IR 05000313/1981021
| ML20030B785 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 08/03/1981 |
| From: | Callan L, Hunnicutt D, Johnson W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20030B771 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-313-81-21, 50-368-81-20, NUDOCS 8108240215 | |
| Download: ML20030B785 (11) | |
Text
.
..
__
. _ _
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Docket:
50-313/81-21 License DPR-51 50-368/81-20 NPF-6 Licensee: Arkansas Power and Light Company P. O. Box 551 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Facility Name:
Arkansas Nuclear One (AN0), Units 1 and 2 Inspection At:
AN0 Site, Russellville, Arkansas Inspection Conducted:
June 21 - July 22, 1981 Inspector :
hl Nw,mf 8/2/8l g W. D. Johnson, Senior Resident Reactor Inspector
/
' Date hi)
wtNa-f 8 T 8/
o L. J. CalTan, Resident Reactor In quetor
' / Date j
Approved:
kbd#
8[9/8[
D. M. Hunnicutt, Chief, Reactor Project
' Date
'
Section No. 2 Inspection Summary Inspection conducted during period of June 21 through July 22, 1981 l
(Report 50-313/81-21)
l
,
\\
\\
Areas Inspected:
Routine, announced inspection including Surveillance Observation, Maintenance, Follow-up on Licensee Event Reports, Operational Safety Verification, and Follow-up on Previously Identified Items.
The inspection involved 56 inspector-hours on site by two NRC inspectors.
Results: Within the five areas inspected, no violations or deviations were
<
identified.
!
G108240215 810004 ^
DR ADOCK 05000313 PDR
l
'
i l
Inspection conducted during period of June 21 through July 22, 1981 (Report 50-368/81-20)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, announced inspection including Operational Safety Verification, Surveillance Observation, Maintenance, Startup, Testing Following Refueling, Follow-up on Licensee Event Reports, Follow-up on Previously Identified Items, Review of Plant Operations (Refueling),
and Compliance with NRC Order of Aprii 20, 1981.
The inspection involved 97 inspector-hours on site by two NRC inspectors.
Results:
Within the eight areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
l
!
I i
!
..
..
-.
-
-
-..
..
-. -..-
- _ - _ _
-
-
-.
_ _ - - - - - - - - - - - -. _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - -
- - - - - - -. - - -. - -. -
,
-
.
DETAILS SECTION 1.
Persons Contacted J. P. O'Hanlon, ANO General Manager D. Rueter, Director, Technical and Environmental Services G. H. Miller, Engineering & Technical Support Manager B. A. Baker, Operations Manager T. N. Cogburn, Plant Analysis Superintendent E. C. Ewing, Plant Engineering Superintendent L. Sanders, Maintenance Manager J. McWilliams, Unit 1 Operations Superintendent J. Albers, Planning and Scheduling Supervisor D. D. Snellings, Technical Analysis Superintendent M. J. Bolaois, Health Physics Superintendent V. Pettus, Mechanical Maintenance Superintendent L. Taylor, Operations Technical Engineer R. Tucker, Electrical Maintenance Superintendent D. Lomax, Nuclear Engineer P. Rogers, Nuclear Support Supervisor J. Merryfield, Mechanical Maintentnce Supervisor The inspectors also contacted other plant personnel, including operators, technicians and administrative personnel.
2.
Follow up or Previously Identified Items (Units 1 & 2)
(Closed) Open Item 368/7915-04:
Sodiuin Hydroxide Tank.
l The licensee has installed DCP 80-2057 which replaced the sodium hydroxide tank immersion heater with tank heat tracing and insulation.
(Closed) Open Item 313/7922-03; 368/7921-04:
Procedure to assure that minimum educational, experience or qualification requirements are satisfied for key personnel.
As reported in inspection report 313/80-17; 368/80-17, the licensee has issued procedure 1023.02, " Employment and Place-ment Procedure," but, Section 4.4 of Attachment 1 conflicted with Technical Specification 6.3 with respect to the qualifi-cation requirements of the Health Physics Supervisor.
This conflict was removed with the issuance of Revision 1 to this procedure on June 8, 1981.
. - _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-
-
~.
-
-
.
._
.-.
._
__. - -
-
.. -
i
i
(0 pen)
Violation 368/8110-02:
Procedural noncompliance during refueling operations.
'.
The licensee's response to this item correctly pointed out the lack of nuclear safety concerns asscciated with the instance cited.
However, the inspector was concerned that this instance of procedural noncompliance could have been caused by inadequate prerefueling operator training.
As
,
corrective action to prevent recurrence the licensee, in his
!
response, referred to preparatory briefings associated with the onset of each refueling.
