IR 05000313/1982002
| ML20042A635 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 03/02/1982 |
| From: | Randy Hall, Hunnicutt D, Jaudon J, Redano R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042A617 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-313-82-02, 50-313-82-2, 50-368-82-02, 50-368-82-2, NUDOCS 8203230632 | |
| Download: ML20042A635 (7) | |
Text
-
.
APPENDIX C U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
Report:
50-313/82-02 50-368/82-02 Dockets:
50-313 Licenses:
DPR-51 50-368 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:
AND Site, Russellville, Arkansas Inspection Conducted:
February 1-5, 1982 Inspectors:
4;j sVI J
82-f(Paragrephs
. PL J2(.idon, Reattor Inspector, Reactor Project Section C Dete 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6)
sta AV)
E-
[Or R/ T.[Redgifo, Reactor Inspector, Engineering Section D'att (Paragrapfis 1, 3, & 6)
Other Accompanying Personnel:
R. E. Hall, Chief, Reactor Project Section C (February 4-5,1982)
Reviewed:
h/?
ca P 3b/8A usu,,
D. M. Hunnicutt, Chief, Engineering Section Uate/
Approved:
M
2.
,
[cvR.g.Bal, Chief,ReactorProjectSectionC Date 8203230632 820304 PDR ADOCK 05000313 G
PDR t
.
Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted on February 1-5, 1982 (Report-50-313/82-02)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of licensee action on previously identified items, organization and administration, and surveillance.
The inspection involved 32 inspector-hours by two NRC inspectors.
Results: Within the three areas inspected, one apparent deviation was identified in one area (review of surveillance test intervals not complete as committed -
paragraph 2); and no violations or deviations were-identified in two areas.
Inspection Conducted on February 1-5,1982 (Report 50-368/82-02)
-Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of licensee action on previously identified items, organization and administration, and surveillance.
The inspection involved 32 inspector-hours by two NRC inspectors.
Results:
Within the three areas inspected, one apparent violation was identi-fjed in one area (failure to incorporate a new surveillance requirement into the test program paragraph 4); and no violations or deviations were identified in two areas.
t
.1
-
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Arkansas Power and Light Company
- J. Albers, Planning and Scheduling Supervisor
- B. Baker, Operations Manager
- M. Bishop, Office Services Supervisor
- T. Cogburn, Plant Analysis Superintendent C. Cole, Surveillance Test Coordinator J. Constantin, Training Coordinator i
- L. Duggar, Special Projects Manager
- E. Ewing, Plant Engineering Superintendent T. Green, Training Coordinator L. Howard, Engineer
- L. Humphrey, Administrative Manager J. Levine, Engineering and Technical Support Manager
- J. McWilliams, Operations Superintendent, Unit 1
- J. O'Hanlon, General Manager S. Petzel, Engineer
- E. Sanders, Maintenance Manager C. Shively, Plant Performance Supervisor J. Simmons,' Training Coordinator R. Terwilliger, Operating Experience Assessment Superintendent J. Vandergrift, Training Superintendent The NRC inspectors also contacted other plant personnel including adminis-trative, clerical, document and drawing control, engineering, and operations personnel.
- Denotes presence at the exit interview conducted February 5, 1982.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved Item (50-313/8106-02).
This item was unresolved because of a question as to whether or not the licensee procedure for surveillance testing of the control room ventilation met the Technical Specification requirements.
The NRC inspector reviewed licensee Procedure 1104.34, Revision 3 (12/7/81), " Control Room Air Conditioning." The NRC inspector compared Procedure 1104.34 to the requirements of Technical Specifications, Unit 1, paragraph 4.10.2 and found that Procedure 1104.34 now tested the isolation of the cont'.'o1 room ventilation system.
The NRC inspector had no further questions in this area of the inspection.
_
,
This item is closed.
-
,_
b
'
r
-
.
