IR 05000313/1990003
| ML20011F234 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 02/15/1990 |
| From: | Barnes I, Stewart R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20011F232 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-313-90-03, 50-313-90-3, 50-368-90-03, 50-368-90-3, GL-89-04, GL-89-4, NUDOCS 9003020184 | |
| Download: ML20011F234 (6) | |
Text
.'
,
..
,
L
' APPENDIX
'
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
NRC Inspection Report: 50-313/90-03 Operating Licenses: DPR-51 50-368/90-03 NPF-6 Dockets: 50-313 50-368 Licensee: Arkansas Power &' Light Company (AP&L)
P.O. Box 551 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203
'
Facility Name: ArkansasNuclearOne(ANO), Units 1and2 Inspection At: ANO, Russellville, Arkansas Inspection Conducted: January 8-12, 1990
- l*/g-C)e Inspector:
_
.
~
R. C. Stewart, Heactor Inspector, Materials Date
'
8 Quality Programs Section, Division of Reactor Safety Approved:
A3c,%
2.- g - 7o I. Barnes, Chief, Materials & Quality Date Programs Section, Division of Reactor Safcty Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted January 8-12. 1990 (Report 50-313/90-03)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the status of the Unit 1 inservicetesting((GL))89-04 program with respect to the staff positions contained IST in Generic Letter
' Guidance on Developing Acceptable Inservice TestingPrograms,"andafollowuponlicenseeactiononprevicusidentified inspection findings.
Results: As prescribed by GL 89-04, the existing IST program for ANO, Unit 1, was approved provided the licensee performed a review of the program and confirmed in writing the program conformance to the positions delineated in Attachment 1 of the GL.
In a letter dated October 27, 1989, ANO responded to the GL outlining changes to be incorporated in the IST program. The inspector did not observe any safety issues during the review of these changes.
The inspector resolved four of the six Unit I unresolved items reviewed during this inspection.
Within-the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
x
-
'-
1I
,
a
,
..-
-2
,
Inspection Conducted January 8-12,1990(Report 50-368/90-03)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the status of the Unit 2 IIT program with respect to the staff positions contained in GL 89-04 and a followup on licensee action on previously identified inspection findings.
.P.esults: A safety evaluation report (SER) was issued by the staff on June 20, 1985, with respect to the ANO, Unit 2, IST program. Subsequently, the licensee submitted a letter which contained additional relief requests and disagreed with some of the items in the SER. The staff evaluated the licensee response egainst the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a, GL 89-04, and ASME Section XI Code, and issued a supplemental SER on November 15, 1989, which denied several relief requests. The licensee is in the process of reviewing the supplemental SER and plans to respond by March 31, 1990.
The inspector resolved two Unit 2 unresolved items during this inspection.
Within the area inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
I
p',#
,
,
.m
,
a
>
g
'
,
DETAILS 1.1, PERSONS CONTACTED AP&L-
- JL D. Jacks, Nuclear Safety and Licensing Specialist
- J.-J. Fisicaro, Manager, Licensing.
i
~
b"
. *N..S. Carns, Director, Nuclear Operations
- R..Jo King, Supervisor, Plant Licensing
~ *D. B. Lomax,; Superintendent, Engineering Services
-
- PA L. Campbell, Lead Engineer, Section XI-
- 1.: W. Humphr?, General-Manager, Nuclear Quality g
c
- i. C. Ewing Graeral Manager, Technical Support and Assessment NRC-Personnel-
"
C. C. Warren, SRI, Att0, Unit 1
.R.-Haag, Resident Inspector The NRC inspectors also.inerviewed other licensee and. contractor employees
.
. during the inspection.
,
,,
'
2* Denotes those' attending the exit interview on January 12, 1990.
-
'
,
.
,
'
JL ii2NFOLLOWljPONPREVIOUSLYIDENTIFIEDINSPECTIONFINDINGS (92701)'
sg x
-
22.lt i(Closed),UnresolvedItem'(313/8847-01): The subject! unresolved item dealt
' with the need for the licensee to clarity the scope and methods of fail-safe-W
'
-
%
testingofvalvesinthe. Unit 1.inservicetesting(IST) program. Article IWV-3414-of1the ASMELSection XI. Code requires testing of the " fail-safe" feature of.
