IR 05000313/1986033
| ML20214P421 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 11/25/1986 |
| From: | Craig Harbuck, Hunter D, Johnson W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214P409 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-313-86-33, 50-368-86-33, NUDOCS 8612040193 | |
| Download: ML20214P421 (10) | |
Text
-
. _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ -
.
..
---
.,
,
,
APPENDIX U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0ft11SSION
REGION IV
_
'
- is
.
NRC Inspection Report: 50-313/86-33 Licenses: 'DRP-51 50-368/86-33 _
'
Dockets: 50-313
>
50-368
.
Licensee: Arkansas Power.and Light Company (AP&L)
P. O. Box 551 J
-
Little Rock, Arkansas'.72203 Facility Name: Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO), Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: AN0 Site, Russellville, Arkansas.
Inspection Conducted: October 1-31, 1986 Inspectors:
l// O
~ // //0/94 mm,w W.'D.J6hng,SeniorResidentReactor Date ' ~
Inspector (pars.2,3,4,6,8,9)
//-/0~b'$
r C. C. Harbuck, Resident Reactor Date Inspector (pars.2,3,4,5,6,7)
Approved:
\\l E
'
D. R. Hunter, Chief, Reactor Date Projects Section B, Reactor Projects
,
Branch
,
8612040193 861126 PDR ADOCK 05000313 P
_
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,
t
'
.-
.
-2-
.
Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted October.1-31,1986 (Report 50-313/86-33)
-. Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection including operational safety verification, maintenance, surveillance, defueling, onsite event followup, service water integrity, and diesel generator fuel oil.
Results: Within the seven areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
'
Inspection Summary:
Inspection Conducted October 1-31, 1986 (Report 50-368/86-33)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection including operational safety verification, maintenance, surveillance, startup physics test review, and service water system integrity.
,
- Results: Within the five areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
.i.
.:
.
-3-DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted AP&L Personnel
- J. Levine, Director of Site Nuclear Operations A. Armstrong, Maintenance Coordinator B. Baker, Operations Manager D. Bennett, Mechanical Engineer.
D. Bowlby, Bechtel Field Engineer
- P. Campbell, Licensing Engineer H. Carpenter, I&C Supervisor A. Cox, Unit 1 Operations Superintendent E. Ewing, General Manager Technical Support M. Frala, Assistant Radiochemistry Supervisor J. Gertsch, Plant Performance Engineer J. Gobell, Mechanical Engineer M. Goodson, Civil Engineer
- J. Grisham, Administrative Manager L. Gulick, Unit 2 Operations Superintendent C. Halbert, Mechanical Engineering Supervisor H. Hollis, Security Superintendent
- D. Horton, Quality Assurance Manager
- D. Howard, Specials Projects Manager
- L. Humphrey, General Manager, Nuclear Quality H. Jones, Field Construction Manager P. Kearney, Project Engineer
- R. Lane, Engineering Manager
- D. Lomax, Licensing Supervisor B. Lovett, Electrical Maintenance Engineer B. McCord, Quality Control Inspection Supervisor J. McWilliams, Maintenance Manager A. Massengale, Mechanical Maintenance Supervisor J. Montgomery, Security Supervisor N. Mosher, Nuclear Engineer V. Pettus, Mechanical Maintenance Superintendent R. Poole, Assistant Radiochemistry Supervisor
- D. Provencher, Quality Engineering Supervisor S. Quennoz, General Manager, Plant Operations P. Robbins, Assistant Chemistry Supervisor P. Rogers, Plant Licensing Engineer C. Shively, Plant Engineering Superintendent G. Stueve, Daniel Foreman M. Stroud, Project Engineering Supervisor C. Taylor, Operations Technical Support Supervisor J. Taylor-Brown, Quality Control Superintendent R. Tucker, Electrical Maintenance Superintendent
__
.
.
.
. _. _..
.
_. _..
_
.
,--
.-
'
e w
-
.
