agreed to clarify this point for the inspector. Also,Section II of thi' procedure does not specify the I-131 dose equivalent limit of 3.5 microcuries program, nor does it specify the Techtical Specification required action if this limit is reached. The licensee representative agreed to revise this procedure to address this concern.
(0 pen item 313/80-02-01)
(b)
Procedure 1104.04, Decay Heat Removal Operating Procedure -
Section 14.2.2 of this procedure appears to be contradictory.
The licensee representative agreed to review and revise this procedure if necessary.
(0 pen item 313/80-02-02)
(c) Procedure 1102.04, Power Operation - The licensee representative agreed to revise this procedure to correct typographical errors in the labeling of points on the curve of Attachment N.
(0 pen item 313/80-02-03)
!
i l
l l
L
-
.
3.
Inspector Witnessing of 80% Plateau Testing (Unit 2)
During this inspection, the inspector witnessed the performance of six tests at the 80% power plateau. The test witnessed were:
2.800.01 Appendix R Variable Tavg.
2.800.01 Appendix DD Dropped CEA
,
2.800.01 Appendix E Nuclear and Thermal Calibration 2.800.01 Appendix I NSSS Calorimetric 2.800.01 Appendix AA Loss of flow trip with Natural Cir-culation 2.800.01 Appendix U Unit Load Transient Test The following items were verified by the inspector during the performance of these tests:
Latest procedure revision in use
.
Minimum crew requirements met
.
Test prerequisites and initial conditions met
.
Test equipment calibrated
.
Procedure is adequate
.
Crew actions correct and timely
.
Adequate test coordination
.
Test data assembled for analysis
.
Acceptance criteria met (preliminary)
.
,
Licensee's preliminary evaluation is adequate
.
,
l l
,
!
!
Appendix DD was performed in January,1980. The test measures the power distributions resulting from a dropped CEA with reactor power at 50%.
Two individual dropped CEA tests were conducted:
the first employed a full-length rod and the second employed a partial-length rod.
Throughout both test: INCA Verification Files were taken for data reduction and analysis at CE, Windsor.
The inspector noted that all CEAC channels were maintained out of service (in "CEANOP") between the first CEA drop and the second.
Appendix DD, step 2.3 states, "The CEACs shall be reinstated to
,
service immediately following return of the dropped CEA back to the fully withdrawn position."
The licensee's failure to adhere to the requirements of this test procedure is an apparent item of noncompliance with Technical Specification 6.8.1.
(50-368/80-02-01)
With the exception of the above, all tests were observed to be
,
adequately conducted.
No further items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Follow-up on IE Bulletin 79-14 (Unit 2)
During a previous inspection, the inspector independently inspected the piping and hangers associated with isometric drawing 2-CCB-15-2.
The inspector compared his findings to licensee's as-built drawings and no significant discrepancies were identified.
5.
Procedures (Unit 2)
a.
Scope The inspector reviewed selected plant procedures to verify the following:
(1) Review and approval was in accordance with Technical Specifications.
.
(2) Temporary procedure changes during the past year were properly approved and did not conflict with Technical Specifications requirements.
(3)
Procedure changes were made to reflect Technical Specification or license revisions.
.
-
.
(4) Changes made to procedures during the past year were in conformance with 10 CFR 50.59(a) requirements.
(5) Records of changes in procedures made pursuant to 50.59(a)
are maintained as described in 10 CFR 50.59(b).
(6) Overall procedure content is consistent with Technical Specification requirements.
(7) Technical content of certain procedures is adequate to control safety-related operations within applicable Regulatory requirements.
(8)
Selected maintenance procedures include provisions (if applicable) for assuring that safety-related system / components which are exposed to a freezing environment remain functional following such exposure.
(9)
Procedures including checklists and related forms in plant working files are current with respect to revision and temporary change.
The procedures selected for review are listed below.
An asterisk denotes those procedures which were selected for review of technical content.
.
Number Title Revision
- 2102.04 Power Operations R1, PC5
- 2102.05 Operations in the R0 Startup Mode
- 2103.05 Pressurizer Operations R0, PCI
- 2104.04 Shutdown Cooling System R1, PC3
- 2104.05 Containment Spray System R3, PC4
i
- 2104.34 Control Room A/C & Vent R1, PC4 l
- 2105.01 CPC/CEAC Operation R1, PCI l
- 2105.08 Steam Dump and Bypass RO l
Control System 0.P.
i i
,
i
<
,
- _.
.
-.
.
- 2202.29 Pressurizer Systems Failure R0, PC2
.
- 2202.17 Loas of Neutron Flux R1 Indications
- 2202.16 R.C. Pump and Motor R0, PC2 Emergencies
- 2202.26 Loss of S/G Feed R0, PC2
- 2202.11 High Activity in R.C.
R0, PCI
,
- 2202.12 Loss of Instrument Air R0
- 2202.13 Loss of Service Water R0, PCI
- 2202.23 Steam Generator Tube R0, PC4
Rupture 2401.06 Repair of Pressurizer Code R9 Relief Valve 2304.010 SD Cooling & LPS1 Flow R0, PC2 Instrumentation Survey Test 2304.077 Containment Spray Pump R0 Maintenance 2304.119 Pressurizer Level Survey R0, PC2
.
2304.108 CEAC No. 1 Test R1, PCI 2401.03 Pressurizer Code Relief R0, PC1 valve Test b.
Findings (1) & (2) Review and Approval No items of non-compliance or deviations were identified.
>
(3)
Procedure Changes to Reflect Technical Specification No items of non-compliance or deviations were identified
'
,
--
u s-
,
_
._
.
..
.
(4) & (5) 10 CFR 50.59(a) and (b)
,
The licensee was cited in inspection report 50-313/79-16; 50-368/79-14, issued on December 6,1979, for failure of the Plant Safety Committee to render determinations
"
in writing with regard to whether or not procedures reviewed in accordance with Unit 1 and Unit 2 Technical Specification 6.5.1.6.a contitute on unreviewed safety question.
Since the date of the above inspection, the licensee has issued new Station Administrative Procedure 1000.06, entitled
" Procedure Review, Approval and Revision Control."
This procedure was being implemented at the time of this inspection.
When fully implemented, this new procedure should ensure compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59(a) and (b).
(6)
Overall Procedure Content No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
(7)
Technical Content No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
(8)
Freeze Protection Freeze protection considerations were not applicable to the maintenance procedures selected for review.
(9)
Plant Working Files No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Exit Interviews The inspectors met with Mr. J. P. O'Hanlon (Plant General Manager) and other members of the AP&L staff at the end of various segments of -
this inspection.
At these meetings, the inspectors summarized the scope of the inspection and the findings.
O