IR 05000313/1999008
| ML20210C240 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 07/21/1999 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210C222 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-313-99-08, 50-368-99-08, NUDOCS 9907260007 | |
| Download: ML20210C240 (10) | |
Text
r
,
.
ENCLOSURE U.S. NUCLEAR FEGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
Docket Nos.:
50-313;50-368 License Nos.:
50-313/99-08,50-368/99-08 Licensee:
Entergy Operations, Inc.
Facility:
Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2 Location:
1448 S. R. 333 Russellville, Arkansas 72801 Dates:
May 30 thiough July 10,1999 inspectors:
R. Bywater, Senior Resident inspector K. Weaver, Resident inspector Approved by:
P. Harrell, Chief, Proje.ct Branch D Division of Reactor Projects ATTACHMENT:
Supp%.nentalInformation
9907260007 990721 PDR ADOCK 05000313 G
1:
".
~.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-Arkansas' Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2 NRC Inspection Report 50-313/99-08; 50-368/99-08 This routine announced inspection included aspects of licensee operations, engineering, fr.aintenance, and plant support. The report covers a 6-week period of resident inspection.
Operations
,
Unit 2 operators performed all the required actions of the procedures and demonstrated
-*'
conservative decision making and good attention to detail in response to the unit
. auxiliary transformer malfunctions (Section O2.1).
Maintenance Maintenance craft and maintenance supervisory oersonnel invcived with the Unit 2
auxiliary transformer maintenance activities demonstrated added precaution while.
working around energized equipment and demonstrated good peer checking and procedure place keeping techniques during the work (Section M1.3).
- .
Enoineerina An operability evaiuation provided to the Condition Report Review Group did not
adequately support a conclusion that Unit 1 Emergency Diesel Generator 1 was operable after a fuel oil leak was identified.' The Condition Report Review Group requested the operability evaluation be revissd (Section E1.1).
Plant Suooort Lock'ed high radiation areas were properly secured and personnel demonstrated good
radiological work practices (Section R1.1).
,
~
!
..
l
Beport Details Summarv of Piant Status Unit 1 operated at or near 100 percent power through this inspection period.
Unit 2 operated at or near 100 percent power through this inspection period.
l. Operation,
Conduct of Operations O1.1 General Comr.7ents (71707)
The inspectors observed various aspects of plant operations, including shift manning, to verify compliance with Technical Specifications (TS), plant procedures, and the Updated Safety Analysis Report.' Inspectors also observed the effectiveness of communications, management oversight, proper system configuration and configuration control, housekeeping, and operator performance during routine plant operations and surveillance testing.
The conduct of operations was professional a.id safety conscious. Evolutions were generany well controlled, deliberate, and performed according to procedures. Shift turnover briefs were comprehensive. Housekeeping was generally good. Safaty systems were found properly aligned.
O2 Operational Status of Facilities and Equipment O2.1 Unit 2 - Auxiliarv Transformer Alarm Response On June 24,1999, Unit 2 operators receiveo - transformer trouble alarm in the control room for the Unit 2 auxiliary transformer. During investigation, operations personnel discovered that the gas detector relay local alarm was lit and that the indicated gas volume was trending up to the maximum setting of 450 cubic centimeters. Maintenance craft personnel sampled the gas and determined that it was noncombustible (air). As a precautionary measure, while the condition of the Unit 2 auxi'iary transformer was being investigateo, orcrations personnel transferred pie 9uxiliary loads to Startup Transformer 3. In addition, all other scheduled una 2 maintenance w0s postponed.
The inspectors reviewed Procedure 2203.012A, Revision 20, " Annunciator 2K01
Corrective Action," which provided the operators the required actions to take in i
response to the Unit 2 auxiliary transformer gas detector relay trip alarm.' in addition,
' the inspectors reviewed Procedure 2107.001, Revision 42, " Electrical System Operations." Based upon this review, the inspectors concluded that the Unit 2 operators performed all the required actions of the procedures and demonstrated conservative decision making and good attention to detail in response to the Unit 2 auxiliary transformer malfunction.