E B. : West', Instrumentation and Co'nt'rols ' Supervisor R.<W wers, Work Control Center Manager e
- Present at exit interview.
.The inspectors also contacted other plant personnel,. including operators',
technicians, and administrative personnel.
- m L 2, Operational Safety Verification (Units 1 and 2)
- The NRC. inspectors obser'ved 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.
~
equipment in need of maintenance.
The inspectors made spot checks to
,
verify that the physical security plan was being. implemented in accordance with the station security plan.. The inspectors verified implementation of radiation protection controls during observation of plant activities.
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 tours.
The NRC inspectors walked down the accessible portions of the Unit 2 electrical distribution system.-
i I
The walkdown was performed using Procedures 2107.02, 2107.03, and 2107.04.
-Several minor discrepancies were identified during this walkdown.
These discrepancies, described below, were identified to the licensee for corrective action.
The 120 volt AC and DC panels contain cards listing the function of
'
.
the breakers in the cabinets.
Several errors or omissions were'noted
.
on these cards.
Some entries on the cards ware written by hand and
were difficult to read.
Some of the entries on the cards-did not
,
have the same wording as the breaker lineup procedure.
!
Some of the 120 volt AC panels contain permanent caution tags.
Some
.
of these had been displaced such that it was unclear which caution applied to which breaker.
'
Several 480 volt breakers had no labels.
Several'others had errors
'
.
on their labels.
Two 120 volt DC panels had broken door latches.
.
These reviews and observations were conducted to verify that selected facility operations were in conformance with the requirements established under Technical Specifications, 10 CFR, and administrative procedures.
,
f:
(
i
.
,
,wwa
- -
c e. - -
.,,,_w-
-,-- -
,,,,...,n-.,m
,.o----,,n--m m-%,
- eg.
,_,+n,r
.., - - - -,_.-y-,
.y+,-mme.,,vv.,
e
,
.
-5-The NRC inspector noted on October 20, 1986, that scaffold foot boards were attached to the suction line to sodium hydroxide pump 2P34B and to the service water discharge line from shutdown cooling heat exchanger 2E35B.
Both were in the-B ESF pump room.
These are considered to be further examples of a previous violation (368/8627-02) regarding scaffolding attached to seismic piping.
No other violations or deviations were identified.
3.
Monthly Surveillance Observation (Units 1 and 2)
The NRC inspector observed the Technical Specification required monthly surveillance test on low pressure safety injection pump 2P60B (Procedure 2104.40, Supplement 2) 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 any deficiencies identified during the testing were properly reviewed and resolved by appropriate management personnel.
The inspector also witnessed portions of the following test activities:
o 18-month test of station battery D-06 (Procedure 1307.14, Job Order 716493)
o Diesel generator operability test (Procedure 2104.36, Supplement 9)
o Plant protection system monthly test (Procedure 2304.40)
o High pressure safety injection pump 2P89C monthly test (Procedure 2104.39)
During the tests of 2P60B and 2P89C, the NRC inspector noted the following:
o Apparent excessive vibration:
-
2P608 suction line drain connection with two manual valves (2 SIS 059A and B)
2P89C discharge line (in the pump room)
-
(The licensee issued engineering action requests to evaluate these conditions.)
Loose nut on a foundation bolt for the pump casing of 2P60B (This was
.
repaired under J0 722452 and RAC-2-86-476)
No violations or deviations were identifie,
-
-.
.
.
.
,
-. - -
.
..
' '
_,
.
-6-
.
4.
Monthly Maintenance Observation (Units-1 and 2)
Station maintenance activities of safety-related systems and components listed below were observed to ascertain-that they were conducted in accordance with approved procedures, Regulatory _ Guides, and industry codes
or standards; and in conformance with Technical Specifications.
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 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 i.
ensure that priority is assigned to safety-related equipment maintenance which may affect system performance.
