IR 05000313/1990007
| ML20042G099 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 05/07/1990 |
| From: | Gagliardo J, Hunter D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042G098 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-313-90-07, 50-313-90-7, 50-368-90-07, 50-368-90-7, NUDOCS 9005110092 | |
| Download: ML20042G099 (9) | |
Text
... _
_ _ - _
. _ - _.
__
- i:
>4 u
s
.o
\\9
.
.
igm
' APPENDIX
'
N'~
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'
'
'
REGION IV
,
,
.
te
'
.
.,.,
>1i NRC. Inspection Report:
50-313/90-07 Operating Licenses: DPR-51-
'
~
50-368/90-07
'
NPF-6 s
Dockets:
50-313
' '
50-368'
'
.
" Licensee: Arkansas Power & Light Company (AP&L)
P.O. Box 551 Little Rock,-Arkansas 72203 Facility Name: ArkansasNuclearOne(AN0), Units 1and2
,
-Inspection-At: ANO, Russellville, Arkansas Inspection Condu edl~' April-3-6,1990
.
/
-
6 7 f c)
' Inspector:
.', %
0. R. $1nter, Senior Reactor Inspector Date/
.J{h0'p rat 1 nal:
-i Programs Section (%) J
[ 'l f 6 -
Approved:-
/
K
,
'4 E. G)]liardo, Chief, Operational Programs -
Date /
Section Inspection Summary-Inspection Conducted April 3-6, 1990 (Report 50-313/90-07;50-368/90-07)
g, Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of previously. identified inspection findings.-
-Results: Within the area. inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
- The' followup of the specific items identified by the NRC during the previous emergency operating procedures (EOPs) inspection and the overall upgrade of the u
EOPs.and abnormal operating procedures in 1989, based on the procedure
-
writer's guide in effect at the time, appeared to be acceptable. However, the-followup actions of the plant staff and the quality assurance organization to the NRC's safety-evaluation report issued in June 1989 should have been more aggressive. Based on the expectations that had been provided by the NRC and=
the industry in this area the licensee should have provided the necessary guidance to personnel involved in the E0P upgrade project, particularly in the verification and validation of the E0Ps.
i 9005110092 900507 PDR ADOCK 03000313 Cl PDC
,
~i
'
,
_ - - - _ - _ _
_ - - - _
_ _ _ - _ - _ _ - - - _ _ -
_ - _ _ _ _
- _
_
-
.r
f.;
~
'
pf f m ;.;.
,
'
>nt
,
,'
-2 m,
,
u
$:
"
,
1 %.,
i
<
DETAILS
',
< 1.L PERSONS CONTACTED j : ANO--
1*J'.~Yelverton, Director, Nuclear Operations
'
'*E. Ewing, General Manager,-Technical Support and Assessment
o
- Lc. Humphrey, General Manager, Nuclear Quality t*J. Vandergrif t, Plant Manager, Unit:1
-
- R.lFenech, Plant Manager, Unit 2
- J.'Fisicaro,. Manager, Licensing
- E.1 Force,- Nanager,; Training and Emergency Planning
- *W.~ Perkt., Manager, Nuclear Operations Standards
'
f *R. King, Supervisor, flant Licensing
- R. Garrison, Nuclear Operations Standards c.
- M. McFarland, Quality Training
- J. Jacks,-Nuclear. Safety-and Licensing _ Specialist
,
K; Canitz, Supervisor, Unit 1 Operations Training
'
E. ' Jacks,. Nuclear Operations Standards
- P
.NRCL i
- L. Callan,; Director, Division of Reactor Safety 1*J..'Gagliardo, Chief, Operational Programs Section
- H. Faulkner, Reactor Inspector
- C. Warren, Senior Resident Inspector-
- B. Haag, Resident Inspector Other members'of the technical and administrative staff were also contacted.
-
- Denotes thos-
.:nding-the management exit on April 6,1900.
- 2. -FOLLOWUP OF,PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED INSPECTION FINDINGS (92701)
~(Closed)OpenItem(313/8817-01): Correction of Labeling Discrepancies Between Emergency Operating Procedures TIOPs) and Panel _In'dTcations
~
'
In-plant and control room walkthroughs associated with the E0Ps and abnormal
'olerating procederes (A0P) identified discrepancies between the procedures and'
tie panel indications.
