IR 05000368/1982038
| ML20028G045 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 11/24/1982 |
| From: | Fitzgerald J, Herr R, William Ward NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20028G040 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-368-82-38, IEB-80-06, IEB-80-6, NUDOCS 8302070347 | |
| Download: ML20028G045 (25) | |
Text
-'f'f
___
___-_ -
-
%
UfJITE D ST ATE.~
[.*
,,/ "-
NUCLEAR REGULATORY U
'lSSIOi;
,
,,.,. w ' '. -;
- ^!~;h..D [gle v."ASHINGT OrJ. D C. 2t!..
. ?.
g
,
.....
.
NOV 2 4 1982 DATE:
0FFICE OF II;VESTIGATIONS REPORTOFINVESTIGATIQ
"
TITLE:
~
Arkansas Power & Light Company Alleged Material False Staten:ent Regarding IE Eulletin 80-06 l
SUPPLEMEllTAL:
DN 50-368 ANO-2 CASE fiUl'BER:
4-82-005 CONTROL OFFICE:
Region IV STATUS:
Closed PERIOD OF INVESTIGATION:
June 8 - 10, 16 - 17, August 6, and September 9,1982
,
,. - m
-.
' '
'l
/
'
'
REPORTING It;VESTIGATOR:
/-. c 4
? [. -....-/ L Richard K. Herr, Xc't'iiIg"DTr'e'c~tiir 01 Field Office, Region IV PAR 11CIPATING PERSONNEL:
D. D. Driskill, Investigator 01 Field Office, Region IV E. Johnson, Director Enforcenent Staff, Region IV
~!
-
-
I'-
REVIEWED BY:
[
.
i ViTlTani T.' VaYd', 'DTr'e~cTor f
Division of Field Operations, 01
'
..
-
./
'
\\/
'{
,p~~
-/
,
AFPROVED BY:
Aqu7
,.; / L *
s -
A-Janes jA. Fit 2geraTd,A'cTiiigD'iYec't'or Office of Investigations
'
8302070347 821227 PDR ADOCK 05000368 G
,
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
-
.
'
,
SUMMARY
-
.
Investigation of an alleged naterial false staten;ent (response involved directly or indirectly with the response.ine lice on the part of'
that responsible licensee personnel admitted making an incorrect Investigation disclosed the I;RC.
However, the investigation did not develop evidence that the licensee willingly and kncwlingly and/or intentionally provided the paterial false statenent.
the Engineering Staff and the Operatiens Staff at the Arka Plant in Russellville, Arkansas was ineffective; thet the cono.unicatio between the Arkansas fluclear One Plant personnel and the Arkansa Light Conpany Corporate Headquarters licensing departn.ent an rcanagenent did not operate as effectively as it was designed; and the safety ccomittee necting did not operate in a manner that was expecte licensee's The
~ " stated that the incorrect stattaent n:ade to the fiRC was due in part to poor conmunications a varicus AP&L offices /departn:ents that were involved in the correctiv and the response to the ??RC. M concluded by stating that he has recently taken positive steps to ir. prove the obvicus disconn offices and/or departrents that fall under his direction.
.
\\
.
a e
$
.
O M4
+
C C
DETAILS
,
e
.
.
I i
i
_
".
..
PURPOSE OF II;VESTIGATION
- - - -
The purpose of this investigation was to establish if wi11 fulness was an elerrent of an alleged naterial false statenent rtade by thE Arkansas Power and Light Corrpany to the f:cclear Regulatory Connission, Region IV
'
.<
e
1
[
\\
.
=
-
-
-
-
_.
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _
'
.
..
.
BACKGROUND
_
On March 13, 1980, (ESF)ResetControlsNRC IE Bulletin 80-06, entitled " Engineered Safety Features and Light Company res." was issued by the NRC to all licensees.
-
Arkansas Power 18, 1980, ponded to this bulletin in a letter to the NRC dated Jure has been completed'to verify...." regarding Item 2 for th One, Unit 2.
On December 4,1981, the NRC Resident Reactor Inspector for the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2, remarked to the licensee that he was unable locate records (test results) to confirm that the NRC IE Eulletin requirene were met.