(0 pen) Violation (50-313/8106-04):
This item had been a violation because-the licensee had not conducted certain surveillances within the specified
"
interval. This interval was specified in Unit 1 Technical Specifications
-
as, "... not to exceed 18 months." The licensee had, in his letter (serial OCAN 08811) of August 11, 1981, stated that, "A review of scheduling practice and surveillance procedures will be conducted...." This letter also stated, "AP&L anticipates that this review will be completed prior to September 5, 1981, and will be in full compliance at that time." On February 4, 1982, the NRC inspector found that the Planning and Scheduling-Coordinator for Unit 1 surveillance had not c a pleted the review of the Unit 1 surveillance scheduling records.
TSe NRC inspectar also found that, although the Surveillance Test Coordinator and her super /isor were aware of the commitment to complete a review of surveillance scheduling records, they had no knowledge of the committed completion date.
The NRC inspector also noted that site management believed that the review in question had been
-
completed as committed. This is an-apparent.eviation.
(50-313/8202-01)
This item remains open.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-313/8126-01; 50-368/8125-01):
This item was unresolved pending licensee action to issue complete operator requalifi-cation training plans for 1981-1982. The NRC inspector found that the
+
licensee had issued operatc7 requalification training plans for both units.
-The Unit 1 plan scheduled approximately 54 hours6.25e-4 days <br />0.015 hours <br />8.928571e-5 weeks <br />2.0547e-5 months <br /> plus 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> of simulator training.
The Unit 2 plan scheduled approximately 63 hours7.291667e-4 days <br />0.0175 hours <br />1.041667e-4 weeks <br />2.39715e-5 months <br /> plus 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> i
of s mulator training.
j This item is closed.
3.
Organization and Administration The purpose of this inspection was to ascertain whether or not the licen-see's on-site organization was.in conformance with the Technical Specification requirements (Chapter 6).
The NRC inspector found that the licensee's on-site organization matched
'
that shown in the Technical Specifications with one minor exception.
This exception was that the position of Health Physics Supervisor had
.
been upgraded one level in the licensee's organization to Health Physics Superintendent.
This change had been reported to the Commission by the licensee's letter (serial OCAN 108104) of October 8, 1981.
The NRC
,
inspector noted that this change did not affect the direct access of the Health Physics Supervisor to the General Manager for matters affecting
'
radiological health, safety, and policy.
This direct access is delineated in licensee Procedure 1000.01, Revision 4 (9/8/81), " Organization and
-
Responsibilities."
The NRC inspector verified personnel qualification levels of four indi-viduals of varying background and experience to assure that they met the requirements of ANSI 18.1-1971.
The NRC inspector had no further questions in this area.
>
.
.
The NRC inspector also reviewed the training and qualification of Shift Technical Advisors (STAc).
Technical Specifications, paragraph 6.3.1(2)
for both units, require that the Shift Technical Advisor have a bachelor's degree or equivalent in a scientific or engineering discipline with specific training on plant desiga(s) and response and analysis of the plant (s) for transients and accidents.
The NRC inspector found that all individuals assigned as Shift Technical Advisors had a bachelor's degree in a scientific or engineering discipline.
The NRC inspector also compared ifcensee commitments for STA tracking as expressed in the Arkansas Power and Light Company letter (serials 1-120-18 and 2-120-31) of December 31, 1980, to the procedural requirements delineated in licensee Procedure 1023.24,
'.
Revision 2 (11/30/81), " Shift Technical Advisor Training Program." No discrepancies were noted between the two documents.
i
!
The NRC inspector also reviewed examinations which had been given and lesson plans used in thermal sciences and transient analysis.
The NRC inspector
,
perceived that the licensee's program in this area could be strengthened if both thermal shock and water hammer were specifically addressed.
The NRC inspector interviewed four Shift Technical Advisors of varied background
and experience.
These interviews led the NRC inspector to conclude that the licensee's instruction in thermal sciences and transient analysis had essentially omitted thermal shock and water hammer.
The NRC inspector expressed concern to licensee management as to the adequacy of this training.
This is an open item pending further review of the Shift Technical Advisor training program.
(50-313/8202-02; 50-368/8202-02)
The NRC inspector found that the licensee had conducted simulator retraining by Procedure 1023.24.
The NRC inspector had no further questions in this area of the inspection.
4.