Due to the length of time between i
refueling outages and the importance of functions performed by operators during a refueling outage, the " preparatory briefings"
,
J should be well planned and formalized, such as by adding a
{
Refueling Refresher Training section to the requalification J
training program.
This training should include (but not be j
limited to) the following topics:
l
Refueling Shuffle Procedure
.
)
Fuel Handling Procedure
.
i
!
Applicable Refueling Technical Specifications
.
!
Applicable Refueling Emergency Procedures
.
This item remains open pending licensee action to develop an appropriate formal refueling refresher training program.
(Closed) Open Item 368/8110-05:
Broken pipe support on reactor coolant pump (RCP) seal pressure sensing line.
During the recent outage the licensee inspected similar RCP i
piping connections and made repairs or upgrades as necessary.
,
l (Closed) Violations 313/8003-01, 313/8006-01, 368/8006-01, 368/8011-03:
High radiation area access control.
,
The NRC inspectors have reviewed the licensee's corrective actions for these items.
The licensee's efforts to improve access control over high radiation areas during the past l
year have reduced the potential for personnel radiation overexposure and enhanced his ability to comply with NRC
,
regulations in this area.
!
- -
-- ---
--
.,
. - - -
- -
-
__ _ _-_
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _
_
--.__.
_ _ _
_ _. _ _ _. _. _
__.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
_
__
i
,I
'
i i
,
i
.
3.
Licensee Event Reports Follow-up (Units 1 and 2)
l Through direct observations, discussions with licensee personnel, and
!
review of records, the following event reports were reviewed to determine i
that reportability requirements were fulfilled, immediate corrective
'
action was accomplished, and corrective action to prevent recurrence had been accomplished in accordance with technical specifications.
a Unit 1 i
- 7811
- 8009
- 8041
- 7816
- 8016 8026 L
- 7901
- 8025 8030 j
- 7909
- 8037 8040
~
"8002
- 8039 8108 j
Those LER's above marked with an asterisk (*) were reports concerning
failures of components of the Unit 1 Hydrogen Purge Systems.
The i
licensee has increased the reliability of these systems by the per-formance of a design modification which added solenoid valves in the service water seal lines to the compressors.
i Unit 2
!
7925 8088 8114
!
8039 8089 8116 J
8057 8105 8118 8083 8106 8121 8086 8111
,
No violations or deviations were identified.
l 4.
Startup Testing - Refueling (Unit 2)
The NRC inspectors observed or reviewed the tests described below to verify that they were performed in accordance with plant procedures and Technical Specification requirements and to verify that test data met l
acceptance criteria.
!
'
A.
Heat Balance Calculation The NRC inspector reviewed licensee procedure 2103.16, " Heat Balance Calculation," data taken, and calculations per-
,
formed in accordance with this procedure on July 9,1981.
No
'
,
l technical inadequacies were identified in the review of the procedure, but a procedural error in the data processing was identified,
!
!
!
!
I i
'
. - _.,.. ~. -. _, - _ _... -. _ _ _.. _ - _. - _ - -., _ - - _ - - _ -. - -. - _, _.. _,, _ _ _ _ _,.., -, _ _ _ _.,,,..,, -
,.. _,.. _
-
.
resulting in the licensee performing the procedure a second time.
A review of the second set of data and calculations revealed no discrepancies.
Using the licensee collected raw data, the NRC inspector independently performed the heat balance calculction; and the results of this calculation compared favorably with the licensee's results and with the COLSS computed calorimetric power.
No violations or deviations were identified.
B.
Core Power Distribution The NRC inspector reviewed the results of procedure 2302.39, " Core Power Distribution Following Refueling," and performed independent calculations to determine the following for the July 1981, 50%
power level data:
The RMS value of the differences between the predicted
.
and measured relative power densities for individual fuel assemblies was 3.5.
The measured relative power density for individual fuel
.
assemblies was within 10% of the predicted values.
The RMS value of the difference between predicted and
.
measured axial power distribution was 2.3.
The measured values for F were within 4% of the predicted valueUE, F, F, and F
.
z
Through data review and discussions with the licensee nuclear engineer, l
the NRC inspector determined the following:
'
The data obtained from an incore flux map snapshot is
.
processed with the CECOR-1 code.
The control rod positions, core power level and burnup at
.
the time of the flux map were part of the input to the code calculations.
Predicted power distribution was compared with measured
.
(CECOR) power distribution as discussed above.
The licensee uses procedure 2302.01 to compare outputs
.
from symmetric incore detector strings for intercalibration.
The snapshot data uses inputs from the fixed incore
.
detector strings.