Subsequently, in April 1982, the licensee met with NRC Region IV personnel at Arlingten, Texas and edvised that an incorrect statement was n.ad to the NRC in a letter dated June 18, 1980.
The licensee stated that this incorrect statement was caused by misinterpretation of information by personnel in the corporate office.
The licensee in a letter to the NRC dated May 13, 1982, advised that all the requirenents of NRC IE Eulletin 80-06, have new been met.
.
.
e k
I
-
-
.
.
'
.
_ Interview of WILLIAM D. JOHhS0ft On June 8,1982. William D. Johnson, fiRC Senior Resident Insp Arkansas Nuclear Operations (ANO), was intcrviewed by f RC Inve
, for Herr and Inspector E. Johnson in the I;RC offices at the Af;0 site. K.
80-06, submitted a letter. Attachnent (1), dated Junestate Johnson
.
reporting that all the requirenents.were net.
18, 1980, to the liRC Johnson explained that this APS ws M,he flRC IE Eulletin 80-06 requiren'ents we of AP&L.
ensure that t Johnson stated that during his inspection to documentation to support the Jure 18, 1980 letter.
Johnson remarked that did locate a Work Plan, identified as M AP&L, that provided the necessary pr,ocedures. y N he 2409.14 drafted b find any evider ce that these procedures were implen.ented However, he could not
.
.
i i
i l
- --
-
--
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,
. - -
_
.
.
I Entrance Brief of Arka,nsas Poyee,r,& Lig_ht e
.
On June 8 m,1982, m. AP&L, and'
of Afi0, s -- am; n, N AP&L, were advised by f;RC Investigator R. K. Herr and NRC Inspector E. Johnson that the fiRC was investigating the circutistances surrcunding att 1980, addres:,ing f:RC IE Bulletin 80-06. incorrect statenent niade to the that the irvestigation be ten At this tin:e, M requested
,
,
Fitzgerald,M was pporarily halted until he could ccnfer with AP&L attorneys.
rovidEd the telephcne nuinber of fir. Jarres A.
the Acting Director of the Office of Investigations located at fiRC headquarters in Washington, D.C., in the event that AF&L attorneys concerning the investigation.
a questions Subsequently, during the late afternoon on June 8,1982 M d i that AP&L has no objections to the fiRC investigations a v sed
.
.
.
e
%
_
.
_____.
_
_ _ ________________ _ _
.
,
Ir,terview of R [
1m On June 8, 198?, e-w ~ V C - @,. was interviewed at the I;EC
-
cffices at Af;0 by i;RC Investigatcr P.. V. Herr and Inspector E. Johnson.
At this tint, EERIEDexectued a signed sworn staten.ert. Attachnent (2), vicrein he stated that upon receipt of the fiRC IE Eulletin 80-06, he wrote a L'ork Plan, identified as 2409.14 pointed out that his work plan received final approval by the plar.1 saf certittee on April 10, 1980. M.:xplained that his work plan was subseevently forwarded to AriO operations departrent for inpitnentation byM Mr(marked that he recalled receiving inc,uiries fron operations personnel and felt confident that the ircplenentation had been, at least, initiated.
M stated that on May 5,1980, he drafttc' c rier:orarduni, Attachrrent (3) for
[14L =pp5iKLC2%' -
Rjjqfr
'
(7l"t e gg7 inplementation of Wore Plan 2409.14. C7 rernarked that a copy of this r.enerandura went to the g-rugMteJTF wscaW, located at the ccrporate headquarters o1fices in Little C0ck, Arkansas. EM errphasized that this otr.orandum pointed out, in two different paragraphs, that the work plan in question was only " partially ccnpleted" and "will be finished at the next outage on Unit 2." 6 tated that the next planned cutage was scheduled in March,1981.
mteted that he believed that the nu.orandun, in question was received
-
and reviewed by corporate licensing perscnr.el sincc the letter of June 18, 1980 contained duplicate kcrding thet he placed in his renorandun..
m xplaiaed that because of the creanizational structure, there was no avtrue of corrunication open to hira to directly confirra if the " operations departroent personnel" had in.plenented the work plan subraitted by the "cngineer-ing departtent personnel."
htade,uarters contacted hiro to deterraine the status of the work plan any questions concerning the nernorandun. that be drafted, dated May 5,1980.