The licensee indicated that the significant labeling discrepancies between the-procedures and panels were addressed and corrected. The inspector reviewed the-licensee's corrective actions. The E0Ps and A0Ps assessed by the inspector had been reviewed and revised by the licensee based on the procedure writers'-
1 >
,
,
l 3l
-
Lm
y-3-
]
,
,
a
,
.
guid'e in effect at the time. The E0Ps and A0Ps were consistent with the guidance. The inspector performed a limited walkdown of the control boards and the local electrical-switchgear rooms to verify consistent labeling practices.
No discrepancies.were noted.
'
The inspector had no further questions regarding this matter, and this item is considered closed.
~(Closed) Open Item (313/8817-02): Correction of Technical Discrepancies
!
Contained in the EDPs l
~
~
-1 Several discrepancies in E0Ps and AOPs in the area of technical content had-
'
been identified during in-plant walkthroughs.
t The licensee indicated that the technical discrepancies identified were addressed
- !
and corrected, as appropriate. The inspector reviewed the corrective actions j
taken by the licensee to ascertain that the discrepancies had been addressed.-
The inspector reviewed the procedures listed in the attachment and the procedure
. I changes made by the licensee. The procedures had been upgraded in 1989 and
!
were consistent with the procedure writers' guide in effect'at that time. No
discrepancies were noted, i
The inspector had no further questions regarding this natter, and this item is j
considered closed.
(0 pen)'OpenItem(313/8817-03):
Correction of Human Factors Discrepancies
Contained"in7he E0Ps d
~
'
~
"
~~~
Several discreparcies in the area of procedure writers' guide and human' factors
!
had been identified during' procedure reviews and in-plant walkthroughs.
The licensee indicated that the identified discrepancies regarding human
'l factors were assessed and corrected, as appropriate. The inspector reviewed
the corrective actions performed by the licensee regarding the specific human factors-discrepancies. The. actions appeared to be acceptable based'on the
<
procedure writer's. guide in effect at the time. The inspector reviewed a number
.'of E0ps and A0Ps (listed in the attachment) to verify that the procedures were upgraded and were consistent with the procedure writer's guide. The inspector determined that the procedure writer's guide was being maintained current;
_.1 however, the procedure writer's guide was not included in the formal administrative. control program.
~ NOTE: At the time of the inspection, the procedure writers' guide had not
!
been upgraded based on the NRC safety evaluation report, dated June 23, 1989, regarding the procedures generation package for the E0Ps for ANO-1.
The safety evaluation report documented the NRC staff review of the ANO-1 procedures generation package provided in the licensee response, dated April 15, 1983, and July 17, 1984, to the NRC Generic Letter 82-33. The safety evaluation report provided the NRC staff conclusion that the ANO-1 procedures generation package should be revised, as appropriate.
x
$
{
-
,
.c
-
- <;
- .
-4
{
l
"
A Nment reviews and interviews revealed that the licensee was in the process M upgrading the. ANO-1 E0P program. The licensee had reviewed 13 E0Ps, and 2
,
of these 13 E0Ps (reactor trip and overcooling) had been submitted to Babcock and Wilcox for review._ The development of the plant-specific emergency procedure
. guidelines document was planned as.part of the E0P upgrade project and was-scheduled to be completed in the near future. The completed upgrade of-the'
.ANO-1 E0Ps had been scheduled to be completed by July 1, 1991.
This matter will remain open pending the review of the completed ANO-1 plant-
>
specific emergency procedure guidelines and the revised E0Ps to assure that they are consistent with the NRC safety evaluation report, dated June 23, 1989.
(Closed) Open Item'(313/8717-040):
Review of Natural Circulation Cooldown with
.,
Head fents,0 pen
[
~~
~
~
In response to NRC Generic Letter 81-21, the licensee committed to the performance of a natural circulation cooldown, if required, without the formation of a void-
-
in the reactor vessel head. To accomplish this activity the vents on the reactor
,
head would have to be opened prior to commencing reactor coolant system (RCS)
cooldown and depressurization. The inspector noted that voiding in the reactor vessel head was now an acceptable strategy when properly controlled and monitored.
This matter had remained open awaiting information from the NRC.
!
The inspector reviewed AOP 1203.13. " Natural Circulation Cooldown," Revision 9, to ensure that the controls were established to monitor for the formation of a void, if it occurred during the RCS cooldown and depressurization evolution.
