IR 05000313/1989015
| ML20248G743 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 04/03/1989 |
| From: | Mckernon T, Seidle W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20248G730 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-313-89-15, 50-368-89-15, NUDOCS 8904130553 | |
| Download: ML20248G743 (5) | |
Text
-_- _-___ _ - ___ _ _ - _ - -
.
,.
.
,
.
APPENDIX U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
NRC Inspection Report: 50-313/89-15.
Operating. Licenses:
DPR-51 50-368/89-15 NPF-6 Dockets: 50-313'
'
50-368 Licensee: ArkansasPowera-LightCompany(AP&L)
P.O. Box 551 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Fecility Name: ArkansasNuclearOne(ANO), Units 1and2 Inspection At: ANO, Russelville Arkansas Inspection Conducted: March 20-24, 1989 Inspector:
//
k v/.r/r1 T. O. McKer<non, Reactor I/1spector Test Date Programs.$ection, Division of Reactor Safety
[
C v/3//f Approved:
W. C. Seidlen Chief, Test Programs Section Date Division of Rfeactor Safety Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted March 20-24,1989'(Report 50-313/89-15)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the licensee's modification testing program and followup to previous inspection findings.
Results: Within the two areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified. A limited review, by the NRC inspector, led to the finding that the licensee has implemented improvements and procedural changes in the design change program.
Post modification testing procedures appear sufficient.
f Inspection Conducted March 20-24, 1989 (Report 50-368/89-15)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspaction of the licensee's modification testing program.
1 8904130553 890403 PDR ADOCK 05000313
.
'
Q PDC
_.
_. _ _ _ _ _ _
__
_. -.
- _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _
._ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ -, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _
_____
d I
.
s-
.
t,,
.
.
l l
.)
Results: Within the area inspected, no violations or deviations were
!
identified. A limited review by the NRC inspector led to the finding that the
'
licensee has implemented improvements and procedural changes in the design change program. Post modification testing procedures appear sufficient.
!
--
.
i
- - - - - - - _ - - - _ - - - _ _ - -. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ __
_ _ - -
-
_
.
.
,,
-3-DETAILS 1.
Personnel Contacted:
- S. M. Quennoz, Plant General Manager
- R. Beaird, Plant Engineer
- B. Williams, Plant Engineering Supervisor
- J. L. Taylor-Brown, Quality Contrcl/ Quality Evaluation Superintendent
- D. Lomax, Plant Licensing Supervisor i
- P. Michalk, Licensing Engineer l
M. Durst, Plant Modifications Manager i
A. Wrape, Electrical /I&C Design Manager R. Barnes, Electrical /I&C Design Supervisor G. Dobbs, Electrical /I&C Design Engineer J. Holt, Electrical Maintenance Supervisor B. Godwin, Startup Engineer NRC R. Haag, Resident Inspector
- Denotes those attending the exit interview on March 24, 1989.
2.
Followup to Previous Inspection Findings (92703)
2.1 (Closed) Violation 313/8828-01:
Failure to Take Prompt Corrective Actions in Responding to a Reactor Cooling System (RC5) Leakage Event.
.
During the followup inspection, the NRC inspector reviewed the licensee's corrective actions taken to revise the procedure. The following procedure was reviewed:
Auxiliary System Operating Procedure 1103.13, Revision 9, "RCS Leak
Detection," dated January 24, 1989 The NRC inspector noted that changes related to analyzing quench tank fill rates had been made, which should eliminate possible errors in determining the unidentified RCS leakage rate. The procedural changes appear to be sufficient and comprehensive.
3.
Modification Testing (72701)
This portion of the inspection involved the review of selected design change packages (DCP) and their related post-modification testing procedures and results.
During the inspection, the NRC inspector reviewed the following design change packages:
1R8-86-1091, " Install EFW Recirc Flow Indicator," dated November 22, 1988 I
!
,
___ _ ___ ___- _ - _
^
u
741
9.. g.
.-
, 4'
-4-1R8-87-1070, "ICS Simplification," dated November 18, 1988
'*'
1R8-88-1075, "ISAT/ES Modification," dated November 19, 1988
.
2R6-84-2083, " Control Room A/C Reliability Modification " dated April 26,1988 In addition, the following design calculations were reviewed:
83D-1032-05, " Duty Cycle / Station Batteries," dated January 22, 1986
- 83D-1032-06, " Duty Cycle / Station Batteries," dated January 22, 1986
870-1070-02, "ICS Power ' Analysis," dated July 15, 1988
88D-1075-01, "TSAT/ES Modification-C90 AC Load Tabulations," dated October 4, 1988
~
The above design change packages were reviewed to ascertain whether the
' licensee's modifications and post-modification testing is in conformance with detailed design documentation, regulatory requirements and industry-approved codes and standards. The NRC inspector verified that the licensee applied the same requirements (inspection and performance
,
testing) as applied during the original construction phase..The
post-modification tests appear sufficient in meeting stated objectives, contain the applicable acceptance criteria, address hazards:to personnel, equipment and the plant, and contain sufficient signoffs and independent verifications.
During the review, the NRC inspector noted that the duty cycle / station battery load calculation had not been revised since January 22, 1986, even though three subsequent design change packages had been completed. The design changes involved DCPs 86-1002, 87-1070, and 88-1075, which affected the 120 VAC vital buses fed from Inverters Yll, Y13. Y22, and Y24 and, in turn, fed from Station Battery Banks D06 and D07. A prior review of the DCPs showed no significant increases to loading on the station battery buses, which significantly decreased the margin to rated load.
Incorpw.Aion of the above DCPs increased loads on the RS3-inverter bus to approximately -
80 amperes from 70 amperes, which is significantly below the rated 190 amperes.
Presently, the licensee is implementing Eltctrical Maintenance Procedure 1307.51,
" Service. Discharge Test." The procedure verifies that battery capacity is L'
adequate to supply and maintain in operable status all of the actual or simulated emergency loads for the station battery's design duty cycle.
In L
addition, the. licensee is submitting a Technical Specification amendment l
l l
'
.
l l-
_ _ - _ _ - - - _ _ - _ -.
n
...,.
.
J'
-5-L incorporating the battery service test as an 18 month (refueling)
surveillance requirem mt.
Furthermore, the licensee has comitted to revising the station t,rtt.ery's duty cycle load calculation and updating the calculation on an 18 montn (refoe H ng) basis when outstanding DCPs exit.
l ll Within the scope of this inspection, no violations or deviations were
)
identified.
4.
Exit Interview
The NRC inspector net with the licensee representatives, denoted in
paragraph 1, on March 24. 1989, and sumarized the scope and findings of
'
the inspection. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the material provided, or reviewed by, the inspector during the inspection.
I l
_ - _ _ _ __-___ __-- - _ - - _ - __ -_ - -_______-__