IR 05000313/1985021

Insp Repts 50-313/85-21 & 50-368/85-22 on 850701-31. Violation Noted:Failure to Follow Document Distribution Procedure

ML20137F077
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	08/16/1985
From:	Harrell P, Johnson W, Martin L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20137F056	List: IR 05000313/1985021 ML20137F052 ML20137F068
References
50-313-85-21, 50-368-85-22, NUDOCS 8508260143
Download: ML20137F077 (10)

Text

--

s .

,

k I

'

.

~

'

APPENDIX B U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION IV

NRC Inspection Report: 50-313/85-21 Licenses: DPR-51 50-368/85-22 NPF-6 Dockets: -50-313 50-368 Licensee: Arkansas Power & Light Company (AP&L)

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: July 1-31, 1985 Inspectors: byDQb BN85-W. D.6Mhnson, Senior Resident Date Reactor-Inspector (pars. 4, 6, 7)

?'W

. H. Harrell, Resident Reactor Inspector M6 Date'

(pars. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)

Approved:

L.~E. Martin ~,

484//$

ief, Project Fat (

.

,

Section B, Re ctor Project Branch I

' 8508260143.850820 PDR ADOCK 05000313

! G PDR

.

. . - _ . _ - - . . _ _ _ _ . _ ._ , _ . - - - . .- - - - . _ - - . - - --. - . .

.

-2

[ - Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted July 1-31, 1985 (Report 50-313/85-21)

. Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection including ~ operational safety

verification, maintenance, surveillance, followup on previously identified ~

items, and postaccident sampling system operabilit The inspection involved 45 inspector-hours (including 8 backshift hours)

onsite by two NRC inspector Results: Within the five areas inspected, no violations were identifie Inspection Summary F Inspection Conducted July 1-31, 1985 (Report 50-368/85-22)

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection including operational safety

>

verification, maintenance, surveillance, followup on previously identified items, followup on licensee event reports, and postaccident sampling. system operabilit The inspection involved 53 inspector-hours (including 8 backshift hours)

onsite by two NRC inspector (

i'

Results: Within the six areas inspected, one violation was identified -

! (failure to follow a document distribution procedure, paragraph 4).

t, k

i

'

(

'

.

I

!

!

$ .

i s , ,n, , - - - - . - - - - - . - - - . . . _ _ - - . . - , - - - . . - - - , - - - . - - ~ - - - - . - , - , - - - - = , , - -v- . -,-- . . . - - ~ . -

_ _

, - - - -

_

-3-i DETAILS 1. Persons Contacted

• J. Levine, ANO General Manager

• B. Baker, Operations Manager T. Baker, Technical Analysis ~ Superintendent R. Blankenship, Nuclear Engineer M. Bolanis', Health Physics Superintendent

• P. Campbell, Licensing Engineer

• T. Cogburn, General. Manager Nuclear Support

• J. Davis, Offices Services Supervisor L. Dugger, Acting I&C Maintenance Superintendent E. Ewing, Engineering & Technical Support Manager G. Fiser, Radiochemistry Supervisor L. Gulick, Unit 2 Operations Superintendent D. Hamblen, Quality Control Engineer-H. Hollis, Security Coordinator

• L. Humphrey, Administrative Manager J. Lamb, Safety and Fire Protection Coordinator

• D. Lomax, Licensing Supervisor W. McKelvy, Assistant Radiochemistry Supervisor J. McWilliams, Unit 1 Operations Superintendent J. Montgomery, Human Resources Supervisor

• Pendergrass, Acting Engineering & Technical Support Manager V. Pettus, Mechanical Maintenance Superintendent

• Provencher, Quality Engineering Supervisor >

P. Rogers, Plant Licen' sing Engineer

• L, Sanders, Maintenance Manager

• L.'Schempp, Nuclear Quality Control Manager C. Shively, Plant Engineering Superintendent G. Storey, Safety and Fire Protection Coordinator B. Terwilliger, Operations Assessment Supervisor R. Tucker, Electrical Maintenance Supervisor R. Turner, Electrical Engineering Supervisor D. Wagner, Health Physics Supervisor

• R. Wewers, Work Control Center Manager B. Williams, Electrical Engineer

• Present at' exit intervie The inspectors also contacted other plant personnel, including operators, technicians, and administrative personne _

,.