The. procedure specified a cooldown rate of less than'40'F per hour and addressed
the maintenance of the RCS pressure as high as possible, within limitations, to minimize the chance of reactor vessel head void formation. The procedure also addressea-natural circulation and decay heat removal indications, RCS subcooling margin limits, and reactor vessel head and pressurizer level indications. The procedure noted that the formation of a steam bubble in the reactor vessel head should not. occur. However, the procedure provided guidance to aid the operators in the recognition of a void formation in the reactor vessel head or in an idle
.,
RCS loop, i
The inspector noted that the discussion;section of the procedure addressed the required RCS cooldown periods and steam generator feedwater needs with one or both steam generators available for RCS cooldown utilizing condensate or service water. The generic Babcock and Wilcox operating guidelines, including-RCS l
. voiding during natural circulation conditions and containment conditions, were presently'being reviewed by the NRC staff.
The inspector had no further questions regarding this matter, and this item is
.
considered closed.
(Closed)OpenItem(313/8817-05):
Review of Simulator Effectiveness in
_
Training on E0Ps L
Six deficiencies had been identified regarding apparent differences between the simulator and the reference plant associated with the E0P training program.
'
,
I
- -
.
p
,
a9,3 \\ 7,[
.
'*
-5-
[
L i
s L'
iThe intpector reviewed the documentation associated with the specific
[
.
'
' deficiencies.. Discussions'and document reviews revealed that the licensee had
,
'
.
corrected the discrepancies.
r The' inspector reviewed the " Simulator Problem / feedback Form" utilized by the
.
licensee:to identify discrepancies noted during training and other activities j
associated with the simulator..'The procedure addressing plant modifications,
simulator problems,: simulator enhancements, and other simulator configuration controls was in the: process of being revised and was to be issued as an
administrative procedure. The inspector reviewed the computer printout
_.
~r regarding the ANO-1. plant modifications and simulator discrepancy reports.to
'
ensure the licensee was actively documenting,. resolving, and tracking known
,
simulator discrepancies.
The inspector had no further questions regarding this matter, and this item is considered to be closed.
(Closed)'OpenItem(313/8817-06): Resolution of QA Review Efficiency
'Concerning the ongoing E0P development program, quality assurance was in the process of revising:the audit procedure for plant operations, and the_new procedure was to include E0Ps.
u
,
a The inspector reviewed the completed licensee operating plant quality assurance audit, QAP-8-88, " Operations," dated November 18, 1988, conducted
<
between September 2 and October 21,.1988. The audit included a sample of AN0-1
,
A0Ps and E0Ps.
_The inspector alsoLreviewed the completed licensee program quality assurance audit,LQAP-20-89, " Document / Records Management," dated December 6, 1989, conducted between May 24 and, November 10, 1989. The audit included a sample of AH0-1 A0Ps and E0Ps.-
'!
' Additionally, the inspector reviewed the completed licensee operatirig plant.
l
.
quality assurance audit, QAP-8-89, " Plant Operations," dated January 3,1990,
-
conducted between September 7 and December 4, 1989. The audit included a,
_
sample of ANO-1 A0Ps and E0Ps.
i
- The inspector had no further questions regarding this matter, and-this item is
'
i considered closed.
(Closed) Open Item (313/8821-01_;~'368/8821-01): The Control-of Remedial
'
>
Training hpp'e~ai's to be Weak The controls regarding accelerated requalification training requirements and the documentation of the training appeared to need strengthening'so that it included the type of training conducted, and the records of the training.
The inspector reviewed Administrative Control Procedure 3063.08, " Operations Training Program," Revision 11, regarding the control of the accelerated requalification training requirements. Section 4, " Written Examination Performance Standards," addressed the minimum grades for removal from licensed
.
'k
g
--
l
- .l
'
,
i-6-f
'
duties and the recommendations for upgrade actions. Section 6.6.8, " Accelerated Requalification Program," addressed the program content; program administration,
and performance standards. Section 6.6.9, "Requalification Records, addressed the' required permanent records, including documentation of any additional training administered.
-
The: inspector reviewed the records associated with two senior reactor operators'
who failed the biennial requalification examination in early May 1989. Document reviews and interviews revealed that the individuals were removed from licensed duties and provided remedial training in almost all areas in May 1989, and were-
tested satisfactorily on May 30, 1989.
I
<
The inspector had'no further questions regarding this matter, and this item is considered closed.
_ Closed) Open Item (313/8821-02; 368/8821-02): Development and Implementation (
'
of a Formal Quality Control (QC) Train 3g Program - MechanRal, Electrical, and
~
~
~
- Instrumentation and Control The delay in the development and implementation of the training program regarding.
!
QC inspectors was noted during the 1988 inspection, and it was carried as an-open item to provide tracking until the QC training program was implemented.
The inspector reviewed Training Administrative Procedure 1063.22,." Quality Control Training Program," Revision 2, dated August 12, 1988, which addressed
,
the: required training for the QC inspectors in the nuclear quality organization.