,
"
._
a
.
.
'
-2-Subsequently, the Unit 2 operators successfully transferred all plant auxiliary loads back to the Unit 2 auxiliary transformer following the maintenance activities to restore the transformer to service.
Conclusions Unit 2 operators performed all the required actions of the procedures and demonstrated conservative decision making and good attention to detail in response to the unit auxiliary transformer malfunctions.
,
'
ll. Maintenance M1 Conduct of Maintenance M1.1 General Comments a.
Inspection Scope (627C7)
The inspectors observed all or portions of the following maintenance activities as identified by the following procedures and maintenance activity instructions (MAI):
MAI 11356, Unit 2 Auxiliary Transformer Temporary Expansion Tank
.
Connection, performed on June 26 (Unit 2).
Procedure 1402.066, Revision 15. "18 Month inspection on Unit 1 Emergency
.
Diesel Generator (EDG) Engine," performed on June 21-24 for Unit 1 EDG 1 and June 29 - July 1 for Unit 1 EDG 2.
MAI 11324, Unit 1, EDG 1 Fuel Oil Duplex Filter F-5A O-ring replacement and
.
i inspection, performed on June 28.
b.
Observations and Findinas Unit 2 - Auxiliary Transformer The inspectors observed maintenance craft and supervisory personEel, involved with the Unit 2 auxiliary transformer work, demonstrate added precautions while working around energized equipment. The transformer remained energized during this work end was performed inside the transformer yard with high voltage power lines in the overhead.
The inspectors also observed that the maintenance personnel involved demonstrated good peer checking and procedure place keeping techniques during the work.
linit 1 - EDG Maintenance The licensee performed routine 18-month and 3-year preventive maintenance and selected corrective maintenance on the Unit 1 EDGs. During postrnaintenance testing of EDG 2 on July 1, operators terminated the test upon indication that lubricating oil W
a
.
.
-3-pressure had degraded below administrative limits. During the investigation, the licensee identified that some of the bolts holding the idler gear stubshaft bracket to the cngine had failed and the bracket had cracked. The licensee requested a Notice of Enforcement Discretion from the requirements of TS 3.7.2.C to allow continued power operation beyond the 7-day allowed outage time while repairs were made to the EDG.
The NRC issued a Notice of Enforcement Discretion on July 7, which allowed the licensee to complete repairs and postmaintenance te. sting without performing a TS-required shutdown of Unit 1. The NRC initiated a specialinspection to investigate the EDG failure and this inspection will be documented in NRC Inspection Report 50-313/99-13; 50-368/99-13.
M1.2 General Comments on Surveillance Activities a.
Inspection ScoDe (61726)
The inspector observed all or portions of the following surveillance activities:
Procedure 1104.036, Revision 38, " Emergency Diesel Generator Operation,"
.
Supplement 1,"DG1 Monthly Test," performed on June 28 (Unit 1)
Procedure 1104.036, Revision 38, " Emergency Diesel Generator Operation,"
.
Supplement 2, "DG2 Monthly Test, " performed on July 6,7, and 8 (Unit 1)
b.
Observations and Findinas During surveillance testing of Unit 1 EDG 1 performed on June 28, fuel oil was observed leaking from the duplex fuel oil filter. When the EDG was fully loaded, fuel oil was leaking at approximately 30 drops per minute. When the EDG was unloaded at the end of the test, fuel oil was leaking at approximately 1F0 drops per minute.
Procedure 1104.036 required that operators monitor the return fuel sight glass located on the fuel oil duplex filter housing to verify that it is full of fuel oil. If the sight glass is not full, this indicates a possible fuel supply problem and the procedure directs the operator to use the fuel oil priming pump and attempt to refill the sight glass. If the sight glass is not immediately refilled, then the EDG should be considered inoperable because fuel oil pump prime is not ensured. After the EDG run was completed, operations personnel observed that the fuel oil return sight glass was not full and were unable to maintain it full when the priming pump was manually operated. The EDG was declared inoperable and subsequently tagged out for maintenance on the fuel oil system.
