IR 05000313/1987027

Insp Repts 50-313/87-27 & 50-368/87-27 on 870801-31.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected: Operational Safety Verification,Maint,Surveillance & for Unit 1,followup on TMI Action Plan

ML20235A884
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	09/18/1987
From:	Craig Harbuck, Hunter D, Johnson W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20235A871	List: IR 05000313/1987027 ML20235A867
References
TASK-2.E.1.1, TASK-2.K.2.08, TASK-TM 50-313-87-27, 50-368-87-27, NUDOCS 8709230452
Download: ML20235A884 (8)

Text

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

~

4 ,

, , , ,

! ~ APPENDIX

'U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION IV

Inspection Report: 50-313/87-27 1,1 censes : DPR-51 m 50-368/87-27 NPF-6-

Doc'kets: '50-313 5

.,

50-368-Licensee: Arkansas Power & Light' Company

< O. Box 551-Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 ,

'

Facility Name: Arkansas Nuclear 0ne (AN0), Units 1 and 2

- '* Inspection At: AN0 Site, Russellville, Arkansas

.

-Inspection Conducted: August 1-31, 1987

.

Inspectors:. hM

.W. D. Joh on, Senior Resident Reactor:

T/ f/ F 7

. D' ate -

Inspect J

C. C. Har)uck, Res'ident Reactor Inspecto Dat'e

$b El

!

Approved: - _c /Nr/r 7 D.' R. Hunter, Chief', Reactor -Project Date Section B, Reactor Projects Branch

!

!

t L

B709230452 B70921 PDR ADOCK 05000313 G PDR

_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ - _ - - _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ -

. .

..

l Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted August 1-31, 1987 (Report 50-313/87-27)

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection including operational safety verification, maintenance, surveillance, followup on Three Mile Island Action Plan, and elevated reactor building temperatur Results: Within the five areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identifie Inspection Conducted August 1-31, 1987 (Report 50-368/87-27)

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of operational safety verification, maintenance, surveillance, and plant protection system cabinet [

Results: Within the four areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identifie %

i

__-_ _ _ . _ _ _ _

. ,

,

DETAILS Persons Contacted

• J. Levino, Executive Director,' Site Nuclear Operations

• B. Baker, Operations Manager E. Bickel, Health Physics Superintendent S. Capehart, Maintenance Engineer M. Cooper, Quality Assurance Auditor A. Cox, Unit 1 Operations Superintendent

• M. Durst, Project Engineering Superintendent E. Ewing, General Manager, Technical Support B. Garrison, Operations Technical Support

• D. Graham, Quality Control Engineering Supervisor H. Green, Quality Assurance Superintendent L. Gulick, Unit 2 Operations Superintendent C. Halbert, Engineering Supervisor H. Hollis, Security Superintendent D. Howard, Special Projects Manager L. Humphrey, General Manager, Nuclear Quality B. Lovett, Maintenance Engineer B. McCord, Quality Control Supervisor

• J. McWilliams, Maintenance Manager

• P. Michalk, Licensing Engineer V. Pettus, Mechanical Maintenance Superintendent D. Provencher, Quality Assurance Supervisor S. Quennoz,. General Manager, Plant Operations R. Rispoli, Fire Protection Specialist C. Shively, Plant Engineering Superintendent C. Taylor, Unit 2 Operations Technical Support Supervisor J. Taylor-Brown, Quality Control Superintendent L. Taylor, Special Projects Coordinator P. Weaver, Quality Assurance Auditor

• R. Wewers, Work Control Center Manager G. Wrightam, Instrumentation and Controls Supervisor C. Zimmerman, Unit 1 Operations Technical Support Supervisor

• Present at exit intervie The NRC inspectors also contacted other plant personnel, including l operators, technicians, and administrative personne . Operational Safety Verification (Units 1 and 2)

The NRC inspectors observed control room operations, reviewed applicable lo0s, and conducted discussions with control room operators. The NRC inspectors verified the operability of selected emergency systems, reviewed tagout records, and ensured that maintenance requests had been initiated for equipment in need of maintenance. The NRC inspectors made i