.

'

_4

'

. Followup on Previously Identified Items (Units 1 and 2)

^

Open Item 368/8234-03: Operator confusion between old and new

'

(0 pen)

'

fire alarm panel ,

-The NRC inspector reviewed this item and noted that the Unit 2 operators continue to experience difficulty in understanding the operation of the modified. fire detection instrumentation system. The fire detection system includes both of an old and

"

a new fire detection panel. Portions of the detection system have been and continue to be moved from the old to the new panel. The NRC inspector discussed the four alarm lights lit on the old panel with Unit 2 operators to determine whether or not the alarms were valid. The operators did not know if the lights were valid alarms, nor did they know the significance of the alarms if they were valid. Further discussions with the

- operators also revealed that they had not received any training on the fire. detection instrumentation system since this issue was first raised in 1982. This item remains open pending

~

completion of training for the Unit 2 operators on the present status of'the old and new panels and establishment of a method ~

to ensure operators are kept up to date as changes between the

two panels are mad (Closed) Unresolved Item 313/8428-01: The power operated relief. valve (PORV) is not included in the licensee's inservice testing (IST) progra The NRC inspector reviewed the. documentation associated with this unresolved item. During this review, the ir.spector noted that the NRC Office of NRR had granted relief, on an interim basis, to exclude the PORV f.om the IST program. Relief was

. granted in a letter from NRR to.AP&L dated April 20, 1978,

'

based on a submittal from AP&L dated October 19, 1977. The interim relief status was confirmed with G. Vissing, Unit-1

. Project Manager, in a telephone conversation on July 18, 198 The interim relief granted was for the first 10 year inservice inspection (ISI) program. NRR is currently reviewing the second 10 year ISI program and intends to ensure that the PORV and PORV block valve will be included in the second 10 year ISI pr'ogram since this is the current NRR position on this issu , (Closed) Severity Level IV Violation 313/8501-01: Failure to provide instructions-for temporary removal of interferences durin plant modification and/or maintenance activities.

1 .

e !

"*'9 w y -...--.~-.7- - - - . - - ,- y...p..a-. ,,,n,%..i -r-+it- $.---g m.m-g ,g---

-

"

.

-5-The licensee has made changes to the appropriate procedures to require that the scope of the job order clearly specify what work is to be performed, and contain a sufficient level of information to define the boundary of work. If any work is required that is not in the scope of the original job order, then a new job order will be issued.' Subsequent close out of the job orders will ensure that interferences temporarily removed will be reinstalled. The NRC inspector reviewed job orders written for removal of the Unit 2 emergency diesel generator rotor and noted that separate job orders had been written, for work not within the scop'e of the original job order, to remove and reinstall interferences encountered during the rotor removal and replacemen (Closed) Severity Level IV Violation 313/8501-02: Failure to update piping and instrument drawings (P&ID) following modification to the emergency feedwater (EFW) syste The licensee has corrected P& ids M-204, Sheet 3 and M-206, Sheet 1. The P& ids now correctly reflect the actual configuration of the modified EFW syste The NRC inspector reviewed a sampling of other P& ids.to verify no other discrepancies exist with respect to actual plant configuration for the location of handswitches, alarms, and position indication No additional problems were note The licensee has issued a memo relating to this problem for all engineering personnel to read and verify understanding by individual signature. The memo reinforced the existing requirement that it is the responsibility of each engineer to ensure all drawings affected by a design change are updated to reflect the chang (Closed) Open Item 313/8504-03; 368/8504-04: Update of Quality Assurance Manual-Operations (APL-TOP-1A).

The licensee has issued Revision 7 to APL-TOP-1A. This revision includes organizational changes recently implemented at AN In addition, the NRC inspector also verified that recent changes made in the organization at the Little Rock general offices were include . Licensee Event Report (LER) Followup (Unit 2)

l t

Through direct observation, discussions with licensee personnel, and review of records, the following Unit 2 event reports were reviewed to determine that reportability requirements were fulfilled, immediate l

.