The following maintenance activities were observed:
o Replacement of a cell of station battery D-06 (Procedure 1403.67, Job i'
Order-720668)
~
o
_ Clean diesel fuel oil tank (Job Order 720668)
- ~-
o Recombiner installation (Design Change 84-1069, Job Order 719193)
_
o
. Preventive maintenance on service water pump motor j
(Procedure 1403.12, Job Order 528754)
'
o Reactor coolant pump vibration detection system (DCP 85-1063) power and annunciator circuits installation (JO 719184)
-
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Startup Physics Test Review (Unit 2)
The purpose of this part of the inspection was to complete the startup test data review begun in a previous inspection.
This review was performed to verify that for each test all acceptance criteria had been met and that the tests had been performed in accordance with procedures.
The NRC inspector reviewed the data from the following physics tests l
performed at 100 percent power (except where noted).
!
i i
>
4ve<.ww--
-,,, -
a, =.
-,e-----,-
-c e
v.,,.-
,
w-ew,
<..
, - = - -
-, -..
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - -, - - -
--t
,,- - -. - --
.
....
-7-Procedure Title 2302.45 Shape Annealing Matrix and Boundary Point and Power Correlation Coefficient Measurement (50 percent power test)
2302.36 Process Variable Intercomparison 2103.16 Heat Balance Calculation 2302.01 Incore Detector Channel Check i
2302.39 Core Power Distribution Following Refueling The NRC inspector found no problems in this review.
The test data reviewed met the acceptance criteria and the tests had been performed in accordance with procedures.
During the conduct of Procedure 2302.03, " Determination of CEA Worths by Exchange," the acceptance criteria for the reference group (Group A)
reactivity worth was not met.
The acceptance criteria was within 10 percent of the predicted value.
The worth measured, by boron dilution at hot zero power, was 12 percent above the predicted value. The licensee resolved this deficiency by raising the acceptance criteria to +12 percent with a temporary procedure change.
A safety evaluation report (SER) under 10 CFR 50.59 was written and approved by the plant safety committee to support the procedure change.
Subsequent to the initial NRC review of the low power physics testing, the NRC inspector referred the licensee's SER to the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) for review.
-
found that the basis used in the SER was insufficient and that additional justification was needed.
Therefore, the safety implications of not meeting the original acceptance criteria have not yet been determined.
This item is unresolved pending the provision of additional justification by the licensee and review by the NRC staff.
(368/8633-01)
6.
Defueling Observation (Unit 1)
The NRC inspectors monitored transfer of fuel from the reactor vessel to the spent fuel pool.
The following procedures were reviewed:
Procedure Title 1502.03 Preparation For Refueling 1502.04 Refueling Shuffle 1022.12M Spent Fuel Inventory Map 1022.014A Miscellaneous Material Transfer Report 1022.12C Nuclear Fuel Transfer Report 1104.06 Spent Fuel Cooling System 1104.03 Reactor Building Ventilation 1305.01 Radiation Monitor System Check 1305.07 Reactor Building Isolation and Miscellaneous Valve Stroke Test
.
...
..
.
_
.
-_, --
._
p:
'
- ... a
,
,
-8 '
The NRC inspectors found no problems during their observations and procedure reviews. Defueling was completed during this inspection. period.
The NRC inspector expressed concern that poor coordination and inattention to detail, as demonstrated by the following occurrences, had increased the risk of a fuel handling incident.
o A fuel bundle with a neutron source was removed from the reactor vessel out of sequence inadvertently.
,
o-The reactor bu'ilding upender was lowered with a fuel bundle in it.
However, when it was subsequently raised' to receive the next bundle, the first bundle was still in the upender.
It had not been transferred to the spent fuel pool, apparently due to poor coordination.
~
~
o Fuel bundle NJ03NH was ungrappled and left resting on its lower end fitting on top of the reactor building upender basket. The bridge operator, having noted the low load light for the hoist on the bridge control panel, failed to verify the hoist position by reading the
"ZZ" tape before ungrappling.
It took about 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> to regrapple the bundle. A subsequent visual inspection of this fuel bundle found no damage.