M stated he was not aware of the letter dated June 18, IS80 addressed to the f;FC until around the February /l' arch 1982 tire fran.e.
M during the executien cf his sicned sworn stattaent, rtquested and was granted, confidentiality.
s e
'
.
i Interview o,f_ 6 On June 9, 1982, interviewed at the NRC offices at ANC by t;RC Investigator R. K. lierr andJ, wa
=
Inspector E. Johnson.
Mllll) stated that he wn aware that APal's Work Plan identified as 2409.14 was written to setisfy t;RC IE Eulletin 80-06. a g
M stated that the engineering departrient made nunerous changes, revisions and/or work plans to be implenented by the en,phasized that there is "no way or manner" operations department. M for "er.gineers"' to follow-u implen,entation of their work procedures by the " operations personnel." p the M
pointed out that the plant manager would norrrally resolve any disagreenents between engineerin he (plant manager)g and operation perscr.nel if problem areas were kncwn, but have implerrented all engineering work plans.does not specifically ens M stated that it was his belief that the operations personnel had conipleted the work plan in question due to the telelphone calls he received from varicus operation personnel (ID unknown) asking questions about the work plan.
Mexplained that the nemorandum of !<ay 5,1980, addressing Work Plan 2409.14, headquarters in Little Rock, Arkansas, for two reasons:was sent to th (1) to re status of requirenents set forth in NRC IE Eulletin 80-06, and (2) port the Att0
.
Licensing deparmtent had the lead in responding to the NRC.
because the M stated that on July 1, 1980, he was present during the plant. safety conmittee neeting, as indicated on Attachnient (4), at which time the letter from AP&L to the NRC dated June 18, 1980 was reviewed. M explained that this meeting was the one hundred and forty-sixth safety n.eeting of 1980, and this letter was only one of several items that needed reviewing. W pointed out that with the large nunber of reetings and the large anount of correspondence that needed to be reviewed, he could perscnally address each and every item in detail.
t'ecame aware that the Engineering Kork PlanMstated it was not until fiarch 2409.14 was not in;plen'ented correctly. M remarked he normally is not consulted on responses to the NRC, adding that his departnent is not respcnsible for the incorrect statenent to the NRC in the letter dated June 18, 1980.
l
'
l 1.
,___
_
._
_ _
-
.
.
.
,
l Jn,tcrview of M On June 9, 1982,
, was interviewed in the tiRC
-
offices at Mi0, by fiRC Investigator R. K. Herr and Inspector E. Johnson.
A stated that he drafted the June 18, 1980 letter from AF&L to the tiRC that addressed the status of the f1RC IE Eulletin 80-06, M explained he drafted the letter for the signature of g AP&L.
M, when questioned if he read a menorancum dated May 5,1980 Attachment FJTregarding the AliG status of the bulletin in question, replied that he could not specifically recall reading the menorandum, but believes he did read it in the latter part of May 1980, because of similar word usage in the n.erorandum and the letter that he drafted. W remarked he did not know if the h emphasized, that during this time, either usua y read and approved draf t correspondence, cwever, state ~
e could not find his draft letter to determine who reviewed the letter that was sent to the fiRC.
acknowledged that the letter in question that he authored was incorrect.
explained that either (1) he misinterpreted the metrorandum in question, that son.eone from the Ali0 site told him seriething that caused him to or write the letter incorrectly.
M stated that he could not recall talkin to an one in particular at the
/.t:0 site about the letter, but identified (supra), and M
_. __ _ ___ _ _ Ati0, as his primary contacts.
Sexplained that he did not knowlingly draft a letter form signature addressed to the fiRC that contained incorrect or false information.
@ he diafted for 6 signature.
stated that he believed that the letter in uestion was the first letter that badded that no one at the corporate level asked him any questions concerning tie content of the letter, pointing out that he did not believe that Mwas cuare of the May 5, ISEO roer.orandum at the tine he signed the June 18,1E80 letter to the tiRC.
M declined the opportunity to execute a signed sworn statement.
l
.
[
'
.. _ _... -..
.
...
-.
_ _. _ _ _ _ _ -.
_
. _...
.
.