-6-corrective action was accomplished, and corrective ~ action to prevent recurrence has been accomplished in accordance with Technical Specification Inaccurate indication of reactor coolant system level 84-027-00 Reactor trip due to out of range axial shape index 85-005-00 Reactor trip due to out of range axial shape index Unit 2 LER 84-023-00 describes an event where shutdown cooling was lost due to an inaccurate reactor coolant system temporary level indicatio A detailed discussion of this problem is provided in NRC Inspection Report 50-368/84-2 Unit 2 LERs 84-027-00 and 85-005-00 describe reactor trips due to out of range axial shape index (ASI). The licensee has made procedure changes to provide instructions to plant operators to avoid out of range ASI problems during reactor operatio No violations or deviations were identifie . Operational Safety Verification (Units 1 and 2)

The NRC inspectors observed control room operations, reviewed applicable logs, and conducted discussions with control room operators. The inspectors verified the operability of selected emergency systems, reviewed tagout records, verified proper return to service of affected components, and ensured that maintenance requests had been initiated for equip. vent in need of maintenance. The inspectors, by ot,servation and direct interview, verified that the physical security plan was being implemented in accordance with the station security plan. The inspectors verified implementation of radiation protection controls during plant activitie The NRC inspectors toured accessible areas of the units to observe plant equipment conditions, including potential fire hazards, fluid leaks, and excessive vibration. The inspectors also observed plant housekeeping and cleanliness conditions during the tou The inspectors noted no areas in the plant that needed additional housekeeping attentio The NRC inspector walked down the Unit 2 safety-related 120-Vac distribution syste The walkdown was performed using Procedure 2107.0 During the walkdown, the NRC inspector noted discrepancies between the breaker labels shown in the procedure and the breaker labels shown on the

__ .. . . ..

. _ - _

.

-7-distribution panel No cases were noted where a breaker was out of position and would affect any components supplied by the system. The discrepancies noted in this walkdown were discussed with licensee personnel. The licensee issued job orders to have the correct labels installed on the breakers to reflect the breaker functio ,

(

The NRC inspectors discussed the labeling program with the licensee to determine what method exists to ensure labels are installed on items such as breakers, switches, and instruments. The licensee stated that a program is currently being reviewed to establish a method for installation of labels whenever system changes are made. This is an open item pending the establishment of a labeling program that will ensure l labels are installed or removed, as appropriate, whenever plant systems I are modified. (313/8521-01; 368/8522-01) 1 The NRC inspector also walked down the accessible portions of the Unit 1 emergency diesel generator auxiliary support systems. These support systems included fuel oil, staring air, lubricating oil, and circulating

~

I wate The walkdown was performed using Procedure 1104.36 and l Drawing M-217. During the walkdown, the NRC inspector noted i discrepancies between the valve numbers shown on the drawing and  !

installed in the plant versus the valve numbers shown on the valve lineup sheets contained in the procedure. The NRC inspector also noted that there were valves installed'in the plant that did not appear on the valve l l

'

lineup sheets. No cases were identified where the as-found position of the valves not on the lineup sheets affected system operability. The licensee has initiated procedure and/or valve. labeling changes, as appropriate, to correct the deficiencies identified by the NRC inspecto During a tour of the Unit 2 remote shutdown panel area on July 16, 1985, the NRC inspector noted that Procedure 2202.33 posted for use by the plant operator was out of date. Procedure 2202.33, " Remote Shutdown," is used by the plant operator in the event that the control room has to be evacuated and a emote shutdown is required to be performed from the remote shutdown panel. Procedure 2202.33 was deleted by the licensee on April 16, 1985, and the requirements incorporated into Procedure 2203.30,

" Remote Shutdown." The licensee reviewed the problem and found that instructions posted in the plant at other operating stations were also outdated. The NRC inspector reviewed the technical contents of

' Procedures 2202.33 and 2203.30, and found no differences in the instructions provided to the operators. However, the failure to maintain

'

controlled copies of procedures in an up-to-date status is an apparent violation (368/8522-02)

These rev'ews and observations were conducted to verify that facility operations were in conformance with the requirements established under Technica! Lpecifications, 10 CFR, and administrative procedure No violat ions or deviations were identifie .. .. . . .

. _ __-___ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ _ _ _ - _ -_

. .. .

.

.

.