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _
. _ - - - _ _ _ - _ _ _.__ _-
-. _ _ -
.
-
. _.. _
_ - - -
- - _ - _ _
- -
-
_
.
.
!
<
l
i j
Axial shape index is being maintained with the allowable
.
j limits.
.
i The various uncertainty factors and flux peaking augmenta-
.
'
tion factors are included in the CECOR input.
Procedures 2302.39 and 2302.05 are used to compare F*Y
.
j with the values used by CPC/COLSS.
!
The calculated hot channel factors reflect applicable
.
!
uncertainty and penalty factors.
I The azimuthal power tilt limits are bang observed.
'
.
No violations or deviations were identified.
C.
Isothermal Temperature Coefficient At Power The NRC inspector revie.ced procedure 2302.09, " Moderator Temperature
'
Coefficient At Power," and performed independent calculations using i
the licensee's data.
The inspector verified the following:
Using a predicted value for the power coefficient reactivity,
.
the isothermal temperature coefficient was calculated at 50%
reactor power.
This value was then verified using the calculated power coefficient of reactivity obtained by procedure 2402.43, " Reactivity Coefficients at Power Using Center CEA."
The calculated values for moderator temperature coefficient
.
and isothermal temperature coefficient were within the allowable tolerances of the predicted values.
The plant conditions during the measurements corresponded
.
to the assumed plant conditions used in obtaining the analytical predictions.
The procedure, 2302.09, was technically adequate and the
.
initial conditions, precautions and limitations were observed during the conduct of the test.
'
No violations or deviations were identified.
!
i
_ - -,. _. _,. _... - - _ _..., _. _, _.., _.,
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. _ _ _ _ _ - -
_ _ _ _. _-
. _ _.
._.
. _ ___
..
.
,
.
8
,
D.
Power Coefficient of Reactivity
,
The NRC inspector reviewed procedure 2302.43, " Reactivity Coefficients At Power Using Center CEA," and performed independent calculations
using the licensee's data.
The inspector verified the following:
The measurements were obtained using a technically adequate
.
,
procedure, and the initial conditions and precautions of t
the procedure were met.
Both the temperature and power coefficients were calculated
.
using an iterative process that begins with assumed (pre-dicted) values for the temperature and power coefficients and then substitutes the calculated values of the coef-
i ficients in the future iterations until the old and new
!
values of the temperature and power coefficients agree within + 0.005 x 10-4.
The calculated power coefficient of reactivity was within
.
,
the required + 0.3 x 10-4 Ap/% power of the predicted value at50%powerT-1.11x10-4Ap/% power).
'
i No violations or deviations were identified.
,
S.
Monthly Surveillance Observation (Units 1 and 2)
The inspector observed the Technical Specification required / monthly surveillance testing on the Unit 1 Reactor Protection System Channel D (Surveillance Procedure 1304.40) and verified that testing was performed in accordance with adequate procedures, that test instrumentation was calibrated, that limiting conditions for operation were met, that removal and restoration of the affected components were accomplished, that test
'
j results conformed with Technical Specifications and procedure requirements i
and were reviewed by personnel other than the individual directing the i
test, and that any deficiencies identified during the testing were properly reviewed and resolved by appropriate management personnel.
'
I The inspector also witnessed portions of the following test activities:
Containment Overcurrent Protective Devices Test, Unit 2 (Procedure 2405.03);
and Chlorine and Radiation Detector Functional Test (Procedure 2104.34 Supplement 3)
!
The Containment Overcurrent Protective Devices Test for Unit 2 (Procedure 2405.03) was performed to satisfy the surveillance requirements of Unit 2
!
Technical Specification 3.8.2.5.
This Technical Specification requires that a fraction of the total number of Containment Overcurrent Protective Devices be tested every 18 months; however, the licensee determined that
no auditable record existed of this test having been performed for
i i
!
- - _. -
.
_._,__, _.. _ - _... _ - _ _ -.. _ _ - _ _., _ _., _. _ _ _ _ _. _,......, _, _. _.. - - _ _ _ _.. -
_
-
.
approximately the previous three years.
The licensee does not consider this failure to perform the required surveillance in the specified time interval to have affected containment overcurrent protective davices operability and, therefore, does not consider this matter a reportable occurrence.
The NRC inspector does consider this failure to perform the required surveillance in the specified time interval to have con-stituted a failure to meet the operability requirements of Technical Specification 3.8.2.5 and, therefore, is a reportable occurrence as defined by Technical Specification 6.9.1.9.b.
This will remain unresolved pending further review.
(368/8120-1).
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Operational Safety Verification (Units 1 and 2)
The inspectors observed control room operations, reviewed applicable logs and conducted discussions with control room operators.