Surveillance The purpose of this inspection was to ascertain that the surveillance
of safety-related systems and the in-service inspection (ISI) of pumps
!
and valves was conducted by approved procedures and within the intervals specified in the Technical Specifications.
The NRC inspector reviewed the following licensee procedures:
1000.09, Revision 3 (8/26/81), " Surveillance Test Program Control" 1001.09, Revision 1 (8/17/81) " Master Test Control List" 1015.06, Revision 4 (11/30/81), "ASME Code Section XI Operational
<
!
Readiness Testing" The NRC inspector selected 32 surveillance areas to verify that testing had been accomplished at the required frequency.
The Surveillance Test Coordinator could not identify and did not have records of two of the
j selected surveillances.
i
'
--
_
__
-
-
. -
- - -.
.
- _ --__
- -
_
-. _ _
.
.
.. -.
_
__ -
.
_ _ _ - _ _ _.
<
,
.
'
The first of these two surveillances was a periodic volumetric inspection of specified welded joints in high energy lines outside of containment
,
(Unit 1 - Technical Specifications, paragraph 4.15).
The NRC inspector
found that this surveillance requirement was listed on the master test list (licensee Procedure 1001.09) as required by Procedure 1000.09.
The NRC inspector found that the surveillance had been completed as an ISI
and that records of it were available.
The NRC inspector noted that licensee Procedure 1000.09 contained a conflict in that it required all i
Technical Specification surveillance tests to be tracked as surveillances
-
but excluded ISI (except for pumps and valves).
,
The second surveillance not listed in the Surveillance Coordinator's records was to measure power consumption of the two pressurizer proportional heate-j groups at least once every 18 months.
This requirement is Technical Specification, paragraph 4.4.4.1(G) for Unit 2.
This surveillance require-mer.t was part of Amendment 20, which was issued March 3,1981.
The l
surveillance had been conducted by the licensee in June 1981 on a work plan.
The NRC inspector found that the licensee had not followed the requirements
of Procedure 1000.09, which required that the responsible Department Head
inform the Surveillance Test Coordinator of new surveillance requirements
(paragraph 5.6.2).
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V requires that j
activities affecting quality be documented by... procedures... and accamplished in accordance with these... procedures.
This is an apparent
violation.
(50-368/8202-01)
The NRC inspector reviewed records of completed surveillances.
Completed surveillance procedures are, in accordance with Procedure 1000.09, paragraph 5.7.8, forwarded "in a timely manner to the Document Control Center for incorporation into the Records Management System." The NRC inspector found six instances in which completed surveillances tests had not yet been incorporated into the records management system.
At the time of the inspection, these six surveillances were aged 3 weeks, 4 weeks, 5 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks, and 10 months, respectively.
The NRC inspector noted that the licensee had not defined " timely manner" for transfer of records nor was there any check mechanism within the licensee's system to assure that records of completed surveillances were entered into the
records management system.
The NRC inspector expressed concern to licensee management that surveillance records were not, in every instance, being transmitted as required by Procedure 1000.09.
This is considered i
to be an unresolved item and will be checked during a future inspection.
(50-313/8202-03,50-368/8202-03).
The NRC inspector reviewed completed surveillance tests for technical content, acceptability of recorded data, and administrative completeness (e.g., listing of test equipment used, review completed, etc.).
The NRC inspector had no further questions in this area of the inspection.
l
!
,
v -..
-
-
_,m_.
r
.
. _ _ _ _ _ _
m
.
,__.r__..,._,.
. -,... -. _ - _. _. - - _. _. _ _ _
r
___
,. _, _ -,
~
e 5.
Unresolved Items An unresolved item is a matter about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether it is an acceptable item, a violation, or a deviation.
One unresolved item is discussed in paragraph 4 of this report.
Item No.
Description 50-313/8202-03; 50-368/8202-03 Timely Transfer of Surveillance Records to Document Retention 6.
Exit Interview An exit interview was conducted February 5,1981, with those personnel denoted in paragarph 1 of this report.
At this exit interview, the NRC inspectors summarized the scope and findings of this inspection.
-