The licensee acknowledged this concern and stated that actions had been taken to prevent similar. occurrences during~ fueling operations. These actionsLincluded additional operator training,-procedure changes, and a design change.
In particular,1for the last item, the licensee had made a temporary change to procedure 1502.04 for the remainder of the defueling.
This change required the bridge operator to relay the "ZZ" tape reading (hoist position) to-the co'ntrol room operator prior to ungrappling a fuel assembly. over the upender. These readings were recorded in the procedure.
Additionally, prior to beginning' fueling operations, the licensee completed design change'86-1125 which installed a gear driven limit switch to prevent ungrappling over the reactor building upender unless the hoist was below a set height.
The effectiveness of the licensee's actions to improve fuel handling will be evaluated during. core loading operations.
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Onsite Event Followup (Unit 1)
The NRC inspector monitored licensee actions to repair the high pressure injection nozzle into loop
'A'..
The carbon steel portion of the nozzle head had been severely corroded, apparently due to leakage of borated water from a manual isolation valve overhead, MJ45A. The NRC inspector attended two plant safety committee meetings at which the repair '
procedures were reviewed and approved. The NRC inspector witnessed the
.
_.
,
L.,.:
-
-9--
-
,
validatio'n of-the repair procedure which involved.the repair of an identical nozzle that had been modified, by grinding, to have the same defect dimensions and shape as the actual damaged nozzle.
Specific steps
'
l witnessed during the validation of the repair procedure were:
- _
Jo preheat i
o placement of initial layer of inconel weld material o.
dye penetrant examination The applicable vendor (Babcock and Wilcox) procedures were reviewed.
It appeared that the procedures were being followed.
I No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Service Water System Integrity (Units 1 and 2)
.
,
The NRC inspectors met =with licensee representatives to review the-licensee's program for monitoring the integrity of the service water systems. The program has been in place for about three years and included periodic (once per cycle) ultrasonic examination of about 20 locations in
.both units on 6-inch or larger service water piping.
In addition, visual
!:
inspections are performed on components and piping internals-when the systems are disassembled for maintenance.
The service water piping has experienced pinhole leaks on a few occasions in the past. These leaks
'
have been attributed to pitting corrosion.
Several valves in the Unit 1
service water system have been found to be degraded by corrosion during
.the current outage. -Theseivalves were still operable, but were being repaired or replaced with new valves.
No violations or deviations were identified.
_9.
Diesel Generator Fuel Oil (Unit 1)
'
The NRC inspector observed the draining and cleaning of the day
~ tank (T308) for the Number 2 emergency diesel generator and the storage tank (T578) for the diesel generator.
After draining the tanks, a coating of soft sludge was observed adhering to the walls and bottoms of the
.'
tanks.
This coating was estimated to be 1/8 to 1/4 inch in thickness and was removed during cleaning of the tanks.
The bottom sludge was sampled to look for any abnormal conditions.
5 The licensee's contract laboratory provided the following findings after
analyzing the T30B sample, which was considered to represent the worst case condition.
o A moderate amount of suspended particulates was present.
o The aging factor was 14, a level which is higher than desirable.
o No serious microbiological contamination was indicated.
,
The laboratory recommended addition of an antioxidant to the fuel to lower i
the aging factor and to prevent further degradation of the fuel.
At the i
._
.
.
.
.
.. -
.
.
..
'. *.. -
-10-end of this inspection, this recommendation was being evaluated by the licensee. The NRC staff will review this issue further during the evaluation'of Licensee Event Report 368/86-014.
No violations or deviations were identified.
10.
Unresolved Item-
-Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain.whether the items are acceptable, violations, or deviations.
The following resolved item was discussed in this report:
Paragraph-Item Subject
368/8633-01 Insufficient justification in a 10 CFR 50.59 SER for a procedure-acceptance criteria change.
11.
Exit Interview The NRC inspectors met with Mr. J. M. Levine, Director, Site Nuclear Operations, and other members of the AP&L staff at the end of this inspection.
At this meeting," the inspectors summarized the scope of the inspection and the findings.