The inspec-tors verified the operability of selected emergency systems, reviewed tagout records and verified proper return to service of affected com-ponents.
Tours of accessible areas of the units were conducted to observe plant equipment conditions, including potential fire hazards, fluid leaks, and excessive vibrations and to verify that maintenance requests had been initiated for equipment in need of maintenance.
The inspectors, by observation and direct interview, verified that the physical security plan was being implemented in accordance with the station security plan.
The inspectors observed plant housekeeping / cleanliness conditions and verified implementation of radiation protection controls.
The inspector walked down the accessible portions of the Unit 2 Trains A and B Diesel Fuel Oil, Unit 2 Trains A and B Na OH Addition to Reactor Building Spray, Unit 1 Diesel Starting Air systems to verify operability.
The inspector also witnessed portions of the radioactive waste system controls associated with radwaste shipments and barreling.
These reviews and observations were conducted to verify that facility i
operations were in conformance with the requirements established under Technical Specifications, 10 CFR, and administrative procedures.
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Monthly Maintenance Observation (Units 1 and 2)
Station maintenance activities of safety-related systems and components listed below were observed / reviewed to ascertain that they were conducted in accordance with approved procedures, regulatory guides and industry codes or standards and in conformance with Technical Specificaticns.
__
_ _
.
__
-
-
.
_
_.
_. -.
_
.
.
. -. - - _ _ _
.
.
.
The following items were considered during this review:
the limiting conditions for operations were met while components or systems were removed from service; approvals were obtained prior to initiating the work; activities were accomplished using approved procedures and were inspected as applicable; functional testing and/or calibrations were performed prior to returning components or systems to service; quality control records were maintained; activities were accomplished by qualified personnel; parts and materials used were properly certified; radiological controls were implemented; and, fire prevention controls were implemented.
Work requests were reviewed to determine status of outstanding jobs and to assure that priority is assigned to safety related equipment maintenance which may affect system performance.
The following maintenance activities were observed / reviewed:
Replacement and test of Unit 1 Reactor Coolant Pump Seal,
.
Maintenance Procedure 1401.28 (Job Order 6251).
Repair of leaking seal on Unit 2 Main Feedwater Redundant
.
Isolation Valve 2CV1023-2 (Job Order 8105).
Repair of C4A1, Diesel Generator Air Start Compressor (Job
.
Order 14290).
Replacement of operator motor on 2CV-5630-1 (Job Order 12739).
.
Remove and replace lower primary manway on A OTSG (Job Order
.
06266).
Following completion of maintenance on the Unit 1 Diesel Generators Air Start Compressor, the inspector verified that this system had been returned to service properly.
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Compliance with NRC Order of April 20, 1981 (Unit 2)
This Order modified Facility Operating License NPF-6, including additional Technical Specifications which require periodic surveillance over the life of the plant and which specify limiting conditions for operation for cer-tain reactor coolant system pressure isolation valve __
.- __
_ - _ - _ _ _ - _ -
.
_ - _.
-
- - -
._-
. - - _
.-
,
..
.
..
,
i
!
i
!
The revised Technical Specifications require leak testing of the following
'
check valves, individually, to demonstrate operability following each refueling, following each time the plant is placed in a cold shutdown condition if testing has not been accomplished in the preceding nine months, and following maintenance, repair or replacement:
2SI13A 2SI14A 2SI15A 2SI13B 2SI14B 2SI15B
<
2SI13C 2SI14C 2SI15C
2SI130 2SI14D 2SI15D i
OP 2102.01 requires a leak check of these check valves prior to plant
startup from a cold shutdown condition. This test is performed in accor-dance with Supplement 3 to OP 2102.01.
The inspector reviewed the results of this test which was performed on June 24, 1981.
The acceptance I
criteria of this procedure are consistent with the requirements of Technical Specification Table 3.4.6.1.
The results of this test indicated a zeco leak rate for all of the above check valves except 2SI14A which had a leak rate of 0.16 gallons per minute.
No violations or deviations were identified.
i 9.
Review of Plant Operations (Refueling) (Unit 2)
<
The NRC inspector witnessed the Unit 2 startup following refueling and verified:
The control rod withdrawal sequence was properly defined and
.
followed.
All surveillance tests required to be performed prior to startup
.
had been satisfactorily completed.
The startup was performed in accordance with approved procedures
.
that had been revised to reflect changes made to the facility during the refueling outage.
Startup activities were conducted in accordance with Technical
'
.
Specification requirements.
No violations or deviations were identified.
,
10.
Exit Interview 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.
I
-
-.
-
- -
.
-
- -
- - - -
- -.. -