Interyfegog On June 10, 1982, was interviewed by NRC Investigator R. K. lierr ar.d imC Inspector E the NRC offices at Afi0. h statcd that no one frora corporate head in Little Rock, Arkansas contacted him in May or June 1980 rega status of the fiRC IE Bulletin 80-06. M ec he received a phcne call froaM (supra)alled that on April 11,19EO, question, and toldMthat the tests for ANC 1 and 2 were in progress ' n concerning the bulletin i however, not all completed. 6 stated that he did not receive any la
,
ccuunications from any personnel at the corporate headquarters level concerning NRC IE Eulletin 80-06,
.
e f
t
-_
^
T
_
Intervicw c,f, 6
_
On June 10 and Septerber 9, 1982, was intt rviewed by f;RC Investigatcr F.
Y.. lierr ard hRL r spector t. Johnson (C-10-82) at the !;RC cffice at Af;0. f C"2 stcted he first becane aware in cerly 1982, that an 1F&L letter, dated June 18, 1980, addressed to the IRC concerning I;FC IE Bulletir. 80-06, contained an incorrect stattnent, r snrcrarked that work plans and/or r cdifications cone to his department f rcr the engineering side of Af;0, ar d his departrtnt is respcr.sible for irplen.enting these changes or revisions. M explaincd he has the overall responsiblity to inpler.ent work receivcd from the engineering departrient; that the operations superintendent has the responsibility of assigning work to the shift supervisors; and that the shift supervisor is responsible to ir,.plen,ent work essigned to the tren in his crew.
d 3 E21 stated that his N C M.-JJi-- d - d P 2., etsigncd Work Plan 2409.14 to MSl C M4 in his cperations departrent, and that M,was responsible to inplenent the Work Plan. C stated that he was aware that the L'ork Plan in questicr. was not con:pletea in June 1980, howcVer, no one from corporate headquarters level contacted hit. in this regard.
agsglk, when shcwn Attachrent (4), a plar.1 safety ccr.cittee o;eeting agenda that ir.dicates he was present on July 1, 19F0, when the June 18, 1980 letter was
'
reviewed, stated that has daily status reetings cvery riorning and that the plant safety r.eeting was the one hur.dnd and forty-sixth neeting of that ycar. Mstated he did not recall reviewing thc particular letter in question during the Safety l eeting.
,
i l
\\
,
(
'
.
-
.
Jnts_ry t ew cf,
_,
,
On June 16, 1982, Chattanooga, Tennessee. M stated he did not recall k*o if it was inplenented. 6 explained that if a work plan was essigned to 2409.14 or eWration, it would norn. ally have to pass through his office if the work was to be done by his personnel. M remarked that he could not recall any raemoranda, letters or work plans addressing flRC IE Bulletin 80-06.
he was not aware of the Junecluded that he ended his en:ploynent with M con-18, 1980 IE Eulletin 80-06.
letter from AP&L to fiRC addressing flRC
.
e I
l l
__
_. _.
- - - - -
Interview of, g _
On June 16, 1982,
March 18,1979 to January 18, 1982, ano presently a Res for AP&L fren for the liRC, was interviewed by liRC Inve
I offices.
i egion he was theh for AF&L and was respcusible for answeri tulletins and/or other correspondence
,
ng NRC's MndMwere respons. Mrenerked that Senior Engineers, xplained that during this time AF8L hired some LRC.
who re @cently graduated from college.
,
'
Msupra)the licensing rLanagement department.They were assigned Engineers in that all draft responses were f, was a new engineer who worked his absence, by 6,irst reviewed by 6 then himself, or, in
)
AP&L.
- " '
M ated that he could not recall reading the l'ay 5,1980 trerr t
addressing NRC IE Eulletin 80-06.
ar.d passed it on to Mfor action.Hcwever, he believed he n:Ust have read it believe he was present when the draft lette W ren.arked that be does not en it was the corporate headquaerters in Little Rock, Arkansas action and to show responsiveness to the tiRC. deadlin
,
n orcement Mexplained that the incorrect staturent n.ade in the July thEre was no Verification system in effect at 18, 1980 (1)
corporate headquaerters; (2) the Licensing Staff contained ir. expe ent at the nuobers; (3) the Licensing Staff was understaffed; ar.d (4 wes placed on expectation from too few with too little exp)erience too truth errphasis stated it was sinply a case of, "too much expectation frcn. too few
. FM little experience." Mn:aintained that the titre available for u too scrcening Mco/research of all ittnis needing attention was just not adequate proper scrre of the shortcornings in the licensing depa ir.ptove the situation.
i o
\\
_
.