During mrdntenance, the licensee identified that one of the O-rings on the fuel oil duplex filter housing was damaged. The filter housing had been disassembled for filter aM O-ring replacement during the EDG outage and the licensee suspected the O-ring was
)
damaged during filter housing installation. Following completion of the corrective I
maintenance and satisf actory operation of the EDG without fuel oil leakage during postmaintenance testing, the EDG was declared operable.
l l
,
O-4-The licensee initiated Condition Reports (CR) 1-1999-0168 and 1-1999-0170 to document the fuel oil leak and evaluate EDG operability. The CRs are addressed in Section E1 of this report.
M1.3 Conclusions on Conduct of Maintenance and Surveillance Activities i
Maintenance craft and maintenance supervisory personnelinvolved with the Unit 2 auxiliary transformer work demonstrated added precaution while working around energized equ pment and demonstrated good peer checking and procedure place keeping techniques during the work.
Ill. Enoineerina E1 Conduct of Engineering E1.1 EDG Operability Evaluation for Fuel Oil Leakaae a.
Insoection Scoce (37551)
,
l The inspectors reviewed the Unit 1 EDG 1 operability evaluations for CRs 1-1999-0168 and 1-1999-0170 associated with fuel oil leakage.
b.
Observations and Findinas CR 1-1999-0168 was initiated on June 24,1999, following EDG postmaintenance
,
testing at the conclusion of the maintenance outage when a fuel oil leak of 30 drops per l
minute was observed during EDG operation. The operability evaluation concluded that
j the EDG was operable because of the small quantity of fuel oilleakage, the leakage did
!
not result in a fire hazard, and the EDG fuel oil return sight glass is inspected each shift i
!
when the EDG is in standby.
CR 1-1999-0170 was initiated following the EDG surveillance test discussed in Section M1.2 The operability evaluation concluded that the EDG was operable although operations personnel had declared the EDG inoperable in accordar;ce with Procedure 1104.036. The inspectors found the sequence of events discussed in the operability evaluation confusing and the technical discussion unsupportive of the
operability conclusion. The licensee's Condition Report Review Group also questioned the adequacy of the operability evaluation and requested that system engineering personnel revise the operability evaluation for clarification.
The inspectors discussed the fuel oil leakage issue and operability determination with system engineering personnel. Although operations personnel were unable to maintain the fuel oil return sight glass full when the EDG was in standby without frequent operation of the priming pump, the pump had never lost prime. This indicated that the fuel oil priming pump discharge check valve was not leaking. A small fuel leak was present in the system, but because the fuel pump had not lost prime, fuel oil was
,
-5-
available immediately for EDG operation. System engineering personnel revised the
'
operability evaluation to clarify the basis for the operability determination and it was subsequently reviewed and accepted by the Condition Report Review Group, i
c.
Conclusions
An operability evaluation provided to the Condition Report Review Group did not adequately support a conclusion that Unit 1 EDG 1 was operable after a fuel oil leak was identified. he Condition Report Review Group requested the operability evaluation be revised.
E1.2 Year 2000 (Y2K) Readiness Review The inspectors conducted an abbreviated review of Y2K activities and documentation using Temporary Instruction 2515/141, " Review of Year 2000 (Y2K) Readiness of Computer Systems at Nuclear Power Plants." The review addressed aspects of Y2K management planning, documentation, implementation planning, initial assessment, detailed assessment, remediation activities, Y2K testing and validation, i
notification activities, and contingency planning. The reviewers used
!
NE!/NUSMG 97-07, " Nuclear Util!ty Year 2000 Readiness," and NEl/NUSMG 98-07,
'
Nuclear Utility Year 2000 Readiness Contingency Planning," as the primary references for this review.
Conclusions regarding the Y2K readiness of this facility are not included in this summary. The results of this review will be combined with reviews of Y2K programs at other plants in a summary report to be issued by July 31,1999.
IV. Plant Support
,
i R1 Radiological Protection and Chemistry Controls R1.1 General Cornments a.
Inspection Scope (71750)
I i
The inspectors routinely observed the licensee's radiological controls to verify conformance with TS and procedures.
b.