The procedure requirements included general training, QC training, QC inspector performance training, continuing training, exemptions,'and training-records. QC
' Operating Procedure Q00-1, "QC/QE Personnel Qualification Certification and
.
Training," Revision.2, dated November 30, 1988, addressed the specific qualifi-cation, certification, and training for QC inspectors.
,L The inspector reviewed representative training sequences associated with visual, electrical, and welding inspectors. Typical in-plant performance checksheets were included in the welding)and visual examination inspection training courses.
The on-the-job training (0JT checksheets had not been completed in the other areas.(mechanical,-electrical, instrument and control). Document reviews and' interviews revealed that the checksheets were being developed. The completion of the OJT checksheets should ensure efficient and effective evaluatior,s, and a predetermined minimum field performance level.in all
- disciplines. During this inspection, the licensee was utilizing a' contractor-
'
'
group to provide inspections in the nondestructive examination area; however, the licensee representative indicated that the intent was to provide qualified
.
AP&L QC inspectors in all areas, as-appropriate.
-I The licensee had ' essentially completed the development and implementation of the training program for QC inspectors in the areas of mechanical, electrical, and instrumentation and control.
The. inspector has no further questions regarding this matter, and this item is
,
considered closed.
'
.
$
h
.C:,
.
-7-
' 3.
EXIT:1NTERVIEW.
The inspector summarized the inspection-scope and findings with the individuals identified in paragraph _1 on April 6,1990..The inspector noted _that the item
"
regarding the RCS natural circulation cooldown with the head-vent open had been closed and the matter would be discussed with the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation following the inspection to advise them of our closure of the. issue. No.information reviewed by the inspector was identified by the licensee as proprietary..
t
,
)
_.__n_
_
_ _ _.......
$,
,
T;3,
f r
y
,
- c.:3 '.,:f
--
'
ATTACHMENT 1-
'
n
,.,
- Emergency Operating Procedureg(EOP)
MmberL
' Title Revision.
'
- 19'
"1-1202.01
, Emergency Operating Procedure
. 1202.01:
3)
-
1202.01-Overcooling
.
1202.01-Loss of Subcooling Margin-
..
p'
-1202.01.
Overheating
'i<
l-1202.01.
- Inadequate-Core Cooling.
e.
1202.01
' Tube Rupture.
- 20
",t'>
1202.01 Degraded Power 19:
,
1202.01 Blaekout 19-
'
' 1202.01 Loss of NNI Power
--1202.01 Main Steam Isolation
'
1202.01 ESAS-
1202.01-HPI Cooldown
'1202.01-Emergency Boration
1202.01
. Figures 1 through 9
' "'
- Revision"19, dated November 22,1989
- :
,
- Revision 20,. dated January 23, 1990
.
..
-
um--_-_____.m
_.____.___--_--a_.
____
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _. _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- _ _ _ - - -
---__m
_m___-__-
-u
_
--._______..m_
-. _.. _
. _ _ _ _
u
?;
a1 ? p;l 4
<
,
,
ATTACHMENT 2
Abnormal Operating Procedures Number Title-Revision-1203.02-
-Alternate Shutdown
1203.03
. Control Rod Drive Malfunction Action'
1203.05-Loss of Reactor Building Integrity
1203.06 Waste Gas Discharge Line Radiation High
1203.07 Liquid Waste Gas Discharge Line High
Radiation Alarm 1203.10 Above Normal H,0, Concentration
-
1203.13 NaturalCirculationCooldown-(TPCR-1)
~1203.15 Pressurizer System Failure
-
1203.16-Loss of Condenser Vacuum
1203.17 Moderator Dilution
1203.19 High Activity in Reactor Coolant
l 1203.20-Load Rejection
1203.21.
Loss of Neutron Flux Indication
1203.22 Reactor Coolant Pump Trip
1203.23-Small Steam Generator Tube Leaks
1203.24-Loss of Instrument Air
1203.25 Natural Emergencies
-
-
1203.96 Loss of Reactor Coolant Makeup
3 1203.27'
Loss of Steam Generator Feed-5 1203.28:
Loss of Decay Heat Removal System
'1203.29 Remote Shutdown'
4
'
1203.30 Loss of Service Water
.
>
'
1203'.31_
Reactor Coolant Pumps and Motor Emergency 4-1203.32-HPI Line Temperature High
1203.37 Abnormal ES Bus Voltage
'
,
+
D
?
T e
A
,
!
- -
-
- -
-