' ' ' '
valves with fail-safe actuators.
The licensee'provided a-listing oftvalves. currently included in the IST program;
-
.
which, classified each valve with respect to'the fail-safe criteria. Several
"
categories of: actuator types were identified with the corresponding surveillance
--test procedureLand the test frequency.noted. There were no IST' anomalies observed,
,
.
This-item is considered closed, 2.21(Closed)UhresolvedItem(313/8847-03): This unresolsed item related to s
'the finding.that.the. licensee did not have.an established acceptance criteria
.for stroke times of fast-acting solenoid valves.-
-
'
The licensee's-Procedure 1102.01,' Supplement 1. Revision 45,-dated August 29,.
1989, contains limiting values for operability with an acceptable normal range of 2.0-seconds for fast-acting solenoid' valves.
In addition, the licensee's response to GL 89-04 dated October 27, 1989,' committed to assigning a normal stroke-time 111mit of 2 seconds to those valves classified as rapid-acting valves.
This. item is considered closed.
s
,>
_
Ib r
__
.. - - _ _......,,,,,...... _.
..
%
. ;z 9<
- *
4-
,
2.3-(0 pen)UnresolvedItem(313/8847-02): This~ unresolved item related to the lack of an inservice testing procedure that would govern the establishment of reference values (acceptance criteria) for pumps and valves.
procedures (g this matter with the licensee, the inspector was informed that In discussin 1092.32 and 1092.33) are currently being revised to include guidelines on establishing reference values. Procedure revisions are scheduled to be completed by January 31, 1990. This item remains open pending the issuance of the revised procedures and NRC review of them.
-2.4 (0 pen)UnresolvedItem(313/8847-04): This unresolved item related to pump operability test records showing replacement of permanent pressure gauges with temporary test gauges without explanation.
In addressing this item, the licensee provided a written explanation of why temporary test gauges were used on the specific pumps. This explanation noted the repeated maintenance problems associated with the permanent gauges.
It was also noted that the permanent gauges have since been replaced with pressure transmitters; however, the written response did not address the basic conce.rn of-changesbeingmadetothetestprocedures(permanentgaugesreplaced)
without explanation.
In discussing this matter with the cognizant licensee representative, the inspector was informed that procedures are being revised (1092.32 and 1092.33) to contain requirements for written explanations to be incorporated Wthin IST test procedures whenever changes are made during performance of the test. Procedure revisions are scheduled to be completed January 31, 1990. This item remains open pending the issuance of the revised procedures and NRC review of them.
2.5 (closedUnresolvedItem(313/8804-02): This item related to a concern regarding the failure to take prompt corrective action in Unit 1 after the discovery during a Unit 2 containment integrated leak rate test (CILRT)
performed in 1985 that isolation valves in the postaccident sampling system (PASS)hadbeeninstalledbackward. Prompt corrective action was initiated on Unit 2 in May 1985; however, corrective action on Unit 1 did not occur until February 1988. The inspector was concerned as to the Unit 1 containment integrity during the May 1985 through February 1988 interim period.
This item remained open pending completion of an investigation regarding the conduct of the 1985 Unit 2 CILRT.
Based on regulatory review of the Office of Investigation.(01) report (4-87-011) it was concluded that the Unit 2 CILRT was conducted in accordance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, requirements and that no violation of these requirements occurred. The results of this review were included in the October 25, 1989, letter which transmitted an expurgated copy of 01 Report 4-87-011 to the licensee. Since the installation error on the Unit 2 PASS system did not establish a safety issue, the delayed corrective action on the Unit 1 PASS system did not jeopardize the Unit I containment integrity during the interim.
This item is considered closed.
!
... _. _ _ _
_ _.. _ _..
..
..
.
. - _ - _ _ _ _ _
'
. v.;
-5-
,
' d'
2.6 (Closed)UnresolvedItem(313/8906-02): This unresolved item pertained to
- the identification that a hardness test on valve bonnet nuts (HP1 System Yalve MU-66B) had been incorrectly performed. Specifically, ASME Material Specification SA-194, paragraph 8.h, required grade 7 nuts to be hardness
. tested af ter holding for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> at 1100*F. The nuts had been tested, however, after holding at 1000*F for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. The, finding was identified as an unresolved item pending clarification by the licensee or testing after
.