-8- Monthly Surveillance Observation (Units 1 and 2)

The NRC inspector observed the Technical Specification required surveillance testing on the Unit 2 excore instrumentation channel C test (Procedure 2304.102) and verified that testing was performed in accordance with adequate procedures, test instrumentation was calibrated, limiting conditions for operation were met, removal and restoration of the affected components were accomplished, test results conformed with Technical Specifications and procedure requirements, test results were reviewed by personnel other than the individual directing the test, and J any deficiencies identified during the testing were properly reviewed and resolved by appropriate management personne The inspector also witnessed portions of the following test activities:

. U' nit 2 plant protective system channel B test (Procedure 2304.38)

. Unit 2 matrix card test on plant protective system channel D (Procedure 2304.40)

No violations or deviations were identifie . Monthly Maintenance Observation (Units 1 and 2)-

Station maintenance activities of safety-related systems and components listed below were reviewed to ascertain that they were conducted in

~

,

accordance with approved procedures, Regulatory Guides, and industry codes or standards; and in conformance with Technical Specification The following items were considered during this review: the limiting conditions for operation 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 l

qualified personnel; parts and materials used were properly certified; radiological controls were implemented; and fire prevention controls were implemente Work requests were reviewed to determine sta.tus of outstanding jobs and

~

to ensure that priority is assigned to safety related equipment maintenance which may affect system performanc _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _

_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _

.

i -9-The following completed job orders (J0) were reviewed:

. Unit 2 sodium hydroxide tank level alarm troubleshooting (JO 90389)

. Inspection of Unit.1 emergency diesel generator relays (JO 90413)

L l . Replacement of stem on Unit 2 valve, 2RCP-56A (JO 82991)

. Troubleshooting of jockey fire pump (JO 81424)

. Repair of packing leak on Unit 2 valve, 2CV-4840-2 (JO 89808)

. Unit 2 pressurizer relief, 2PSV-4634, gasket replacement

[ (JO 85299)

. Upgrade of various plant. fire dampers (JO 58318) l

. Modification of pipe hanger on Unit 2 steam supply line (JO 80818)

Unit 2 containment vent header valve replacement (JO 76265)

~

.

In addition, the NRC inspector observed the replacement of a failed relay in the Unit 2 emergency feedwater actuation system. This replacement was performed in accordance with JO 9079 No violations or deviations were identifie . Postaccident Sampling System (Units 1 and 2)

In response to.a request from an NRC Region IV inspector, the NR inspector requested the licensee to demonstrate the operability of the postaccident sampling system (PASS) on July 12, 1985. The licensee was requested to use the PASS to perform boron,' hydrogen, oxygen, pH, l

chloride, and isotopic analysis of Unit 2 reactor coolant system (RCS).

l An isotopic analysis of Unit 2 containment atmosphere was also requested.

l In addition, the licensee was requested to demonstrate Unit 1 RCS sample flow in the PAS , When the postaccident sampling device would not engage the sampler i assembly for Unit 2, the NRC inspect _or requested the licensee to perfarin I the analyses which had been requested for Unit 2 on Unit 1 instead, and to perform sample flow demonstration only on Unit _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

. _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ - -

,

..

-10-The NRC inspector observed the 1.icensee's attempts to perform the requested analyses and demonstrations and noted the following results:

. Adequate sample flow for performance of oxygen and hydrogen analyses of Unit 1 RCS could not be obtaine . No means exist for conducting a chloride or pH analysis of RCS onsite using the PASS. The sample must be sent to a contractor for these analyse . Unit 1 RCS was successfully-analyzed for boron content using a

,

titration method. The result of 811 ppm compared favorably to the

! value of 790 ppm obtained earlier the same day by a conventional titratio . Due to computer software problems, isotopic analysis of Unit 1 RCS or Unit I reactor building atmosphere could not be performe I

. Adequate Unit I reactor building and Unit 2 containment atmosphere sample flows were demonstrate . Adequate Unit 2 RCS sample flow was demonstrate The results of these efforts were discussed in a conference call between  !

NRC Region IV and the licensee.on July 15, 1985. Related enforcement action is discussed in NRC Inspection Report 50-313/85-19; 50-368/85-2 .~ Exit Interview The NRC inspectors met with Mr. J. M. Levine (ANO General. Manager) and-other members of the AP&L staff at the end of this inspection. At this

_

I meeting, the inspectors summarized the scope of the inspection and the findings.

I

,

!

.

.

____ _ _ _ _ _ _ .