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

_ - _ - _ _ -

1. *

.4

4 l

spot checks to verify that the physical security plan was being implemented. The NRC inspectors verified implementation of radiation ;

protection controls during observation of 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 NRC inspectors also observed plant housekeeping and cleanliness conditions during the tour The NRC inspectors walked down the accessible portions of both units'

boric acid addition systems to verify operabilit The walkdown was ]

conducted using Procedures 1104.03, Attachment F and 2104.03, Attachment A; and Drawings M-231 and M-223 Several minor problems were noted:

. The cover on the power cable to valve CV-4920-1 was pulled loos The licensee was informed and issued Job Request 786388 to repair the cove )

. Valve 2CVC-135 was red tagged close However, the tag was missin After informing the Unit 2 control room, a new tag was hun The old tag was later found in the vicinity and had apparently fallen off during maintenanc . Although not specified as locked in the procedure, the following valves were locked: 2CVC-42 and 43, and CA-86. This type of deficiency has been noted in numerous prior system walkdown The licensee's ongoing effort to achieve consistency regarding locks and system lineup procedures was discussed. It was noted that progress in this area appears to be slo During plant tours, the NRC inspectors made the following observations:

. Manual Valves MS-20A and MS-208 had packing leak After being informed the licensee initiated job request . The weather housing for the Auxiliary Building Exhaust Radiation Monitor 2RE-7828 needed housekeeping attentio This monitor is located on the roof of the north end of the auxiliary buildin It was also noted that the doors to the housing were open wide. The licensee explained that this was intentionally done during hot weather to prevent overheating of the radiation monitor and that a plant engineering action request had been written to install a dedicated cooling system. The NRC inspectors expressed concern that with the doors open, rain might intrude and cause degradation of the radiation monitor. Finally, the NRC inspectors noted that a wire was apparently being used as a crude support for the sample air supply piping, and suggested that a formally designed permanent support should replace i The licensee agreed to evaluate this suggestio . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _

i", * .

'

,

i These reviews and observations were conducted to verify that facility operations were in conformance with the requirements established under Technical Specifications,10 CFR, and administrative procedure No violations or deviations were identifie . Monthly Surveillance Observation (Units 1 and 2)

The NRC inspectors observed the Technical Specification required surveillance testing on the Unit 2 'A' containment spray pump (Procedure 2104.05, Supplement 1) and verified that testing was performed in accordance with adequate procedures, test instrumentation was calibrated, limiti.ng 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 personne The NRC inspectors also witnessed portions of the following test activities: -

. Quarterly emergency feedwater valve stroke testing (Procedure 2106.06, Supplement III)

. Monthly test of emergency diesel generator (Procedure 1104.36,,

Supplement 1)

. Reactor Protection System Channel B test (Procedure 1304.38)

. Monthly test of Unit 2 emergency diesel generator number 1 (Procedure 2104.36, Supplement 1)

. Quarterly test of makeup pump P36B (Procedure 1104.02, Supplement II)

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 observed to ascertain that they were conducted in accordance with approved procedures, Regulatory Guides, industry codes and 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 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 status of outstanding jobs and to ensure that priority is assigned to safety-related equipment maintenance which may affect system performanc The following maintenance activities were observed:

. Calibration of speed controller for the Unit 1 steam driven emergency feedwater pump (Job Order 738935)

. Addition of oil to emergency diesel generator (Job Order 736011, Procedure 1402.60)

'

. Testing of CV-2870 following motor replacement using M0 VATS (Job  ;

Order 716339, Procedure 1403.032)

No violations or deviations were identifie . Followup on Three Mile Island Action Plan (Unit 1)

With the completion of the construction and placing into operation of the seismic condensate storage tank (CST), the licensee has completed the actions required by TMI Action Plan Items II.E.1.1, Auxiliary Feedwater System Evaluation, and II.K.2.8, Upgrade AFW System. This final ,