,
exposure to the 1100'F temperature.
The licensee contacted the nut manuf acturer. Vitco Nuclear Products, and was informed that records had not been maintained from the time period when the nutswere' manufactured (i.e.,1978). The valve manufacturer, Anchor Darling,_
also had no information relative to the test anomaly.
-Review of the certified material test report by the inspector showed acceptable
' chemical composition', enrrect heat treatment, and satisfactory cone stripping.
proof load test and hardness test properties.
It did not thus appear that the test. anomaly associated with the special hardness test (conducted after the elevated temperature treatment) represented a safety issue with the product.-
EThe cause of this issue appears to be personnel error by design engineering and nuclear quality staff who performed the receipt inspection and acceptance reviews. Both design engineering and nuclear quality yeviewers have been made aware of this event and the potential seriousness of similar events.
.
The subject nuts were replaced in the six MU-66 valves by Job Order No. 780525 on March 16, 1989. The material tickets, purchase requisition, and receipt
- inspection report indicated that QC inspected and accepted the new nuts supplied under-PO-196763.
This item is' considered closed.
_ Closed) Unresolved Items (368/8515-01; 368/8515-02): Unresolved (
2.7 item 368/8515-01 pertained to the failure to include the as-found leakage of
.
the PASS isolation valves as a penalty to the Type A integrated leak rate test (ILRT) results. Unresolved item 368/8815-02 pertained to the adequacy of past and planned corrective action regarding local leak rate test failures.
The licensee performed a review in 1988 of design and test requirements for containment pi As a result of this review, certain penetrations (pingpenetrations.i.e., 2P-39, -40, -51, -52, -66, and -b7) were identified w were not required to be subjected to Type C local leak rate testing. The measured leakage for check valves associated with these penetrations was deleted from the CILRT report, with Revision 1 to the report for the May 1, 1985, CILRT being issued on June 3,1988. As noted in paragraph 2.5 above, regulatory review concluded that the 1985 Unit 2 CILRT was conducted in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J requirements.
These items are considered closed.
x
..........
,
-.
.
'
.. <,... -
-6-
,
3.
INSERVICE TESTING PUMPS AND VALVES-PROGRAM REVISION STATUS RELATIVE TO GENERIC LETTER 89-04 In Generic Letter (GL) 89-04, " Guidance on Developing Acceptable Inservice Testing Programs," the comission requested that licensees who have not had a safety evaluation report issued for their current IST program, review their most recently submitted IST program and implementation procedures against the positions delineated in Attachment 1 to GL 89-04 and provide a written response addressing conformance with those positions.
In a letter dated October 27, 1989, (ICAN10890E), the licensee submitted their response addressing each position of Attachment I to GL 89-04 against their resubmittal of the second 10-year IST program for ANO, Unit 1, dated October 20, 1988.
During this inspection, the inspector resiewed the changes to the IST program as a result of the GL which included an additional relief request and cold shutdown justifications.
In discussing the program changes with the cognizant lead engineer, the inspector was informed that IST program procedure changes required as a result of the response are currently being revised and will be issued by March 31, 1990, and the reouisite test procedures implemented by June 30, 1990.
In discussing the status of the Unit 2 IST program, it was noted that an SER was issued on June 20, 1985, for the ANO, Unit 2 IST program. However, a more recent supplemental safety evaluation (SSE) dated November 15, 1989, was received by the licensee which denied the relief requested from code requirements for several items. The cognizant lead engineer stated that the November 15, 1989, SSE is currently being reviewed to determine additional revisions to be incorporated in the IST program. Specific procedure revisions or implementing schedules have not been established at this time.
No violations or deviations were identified during these reviews.
4.
EXIT INTERVIEW An exit interview was conducted on January 12, 1990, with those personnel denoted in paragraph 1 in which the inspection findings were summarized.
No information was presented to the inspector that was identified by the licensee as proprietary.
-... _.. - _... _ _ _ _