IR 05000313/1981014
| ML20004F822 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 04/27/1981 |
| From: | Cummins J, Randy Hall, Jaudon J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20004F820 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-313-81-14, 50-368-81-12, NUDOCS 8106220474 | |
| Download: ML20004F822 (6) | |
Text
.
.
~
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Report Nos. 50-313/81-14 License Nos. OPR-51 50-368/81-12 NPF-6 Licensee:
Arkansas Power and Light Company Post Office Box 551 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Facility Name:
Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO), Units 1 and 2 Inspection at:
ANO Site, Russellville, Arkansas Inspection conducted:
April 6-10,1981 Inspectors:
//J7/8/
J. E. Cummins, Reactor Inspector, Systems and
' Date and Technical Section (paragraphs 1, 3, 4 and 7)
Yf'?/8/
J. P. Jaudon, Reactor Inspector, Systems
' Dafe and Tachnical Section (paragraphs 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7)
Approved:
M/8/
R. E. Hall, Chief, Systeds and Tecnnical Section Da(e Inspection Summary:
Inspection Conducted on Aoril 6-10. 1981 (Recort Nos. 50-313/81-14; 50-368/81-12)
Areas Insoected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of follow up on previously identified item, organization and administration, nonroutine reporting prcgram and surveillance.
The inspection involved 63 inspector-hours by two NRC inspectors.
Results:
Within the four areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
8106 22 0 //7h
-
. y;
-
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- J. P. O'Hanlon, General Manager
- J. Albers Planning and Scheduling Supervisor
-
- T. H. Cogburn, Plant Analysis Superintendent C. Cole, Planning and Scheduling Coordinator
- E. Ewing, Plant Engineering Superintendent
- L. W. Humphrey, Administrative Manager
- J. McWilliams, Operations Superintendent G. H. Miller, Engineering and Technical Support Manager R. Roderick, Human Resources Supervisor
- E.
L. Sanders, Maintenance Manager
- L. Schempp, Manager Nuclear Quality Control The NRC inspectors also contacted other plant personnel including reat:or operators, maintenance men, electricians, technicians, and administrative personnel.
- Denotes attendance at the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (0 pen) Unresolved (313/8016-03; 368/8016-03).
Problems with control of documents (i.e., drawings).
This item was previously unresolved because the licensee, in the process of 1ssuing revised proceaures for the control of documents, had cancelled the procedure which contained specific guidance for the control of drawings before the replacement procedure was issued.
At the time of the original inspection, the NRC inspector also had found four discrepancies with equipment index lists, which the licensee-controlled as drawings.
During this inspection,the NRC inspector found that the licensee': Pro-cedure 1013.10, Revision 2 (February 2, 1981), " Drawing Control and Distribution," was now in effect.
Review of Procedure 1013.10 revealed that it conttined specific directions to control the issuance of revised drawings.
In summary, this licensee procedure assigned responsibility for-insertion of revised drawings into controlled sets of drawings to personnel assigned to the Drawing Control Section.
The procedure also required that, when a revised drawing was entered into a controlled set of the drawings, the superseded material was to be removed.
The NRC inspector had no further questions concerning this procedure.
The NRC inspector found that the licensee had five outstanding Nonconfor-mance Reports (NCRs) (No. 8'.-083-0, 81-084-0, 81-085-0, 81-9 6-0, and 81-087-0) concerning the failure of drawing control personnel to enter
._ -
.
. -.
5'
.
.
'
changes in various.index lists.
These NCRs were initiated by Document Control against the holders of specific index lists because the holder was unable to produce the index list for change entry.
The NRC inspector was informed by licensee representatives that the licensee had reduced the number of copies of controlled index lists in an effort to provide accountability and control.
This item remains unresolved pending review of the licensee's action to establish and to maintain control of drawings.
3.
Organization and Administration (Units 1 and 2)
The NRC inspector reviewed the licensee's on-site and off-site crganizations to verify conformance with the requirements of the Technical Specifications (Section 6, Administrative Controls).
The scope of this review included personnel qualifications, personnel responsibility and authority, shift crew composition, and Plant Safety Committee and Safety Review Committee membership.
l No violations or deviations were identified.
!
4.
Nonroutine Reporting Program The NRC inspector reviewed the licensee's system for tracking and reporting nonroutine occurrences internally and to the NRC.
The scope of this review included administrative controls and personnel responsibility for reviewing, responding to, and reporting nonroutine occurrences.
The review also included the licensee's system for evaluating and tracking bulletins and circulars.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Surveillance
'
The NRC inspector reviewed the licensee's program for surveillance and for In-Service Testing (IST) of pumps and valves.
The licensee's basic procedure for control of surveillance and the IST of pumps and valves-was reviewed.
This procedure was 1000.09, Revision 1 (January 14, 1981),
l
" Surveillance Test Program Control." The NRC inspector found the follow-ing regarding the licensee's program for surveillance and IST of pumps and valves:
a.
Scheduling of Surveillance The licensee had assigned a planning / scheduling (P/S) coordinator to schedule and to monitor surveillance testing and pump and valve IST.
The P/S coordinator maintained records of when periodic
,
surveillances were completed, when the surveillances are next scheduled, and when the surveillance would exceed the Technical Specification time limit (i.e., either 25% past the required a
-
,
,
.
completion date or 3.25 times the surveillance interval for three consecutive repetitions of the surveillance, which-ever was most limiting.).
The P/S coordinator prepared and sent to the responsible licensee department a notification to conduct the surveillance.
After conduct of the surveil-lance,' the responsible department' returned the notification
-
sheet to the P/S coordinator for update of scheduling records.
Procedure 1000.09 required that each periodic surveillance with a frequency of weekly or greater be handled as described above..The NRC inspector found one instance in which it was no t.'
The Technical Specification requirement for measuring boron concentration in the RWT is a weekly requirement, but the P/S coordinator did not maintain records of this surveillance.
The NRC inspector found records that this surveillance was regularly conducted as required by Technical Specifications and that the results received a high degree of. visibility since they were routinely included on a chemistry report, which was appended to the site Plan-of-the-Day.
This is an unresolved item pending licensee action either to revise the procedural requirement of 1000.09 or to comply with Pro-cedure 1000.09 as written (313/8114-01; 368/8112-01).
The NRC inspector checked the P/S coordinator's records for 34 other Technical Specification and pump and valve ISTs.
One discrepancy was found in that a refueling surveillance for l
Unit 2 was not listed in the P/S coordinator's records.
The P/S coorcinator was aware of the requirement and showed the
[
NRC inspector that the surveillance in question was scheduled l
(for the first time) on the integrated refueling work plan.
The P/S coordinator corrected the records before the NRC inspector left the site.
The NRC inspector had no further questions concerning the scheduling of surveillance tests or the IST of pumps and valves.
b.
List of Surveillances
.
The NRC inspector found that the licensee had in draft form a procedure (1001.09, " Master Test Control List") which was referenced in Procedure 1000.09 and would supersede previous surveillance requirement lists.
The NRC inspector noted that Procedure 1001.09 had to be issued in order to implement the surveillance test control program fully.
The NRC inspector found that the licensee had recognized this requirement also, and had an outstanding nonconformance report (81-080-0)
on this subject.
The NRC inspector reviewed the draft Pro-cedure 1001.09.
Technical Specifications requirements for 28 surveillances selected at random were found to be correctly listed.
However, when the NRC inspector checked four addi-tional surveillance requirements from a recent amendment
-
i
...
, -
(No. 50) to Unit-1 Technical Specifications,'it was found that, for_three of these surveillances, the requirement was listed-in the draft procedure of 1001.09 but without reference to'the Technical Specification paragraph and that the fourth new surveillance was not listed in the draft Procedure 1001.09.
Licensee management stated that this problem had'been previously identified during review of Procedure 1001.09.
The issuance of Procedure 1001.09 in complete form is an unresolved item (313/8114-02; 368/8112-02),
c.
Surveillance Responsibility The NRC inspector noted that licensee Procedure 1000.09 assigned Department Heads the responsibility to review new, revised or additional Technical Specifications for surveillance require-ments which would be the' responsibility of their respective departments. ~ Department Heads are also responsible both to-draft appropriate procedures and to notify the P/S coordinator of the new requirements.
The NRC inspector found no instance in which a new or reviewed Technical Specification surveillance requirement had not been identified; however, the NRC inspector expressed concern to licensee management that the system for identifying new or revised surveillance requirements was fragmented and did not provide sufficient administrative checks to assure that a new surveillance requirement was identified and incorporated into the licensee's system.
d.
Surveillance Procedures The NRC inspector reviewed 30 procedures for the conduct of-surveillance tests or pump and valve ISTs. ~As a result, the NRC inspector determined that the licensee's procedures pro-vided prerequisites and preparations, sufficient instructions
'for the conduct of the test, acceptance criteria, and instruc-tions-(either in the step-by-step conduct of the test or in a special section) for return of the system to a normal con-figuration.
Completed procedures were found to contain evidence of supervisory review.
There were no violations or deviations identified in this area of the inspection.
6.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, violations, or deviations.
Unresolved items disclosed during this inspection are:
l l
m _
-
.
.
.
>
.
...
l
-
Number Reason Unresolved it 313/8114-01;-
Discrepancy between licensee 368/8112-01 Procedure 1000.09 and site practice (paragraph 5.a).
'
.
313/8114-02; Issuance of licensee Procedure
'368/8112-02 1001.09 in complete form (para-graph 5.b).
'A'dditionally, a previously identified unresolved item was reviewed during this inspection.
This item is:
,
Number Reason Unresolved 313/8016-03;
-
Licensee to issue procedure for 368/8016-03 the control of drawings.
Licensee Procedure 1013.10 was found to be in effect.
Licensee to correct problems with index list distribution.
7.
Exit Interview An exit interview was conducted April 10, 1981, with those Arkansas Power and Light personnel denoted in paragraph 1 of this report.
At this meeting, the scope of the inspection and the findings were
'
summarized.
,
.
t'
+
i'
-
-
__
_ _ _
,..m.,
~. -
-