Observations and Findinas l
During routine tours of the plant and observations of plant activities, the inspectors found that access doors to locked high radiation areas were properly locked and areas
{
were properly posted. Personnel demonstrated proper radiological work practices.
I During one tour of the plant, the inspectors noted that the access hatch to the fan
!
I housing of Ventilation Unit 2VSF-8B was posted as a contamination area. This ventilation unit provides air to the Unit 2 control room and computer room and is j
inaccessible during fan operation. The inspectors quaoond the licensee on whether j
i
?
.
-6-the contamination area posting was correct, if control room ventilation supply ductwork was contaminated, and if the control room should be considered an airborne radiological area. The licensee informed the inspectors that periodic radiation protection surveys of the control room were normal, verified that no airborne radioactivity existed in the control room, and provided the inspectors with a copy of the last sumey performed in the fan housing. The survey, performed in 1997 to support fan maintenance, documented that no loose surface contamination existed in the areas surveyed. The licensee initiated CR 2-1999-0500 to evaluate additional actions.
c.
Conclusions Locked high radiation areas were properly secured and personnel demonstrated good radiological work practices.
S1 Conduct of Security and Safeguards Activities S1.1 Contrcl of Vital Arcas The inspectors observed that all vital areas were properly controlled; however, during a walkdown of the turbine building, the ir.spectors questioned the licensee concerning certain engineered safety feature system equipment located in a nonvital area. Further review of this equipment and the equipment location will be tracked as an inspection followup item pending additional review by the NRC staff (50-313/9908-01).
V. Manaaement Meetinos X1
' Exit Meeting Summary The inspectors presented the inspection results to members of the licensee's staff at the conclusion of the inspection on July 12,1999. The licensee acknowledged the findings presented.
The inspectors asked the licensee whether any material examined during the inspection should be considered proprietary. No proprietary information was identifieo.
i V
l
%
r o
I
ATTACHMENT l
PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee C. Anderson, General Manager, Plant Operations G. Ashley, Licensing Supervisor B. Bement, Unit 2 Plant Manager J. Bradford, Unit 2 Instrumentation and Control Superintendent R. Carter, Unit 1 Mechcnical Maintenance Superintendent M. Chisum, Manager, Unit 2 System Engineering J. Clement, Operations Superintendent, Planning and Scheduling M. Cooper, Licensing Specialist P. Dietrich, Unit 1 Maintenance Manager C. Eubanks, Unit 2 Outage Manager M. Frala, Chemistry Supervisor i
R. Fuller, Unit 1 Operations Manager B. Gordon, Unit 2 Mechanical Superintendent K. Head, Manager, Nuclear Engineering R. Hutchinson, Vice President Operations
'
D. James, Manager, Nuclear Safety J. Kowalewski, Unit 1 System Engineering Manager D. Lomax, Unit 1 Outage Manager B. McBride, Unit 2 Operations T. Mitchell, Unit 2 Operations Manager W. Perks, Radiation Protection / Chemistry Manager D. Phillips, Unit 1 System Engineering M. Ruder, Technical Specialist (Assessments)
J. Smith, Jr., Radiation Protection Manager C. Turk, Mechanical / Civil / Structural Engineering Manager J. Vandergrift, Director, Nuclear Safety INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED 37551 Onsite Engineering 61726 Surveillance Observations 62707 Maintenance Observations 71707 Plant Operations 71750 Plant Support Activities Tl 2515/141 Review of Y2K Readiness of Computer Systems at Nuclear Power Plants ITEMS OPENED Ooened 50-313/9908-01 IFl Further review of certain engineered safety feature equipment and the equipment location (Section S1.1)
[' y L :.. ;
a L
s
a.
r.,
-2-i-
L LIST OF AC'RONYMS USED j.-
CFR Code of Federal Regulations -
CR condition report EDG emergency diesel generator IFl inspection followup item -
MAI.
maintenance activity instruction l
'
NRC:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission-TS-Technical Specification Y2K-Year 2000 -
l l-l
'
i
'
L
i
)