-
-
- - -
.
. _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _
.
_ ___
.
.
.
,
Revicw of Personnel Records
-
-
On June 10, 1982, Mg if he could determine, tTrougT personnel records, the location oAP&L, was asked (supra), on June 18, 1980.
Loter, stated tha indicated that M was in Washington, recor
. on June 18, 19, and 20, 1980
.
e
'
l s
l
.
_.,
, - - -
"u
.
.
1
'
t Interview o,f, 6
--
-
On September 9, 1982, 8W9%. - - - ~ ---
AP&L, was interviewed by NRC Investigator R. K. Herr in the NRC offices ua --
m.,
4, ANO. M when questioned if he worked on the icplenentation of Work Pla 2409.14 in the Spring of 1980, denied any involvct:ent with llork Plan during the Spring of 1980.
2409 14 being in existence, again dei;ied any knowledge of Work Plan 2409.14
.
Plan.
(Investigators Note: Magreed to review records in the file room of ANO, and upon viewing Jacun:ents that were identified with markings of "UP 2409.14" on the plan in question). are bearing his signature, recalled working September 9,1982, in the NRC offices. @_ va,guely about him, oApril 10, 1980, M6 assigned work to be done by n Kork Plan 2409.14. q operational personnel with e @ectrical or nechanical backgrou tated that at this tin.e, he and other with Job Order 2-23018-80-2, started to implement Work Plan 2409.14 RElBut. pointed out that eight equipment trouble re Plan 2409.14,
.
the requirencr.ts listed on Work Planand scrre contained his signature. 6 explaine 2409.14 were only partially con:pleted
'
6 stated that he did not know why Work Plan
.
1980, however, he enphasized that the Work Plan requirenents are now 2409.14 was not con.pleted in corrpleted.
1982, he had participated in the conpletion of the Work Plan 6
.
.
\\
.
2__-- - - -
~ ~ -
"
-
\\
-
i
Interview cf g
- _.
---
On August 6, 1982,.
for AP&L, was interviewed y fiRC Investigator R. K. Herr in his office at St.
Petersburg, Florida. M when' asked if had read a n.en.orandum dated May 5, 1980, addressing the fiRC IE Eulletin 80-06, responded, "I don't recall "
M also stated he did not recall if he has assisted M(sup.
draftirig a letter for h(supra) signature that was a respons)e to ra in the NRC Bulletin in question.
i M maintained that on June 16, and 37, 1980, he was not in the AP&L office i
spaces, since he was at his residence packing his household goods for an I
upcoming move. 6 stated he left AP&L errployment June 25, 1980, adding that he did not have niuch contact withMduring the last few weeks of his en.ployment. A stated that in the Licensing Departr.ent of AP&L there were no verification procedures in place to check out the status of work projects underway at the ANO, Units I and 2. Mexplained that during the time he worked in the corporate office in Little Rock, Arkansas there was little or no cormunications with ANO. M estimated he contacted plant personnel via tele 1 phone only two or three times a rtonth. M remarked that in his forn.er position he contacted ANO "if, or whenever" while wcrking on a response to an inquiry. M point cut although there was not n.uch verbal concunication with ANO, there was cccc w,ritten conriunication in the form of letters, reports, and nemoranda that were passed back and forth.
W concluded he was unaware of any incorrect response to the NRC by AP&
,
.
l
l l
_ - _ _ _______ - -
,
Interview of, 6 On June 17, 1982,
,
fiRC Investigator k. K. Herr at AP&L office spaces in LIttle RAP &L, was interv Mstated that to the best of knowledge, M(supra)ock, Arkansas.
letter to the f;RC in response to liRC
, drafted a Morked for M(supra).IE Eulletin 80-06. Mexplained that 14y 5,1980 nicaorandum that addressed the sta M axplained that he did not see the e ng 80-06, Menphasized that there is no verification rystem at the corporate le e
n.
adding that he only occassionally telephoned the At:0 plant.
he relies on n.emoranda from the plant depicting status and current
,
He explained that developments for input into his work assigr,nents.
-
personnel on correspondence to the liRC and he ad censultant-type inquiries with plant personnel.
-
i
.
i
,
I I
\\
l
.
_ _ _. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _. _. - - - - - - _ _ - - - _
,
-.
_
_ - _
'
_.
Interview cf @
On June 17, 1982, was interviewed by NRC Investigator R. K. Herr and.D. D. Driskill in his office at Little Rock, Arkansas. M stated that the AFEL Licensing Department is the focal point for answers to the NRC. M explained he rormally reads draft letters to the NRC if N(supra) signature was required.
M when asked if he read the June 18, 1980 letter from AP&L to the NRC ccncerning the NRC IE Bulletin 80-06, stated he could not specifically recall reading that letter. However, he stated, "I believe I must have read.it."
M claimed that he did not read a memorandum dated May 5, 1980, from the ANO plant to the licensing departn.ent that addressed the bulletin in question. Mremaked that he does not verify the contents of the letters that are seat to the NRC, that he only ensures that the AF&L response answers the questions raised by the NRC.
'
M pointed cut that the author of the June 18, 1980 letter was N en engineer, who at that time worked in the licensing department. M explair.ed that Wrafted the letter for 6 signature, adding that Mwould need either M or his (4 review before it was forwarded to WM Mrraintained that although treeting NRC deadlines was importent, it would not override the correct ccntents of any letter. Nexplained that he believes that the author of the letter in question misunderstcod the available information.and that caused the incorrect stateraent to the NRC.
.
Mstated he believed ti:Bt adjustnents in the licensing departr.ent system since 1980 have improved tht: internal confronications of AP&L perscnnel, as well es external corrnunicatiens with the NRC.
.
\\
,
!
- -
--
-
_
-
-
.-. -
_ _ _ _ _ __
_
.
_Interviey y,i,th_6 Or. June 18, 1982, AP&L, was interviewed by fiRC Investigators R. K. Herr and D. D. Driskill in
,
his office in Little Rock, Arkansas, h,cknowledged that he sigried a letter dated June 18, 1980 to the fRC that reported AP&L had met the requirements of f;RC IE Bulletin 80-06, 6 stated that this letter contained a statenent that was incorrect because r.ot all the.requirerents had actually been rret mstated he had not read a nerrorandura dated ray 5, 1980, addressing 11RC IE Eulletin 80-06 before signing the June 18, 1980 letter in questions.
Nexplained that during this period of tinie (post Tfil), things were
" pretty frantic." 6tated that the Licensing Department of AP&L was just not prepared for the increased an' cunt of paperword from the Federal and state Governn'ents. M(tirre/ seriousness) conmitnents.
stated in 1980, AP&L received " floods of letters" and all had He remarked that his staff was having difficulty assigning priority to correspondence to n.eet ccan.itment dates and/or deadlines. 6 emarked that he depended on his subcrdinates to acccmplish varicus tasks and did nct verify each and every iten in oery piece of correspondence he signed. M stated he usually questioned his staff in regards to who had drafted or read the correspondence before signing these documents. 6 remarked he had treated all correspondence going to the NRC with the seme degree of sericusness to ensure thet AP&L was responsive in answering the questions or neeting the needs
.
requested by the NRC. Mexplained that with the increase in correspondence and an inexperienced staff, he iecognized the need to divide certain respcnsibilities to better meet AP&L needs. M concurred that there appeared to be a concunication problem between AN0 Engineering and Afi0 Cperation personnel, Af;0 and corporate personnel; and that the Safety Ccrrr.ittee was not as effective as it could have been. M pointed out that subsequent to the prcblem with the June 18, 1980 letter, he requested an ir,ternal audit to examine his system for responsiveness ar.d tin.eliness.
6 stated as a result of the audit, he becane cuare of conn,unication gaps between AP&L perscnnel. M explair:Ed that sone of the positive steps that he has taken to improve connunication ancr.g his perscnnel are as follows:
installing a 5520 system of ccnrunication between Af 0 and corporate headc,ucrters to keep all letters and mer.orar.da updated cn a tinely basis; creating a special projects group at Af 0 tc support all responses to the f;RC; and establishing a follcw-up prograr. to ensure con:r.iitted actions have been
'
accon plished.
-
_ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
Status of Investigation..
... _.
.
The status of this investigation is CLOSED.
C
-<
'
.
__..___
- ___ _ _-
.
.-
.
Attachments
.
Attachment 1 - Letter from AP&L to NRC 6-18-80 COPY ALL Attachment 2 - M signed sworn statement 6-09-82 ORIG 01:RIV/ COPY ALL Attachment 3 -
6-05-80 COPY ALL Attachment 4 - Plant Safety Committee Meeting 7-01-80 COPY ALL
,,
'
,
%
e
- - - - -
-
.m,.
.. -_, _
,, _ _,,
.
.\\
e.
- m.
r
-,
l\\
.{
//;._
.
..,
/
.
-
_y
-
ig
' ld ((/
($'k'
< 3
'
M m
g,( G
/
':
',
.
-
,'
'
ARKANSAS POWER S LIGHT COMPu
--
.j
,1 ANY
-
l
.
-,,
_
rosiomccsoxsst Q'.
June 38, 1980 J
- > r-n,,
l
!
i Q l71 WILLIAt/. CAVANAUGH111 lllt g g ry =.a
w
-
h w
Gersum E.Cmem e
M AR r.t.
[479fw g,_
I,. b,c [.I (I Gli CO.
4-j-s u, 0y i~069-)7
-
' 'h M
,
.
V
%
P.r. h. V.I eyf rit, Director
.-
- >.
Office of Inspection & Enforcement 11. S. i;uclea
,
n.3 C~3 G
M
.
-
' *' y F.egion IV611 F,yan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000
'r'
76011 o
Arlington, Texas Arkansas fiaclear One - Units 1 &
9[
Docket tios. 50-3)3 and 50-368
-
Subject:
&w:1 License fios. DPR-51 and tiPT-F
.* *
g%
)'
O
$
features (ESF) Reset Controls 1510.1,2-1510.1)
kg a
l-al (File:
81~
llowing is provided in W
Gentlemen:
In response to the subject bulletin, the fo
i accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(f).
a? C
!
3+-:
af ety-related f unctinns W 6L.
1iem 1:
ra g
- gge
Review the drawings for all systems serving sh ther or
-
at the schematic level to determine w ed saf ety-related (quip gaps an EST actuation signal, all associate
- hh' g
--
mains in its emergency rode.
'
.ti?M Q?@f; onents L:s Leen cco-
- n u.,
Fesponse:
from this review it v.as deter q q w[5 A review of the scheretic drawings for E5F comp
- 75M l ted equipmer.t re-ained in' its pleted f or both A!iD-1 and AtiG-2.that not all E J{,n. -
. vn 2f10%]
.$y%
i crergency mode upon [5F activat on s
.
,jC gq igp( J
-
d controls at the f aci'
.
qq. g -
i_ tem 2:
~
i
'Wu; $&
Verify the actual installed instrumentat cn and in i tem 1 atov i
ir's in its ercrger:y wy
%
are ter.sistent with the schcmatics rev ewe
.;@,s.a,7$
.. Ri Provide a schedule f or t*g upon remval of the actuating signa E-Q M(ths'/[ Mis l
the various isolation or actuation signa s to this bulletin.
g'Mvt, rode
$7? 'T S. g p f ('
. gf&)l [])
7d.n-Q -
_ s,-,~
-
L
i
< n.
(
.
-v
_ _ _ _ -
. _ _
< _ _ _ - _ _ _.,
- _ _.
..
_. _, - _
- _-
-
.
!
Nr. K. Y. Seyfrit-2-June 18, 1080
$.
V
'
r Response:
N F-Ano-1 - As a result of design changes rade late last year and early this year, a test was conducted of all ESF components. This test h
checked removal of the ES signal to each com;>onent and operator
g In that this t.st, in addition to tests conducted es a result of
~ (
action to position th2 cceponent af ter an ES actuation. We feel
[
p design changes rude in response to Item 3. is sufficient to ver-
--
P3 ify that the actual installed instrumentation and controls are consistent with the schematics reviewed in response ta Item 1.
y
'
ANO-2 - A testlhss been _ccepleted to verify that the actual installed h
'
instrucenta?. ion and controls are consistent with the scheratics
',
in revieued in response to Item 1.
In all cases, the schcratics
.
and test results agreed as to which corpenents would rceain or
-
O change upon removal of the E5F signal.
O Item 3:
,
O
<
If any safety-related equircent does not remain in its emergency node
o upon reset of an ESF signal at your facility, describe proposed, syste:c L
modification, design change, or other corrective action planned: to re-
c**
"
solve the problem.
-
L Respons_e_,:
.
AND-1 All co.mponents identified in response to Item I which did not remain in thair coergency mode upon ESF actuation signal reset have been codified. Attachment 1 is a listir.g of these cen;:0-I nents.
,
ANO-2 - As per our revbt of the systems schematics as required by 1:e-
'I 1, those components which we have iden-ified es requiring ecci-a ficaticns will be rodified prior to 'startu; from the next re'_si-
ing outage (currently scheduled for early 1981). These cc7 rents j
are listed in Attachment 2.
i
'
Very truly yours,,
f
'
r.,, j. iv. h.
'
,
-
,- ~ ~-
s
..
/
[.
illiam Cavaca;h, III
,,
-
.
>!
WC:MS:skm l
f':I'j Atta ch=nts -
-
i:
cc: Mr. Victor Stello, Jr., Director
,a Of fice of Inspection & Eniorcen. ant
'j U. 5. Nuclear Ret;ulctor y Cc=nission f
.
Washington, O. C.
20555 l1 !
'
'
>f l
t!
)!
L '+ ;
l
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
_ _ _ ____ ___-_ - ______
-
~
H l' Q t,1, LJ.
.
..
PLANT SAFEii CO:r;*TTEL !!ELTING AGEL.
Scheduled X Special Meeting:
PSC-80-146 Date 7/1/80
. - _.
Unit 1 X Unit 2 X ATTENDEES:
Members Alternates
X F. B. Foster, Chairman
.,
T. H. Cogburn X
P. C. Rogers D. B. Lomax X
D. D. Snellings T. C. Baker G. L. Fiser D. Glenn G. L. Halverson D. J. Wagner
,
_
P. Jones H. R. Tucker V. C. Pettus T
R. T. Elder J. G. Waxenfelter B. J. Neal
-
X B. A. Baker S. J. McWilliams L. T. Bell
____
Non-Members X
E. C. Ewing, Ccasultant X
G. H. Miller, Alternate Chairman
-~
6-X L. W. Schempp X
T. Scott (B&W Site Representative)
1.
Reviewed the following items with no comments, or comments as noted:
a)
IN-80-110 - Letter from hTC to AP&L for information and use in eval-nating low level waste storage criteria.
Assigned PSCR-lN-80-110-01 to E. C. Ewing to follow commitments in this letter.
-
y b)
1-060-17/2-060-22 - Letter from AP&L to NRC in response to 1.E.
Bulletin 80-06 - Engineered Safety Features (ESF) Reset Controls.
..
,.
-
.
,
,
,
c)
N-80-50 - Letter f rom NRC requesting technical speci fication change covering decay heat.
Assigned PSCR-N-S0-50-01 to B. A. Baker to submit proposed T.S. change.
'
d)
CL-1112 - Letter f rom AP&L to EPA reporting NPDES violation.
Assigned.
PSCA-80-CL-1112-01 to D. Sr.c11ings to determine if permanent modifica-tions are needed to divert chemicals away from treatment plant, e)
IN-80-114 - Letter from NRC to AP&L regarding reactor vessel surveillance specimen.
Assigned PSCR-1N-80-114-01 to F. F' ster to track proposed o
technical specification change to lice.ising.
_ -.
_
f )- - NRAP-800618-231. - Let.ter from.NRC. to J. P O!!!anlon in reply to letter of 5/9/80 - stating that. operator qualification annual examination delay
-
-
--
is satis faet ory.
.
..
.-
... _..
.
g_.
.... _
. _ _ _. _ - _...
_ -..
_. _ _ _ _ _. - _ _ _ _..
.
_
_
.
..
.......
-
.
_..
.. --
.
_ _ _ _ _...
.
,
N
-
._
-
.
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _