ML19325C492
| ML19325C492 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 10/06/1989 |
| From: | Hebdon F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Tison Campbell ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19325C494 | List: |
| References | |
| IEB-79-02, IEB-79-14, IEB-79-2, NUDOCS 8910160314 | |
| Download: ML19325C492 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000313/1989200
Text
~
--
-
-
.s j'
l
,
3
y
%
..
3
-
'
.
-.
W
l ' ** na s49,g.
.
UNITED STATES
,
j
,
g
. NUCLEA* PEGULATORY COMMISSION
j
%
j
g
a
t
WASHildGTON, D. C. 2MM
,
I
'k
l
....+
,m
-
,
OCT 0 01989-
,
I
Docket No. - LO-313
Mr. T.-Gene Campbell.
'Vice President, Nuclear
!
Arkansas Power and Light Company
- )
,
'
P.O. Box 551
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
.
.
Dear Mr. Campbell:
SUBJECT: BULLETINS 79-02 AND 79-14 FOLLOW-UP INSPECTION REPORT 50-313/89-200
This inspection was conducted to verify compliance with.NRC Bulletins 79-02
l
(anchor bolts-and baseplates) and 79-14 (piping analysis consistency with plant
!
'
<
,
configuration).
/
j
In reviewing Arkansas Power and Light Company's (AP&L) effort regarding Bulle-
tin 79-02'the team discovered that AP&L's program underestimated the number of
bolts to be tested and as a consequence more testiag is required.
Even though
i
'
additional testing is. required, the inspection team concluded that AP&L had
provided reasonable assurance that anchor bolts and baseplates had been ade-
quately designed and constructed.
-l
With respect to Bulletin 73-14,-the inspection team could not establish confi-
i
dence that the. existing analyses were consistent with the as-bui't plant
1
configuration.= The inspection identified numerou discrepancies betwccl. the
i
piping design analyses and the field piping arrangement, as well as
j
nonconservative modeling' practit.es and lack of certain design analyses. AP&L
previous _1y instituted an Iso-Update Prograwto reconcile these discrepancies.
3
-However, this-program is only 10 percent complete. Therefore, AP&L needs to
a
focus more management attention on the completion of the Iso-Update _ Program in
a timely and thorough manner to achieve complianet with Bulletin 79-14. AP&L
j
is requested to consnit to a completion date for the Iso-Update Program.
The discrap..ue., rated in Appendix A are considered to be the more significant
istue. 1dentified during the inspection. Appendix B to the inspection report
concains the remainder of open discrepancies not previously discussed in
Appendix A.
The Appendix B discrepancies are considered to be isolateo errors
)
s
and-are individually less significant. Therefore, we are treating these
discrepancies collectively as a single open item.
It is our understanding that
l
you agree with and will resolve the discrepancies contained in this report
The NRR technical staff is available to discuss your planned e-tions.
Several strengths were identified in the engineering initiatives and work
products reviewed as discussed in thu report.
,
n
Y
-
G?10260314 891006
l
ADOCK 05000313
)
Q
(
,.
_ . . , . . . -
,..%..
~
. . . . .
__.-.,,.4..-..-.
, . . , ,
. _ , . . , , . . . , , - , . . . .
, , - - ~ . .
i
w,
-
-
-
,
M..
1
i
-
%-
l
OCT 0 61989
-
Mr. T. Gene Campbell
-2-
~
s
?AL is requested to describe why it had not completed the actions sper.ified in
Builetin 79-14.
Please inform us of the date by which actions related to all
,
the itew identi'ied in this report will be available for follow p inspection.
!
Some of the identified iteras saay be potential enforcement findings. Any
'
enforcement actions will be identified by Region IV in separate correspondence.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclesure
.
will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
-
Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, please contact the
3
NRR Project Manager, Craig Harbuck or the inspection team leader, Ron Parkhill.
Messrs. Harbuck and Parkhill can be reached at (301) 492-1337 and
-
(301)492-0963, respectively.
i
Sincerely,
Original signed by
Frederick J. Hebdon, Director
a
Project Directorate IV
Division of Reactor Projects III/IV/V
and Special Projects
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
j
Enclosures:
,
1.
Executive summary
2.
Inspection Report 50-313/89-200
cc w/ enclosures:
'
See next page
,
/
W
V
(); Of
p\\b k.
RSIB:DRIS
SC:RSIB:DRIS C:h5
D
Ij/
MJr"P
D:PD4:DRSP
RWParkhill:bt EVImbro
WDLanning
' Grimes JESichardlon FJHebdon
-
09/JI/89
09g//89
09/7d89
09/y*f89 M/ ( /89
01/ 6 /89
t0
,h,sJ
-
.
.
.
.
- -
2
n-
_
.
- ,o
23i
/
l
- <
. .
,
.
l
or
.
a
.
,
1
o
.
~ Mr. T.-. Gene Cagbell
!
Arkansas Power & Light Company:
Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1
{
.
!
cc w/ enclosures:.
l
Mr. Early Ewing, General Manager
."
Technical Support tnd Assessment
j
Arkansas Nuclear One
l
P.O. Box 608
.
,;
Russellville, Arkansas 72801
}
Mr. Niel Carns. Director
.i
Nuclear Vperations
1
. Arkansas Nuclear Coe
1
P.O. Box 608-
Russ211v111e, Arkansas 72801
i
i
Mr. Nicholas S. Reynolds
Bishop, Cook. Purcell & Reynolds
1400 L Street
N.W.
o
Washington, DC' 20005-3502'
.
i
Mr. Robert B..Borsum
Babcock & Wilcox
.
.
Nuclear Power Generaticn Division
a
.1700 Rockville Pike, Suite 525
Rockville, Maryland 20852
<
.-
Senior Residence Inspector'
.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
.
1 Nuclear Plant Road
.
l
- Russellville, Arkansas 72801
r
-Regional ~ Administrator,_ Region IV
t
U.S. Nuc1chr Regulatory Commission
i
Office of Executive Director
for Operations-
f
611'Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000
.
Arlington, Texas 76011
]
t
Honorable Joe W. Phillips
'
County: Judge of Pope County
- Pope County Courthouse
-
Russellville, Arkareas 72801
,
Ms. Greta Dicus, Direc+.or
Division of Environment 01 Health
-
Protection
Arkansas Department of Hehlth
1
4815 West Markham Street
Li'.tle Rock, Arkansas 72201
'
,
h
e-
-
.,-.,,.&
-,-~o
.- . . ~ .. .. - - - - +
.v.. ...
,, - - . - .. -
.a e
.. . , .
.
- - -
r
...
.n.
-
- - -
-
'
- , .
J
-4
.Y,'f .
-
L
'
4
.
1
,
i
- Distribution:'
' '
h
M SI'
i
DRIS R/F
o
TEMurley, NRR
.JHSnierek, NRR
'
E
TJMiraglia. NRR-
' l
)
FJHebdon, NRR'
BKGrimes, NRR
' WDLanning, NRR
. ;
EVImbro NRR
,
RWParkhill. NRR'
i
li-
CPoslusny, NRR
)
s
i)-L
'CCHarbuck, NRR
4
,
'A
GBagchi, NRR
St
- PTKuo, NRR=
-
LBMarsh, NRR
' RLSpessard, AE0D
e
IBarnes, RIV
'
DDChamberlain, RIV
Regional Administrators
Regional Division Directors
.
. Inspection Team
- LPDR
'
'PDR
-
3
ACRS(3)
!
OGC(3)-
' 1S Distribution
,
&
i
i
- i
,
%
M
a.
_,-
,,p.
m
a
., -
p.-
%e#-g
-s,-w
--.,,
y
c
m
,
m--
e
p-,,-.m-
w-
y
g
.
..
_ __
'l
!
.
-
l
- v
,
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INSPECTION REPORT 50-313/89-200
ARKANSAS NUCLEAR O!;E-UNIT 1
l
An inspection team composed of NRC staff and consultants reviewed Arkansas
!
PowerandLight(AP&L) Con.pany'scompliancewithNRCBulletin79-02(anchor
'
bolt and baseplate design and construction) aM Bulletin 79-14 (as-built piping
consistency with as-otsigned). The more significant discrepancies are suma-
rized in Appendix A '.o this inspection report which substantiate the following
l
conclusions.
For Bulletin 79-02 the inspection team was generally satisfie'd that AP&L had
demonstrated that the anchor bolts and baseplates were adequately designio and
installed.
However, the associated program had undertstimated the number of
bolts to be tested by an onder of roagnitude. Thus, AP&L needs to do additional
bolt testing to be in compliance with the bulletin.
.
For Bulletin 79-14 AP&L Sad not adequately completed the actions specified by
the bulletin.
Even though ,
t.rchicect-engineer supposedly fulfilled the
bulletin's requirements in the last quarter of 1979, many discrepancies between
the as-built piping and design were continuing to be identified. AP&L had
acknowledged these differences, and initiated a self-monitored program entitled
" Iso Update" in 1986 to rectify the problems. However, at the time of the
'
inspection only 10 percent of the safety-related systems had been reconciled.
,
In addition, the inspection team identified more discrepancies including
'
nonconservative inodeling practices, nonfunctional pipe supports, no verifica-
tion of spring hanger settings, and lack of various analyses to justify the
design. At the time of the exit meeting none of the discrepancies identified
i
by the inspection team had resulted in a operational concern. However, not all
';
of the discrepancies had been fully evaluated by AP&L and consequently their
operational impact was undetermined. The inspection team concluded that if
'
other systems were reviewed, similar issen would be identified. Therefore,
l
AP&L needs to focus more manager.:ent attention on the completion of the
l
1so-Update Program in a tin.ely and thorough nunner to achieve compliance with
!
Bulletin 79-14. AP&L is requested to commit to a completion date for the
Iso-Update Program.
l
.Several strengths were identified in the engineering initiatives and work
products. reviewed as discussed in Section 5 of the report.
l
l
,
-.
. - . . -
.
.