'

modification was completed during the refueling outage which ended in December 1986. The construction of the CST was monitored and inspected by NRC resident and regional inspectors during 1986. The flow operability test performed per Procedure 1409.89 was observed as reported in NRC Inspection Report 50-313/86-38. The licensee has revised Procedure 1106.06, " Emergency Feedwater Pump Operation," to reflect the use of the new CST. Drawings M-204, Sheets 3, 4, and 5 were revised or developed to show the new CST and its connections to the emergency feedwater system. The NRC inspectors reviewed the calibration procedure and data sheets for the new CST level instruments. These were performed using Job Order 714071 and Design Change Package 82-2086 The NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has completed its review of Item II.E.1.1 for AN0-1 as indicated in a letter to the licensee dated April 4, 1985. Technical Specifications relating to the new CST were issued in Amendment 10 No violations or deviations were identifie . Elevated Reactor Building Temperature (Unit 1)

On August 6, 1987, the NRC inspectors noted that Unit 1 average reactor building (RB) temperature was about 140 to 150 F. There was no 1 Technical Specification limit on RB temperature, but the safety analysis report used a design temperature of 110 F as an initial condition

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

-

a<

for accident analysi The NRC inspectors informed licensee and NRC management that the unit appeared to be operating outside its design basis. Several conference calls and meetings were conducted between licensee and NRC management and technical staffs to discuss the safety implications of elevated RB temperature. The licensee documented its initial evaluations in a letter to the Region IV office of the NRC in a letter dated August 13, 1987. An augmented inspection team was dispatched by the NRC to review the bases for the conclusions of this lette- The licensee's letter of August 27, 1987, to the NRC Office of Nucle e Reactor Regulation (NRR) provided results of more detailed evaluations and included a justification for continued operatio This letter also described a near term action plan and stated that a longer term action plan will be developed by January 1988. Further information on this issue and discussion of any necessary followup action will be provided in the report of the augmented inspection team (Inspection Report 50-313/87-29)

and in a safety evaluation report to be issued by NR .- Plant Protection System Cabinets (Unit 2)

During the quality verification inspection conducted on August 10-21, 1987, the NRC inspectors noted a case where a QA finding was described as potentially significant by the QA auditor, but the evaluation of significance was not performed in a timely manner by the responsible organization. This poor practice could lead to a deficiency continuing to exist for longer than necessary and in delayed deportability evaluatio A QA surveillance performed.on May 12, 1987, found that the hinged power supply / fuse panel in the back of one of the Unit 2 plant protection system cabinets was secured by only one of 14 screws. Surveillance Finding Report (SFR) 461 documented ;his problem on May 14, 1987. Although some screws were missing, licensee representatives stated that the existing screws in all four cabinets were tightened on or about June 5,1987. Plant Engineering Action Request (PEAR) 87-1857, dated June 10, 1987, requested an engineering review to determine the number of fasteners required to j

'

maintain the cabinets' seismic qualificatio The PEAR response was provided by engineering on June 11, 1987. However, a plant management memo to QA dated June 30, 1987, requested an extension to complete the response for SFR 461, indicating that more time was needed to complete the engineering evaluation requested by the PEAR. Temporary replacement bolts for the missing screws were installed on August 24, 198 i Section 6.1.5 of Administrative Procedure 1000.07, Deviations and Nonconformances, states, "Any nonconformance which requires approved disposition, or is of a magnitude that could affect control of quality or ;

'

continued safe operation shall be documented on a NCR or RAC." A nonconformance report is known as an NCR. Procedure 1000.07 requires that a Report of Abnormal Conditions (RAC) be prepared if a nonconformance documented on a NCR is determined to be significant. The RAC is the j mechanism described in Administrative Procedure 1000.08, NRC Report ?M

!

l l

F

.\

e

.....

Communications, for' reporting abnormal conditions to station management for. assessment of deportability and investigation of Technical Specification violation Evaluation of the as-found condition and determination of deportability had not been completed as of August 31, 198 This' item remains unresolved pending completion of the licensee's evaluation of the significance and deportability.of.the deficiency and NRC review of the evaluation' (368/8727-01)

.

8. Unresolved Items (Unit 2)

An unresolved item is a matter about which more information is required to ascertain whether it is an acceptable item, a deviation, or a violatio An unresolved item is discussed in paragraph 7 of this repor . Exit Interview The NRC senior resident inspector met with Mr. J. M. Levine, Director, Site Nuclear Operations, and other members of the AP&L staff at the end of the inspection. At this meeting, the inspector summarized the scope of the inspection and the finding I i

l

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _