ML19326C618
| ML19326C618 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 05/17/1976 |
| From: | Cavanaugh W ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Madsen G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19326C610 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004230717 | |
| Download: ML19326C618 (1) | |
Text
.
O.
Y n e s. p u n a euouc anxansas ARK ANS AS POWER G LIGHT COMPANY May 17, 1976 Reactor Construction and Operations Branch United States Nuclear Regulatory Cc mission Office of Inspection and Enforcement Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76012 Attention: Mr. G. L. Madsen
Subject:
Arkansas Power 4 Light Company Arkansas Nuclear One - Unit One IE Inspection Report No. 50-313/76-06 Gentlemen:
\\'
We have reviewed the subject inspection report attached to your April 27, 1976 letter. He inspection report does not contain any proprietary information.
Herefore, we have no objection to your placing the subject inspection report in the Public Document Room.
Very truly yours E
William Cavanaugh II Manager, Nuclear Services WC:mcc O
/7 v
004230
=
p
.? t Q
,i
(* )y m e t. a s n a a u r t. o s R oc A N S a s v
y A R K A N S A S P O W E R S. LI G H T C O M P A N Y May 20,1976 Reactor Construction and Operations Branch j
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection and Enforcement
)
Region IV 611 Ryan Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76012 Attention: Mr. G. L. Madsen
Subject:
Arkansas Power S Light Company Arkansas Nuclear One - Unit One Docket No. 50-313, License No. DPR-51 IE Inspection Report No. 50-313/76-06 Gentlemen:
The subject inspection identified one violation of the Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit One Technical Specification and one violation of Criteria XI and XVII
"/
of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50. As applicable, our response to each violation s
includes (1) corrective steps which have been taken, and results achieved;
{
(2) corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further noncompliance; and (3) the date when full compliance will be achieved. The NRC position on the cited violations and corresponding AP5L response are provided below.
1.
NRC Position Technical Specification 6.7.3 requires for procedures that, ' Temporary changes which may affect the intent of the original procedure may be made, provided such changes are approved by the Plant Superintendent."
Contrary to the above requirement, temporary changes wero.made to Proce-dure 1502.03 on (or about) March 29, 1976 but the changes were not approved by the Plant Superintendent.
This is an infraction.
APSL Response Attachments "D" and "P' to Procedure 1502.03 (Preparation for Refueling) have been revised to reflect as-built conditions of the fuel handling equip-Plant personnel have been admonished as to the requirements of ment.
section 6.7.3 of ANO-1 Technical Specifications and section 8.2 of Quality Control Procedure 1004.21.
p)
It is our belief that we, at this time, are in compliance with section 6.7.3
\\.d of the Technical Specifications and QCP 1004.21.
p o @3 %r7 i
m n, m; a
- 1htr. G. L. Madsen May 20,1976
(
2.
NRC Position Criteria XI and XVII of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 require that test record shall be documented. This requirement is further amplified by Section 11.4.2.of the Licensee's Quality Assurance Manual which requires that the test records shall include the test data.
Contrary to the above requirements, the licensee had been recording,only the resultant boron concentration which was determined in the boron analy-sis of vessel and spent fuel storage water samples.
This is a deficiency.
AP6L Response Our laboratory practices and record keeping methods have been reviewed as a result of this violation, and the following conclusions were reached:
1.
Laboratory testing is done in strict accordance with written and approved procedures by qualified lab technicians whose training and experience is well documented.
2.
Laboratory technicians work under the supervision of a well-qualified' supervisor whose training and experience is well docu-mented.
3.
Data sheets indicating the final results of all laboratory test results are signed by the technician who performed the work and is reviewed by and signed by the laboratory supervisor in response to an earlier NRC inspection.
4.
Recording of specific data to support a final result would not eliminate human judgment from laboratory work.
S S.
Standards delineating the specific data a well-qualified labora-tory should keep do not exist.
Our laboratory record keeping methods have been carefully reviewed on several previous occasions by our own review -bodies as well as NRC inspec-tors and compared with 10 CFR 50 Appendix B and our Quality Assurance Manual requirements and we.ce judged to meet the requirements of these 1
documents. Therefore, we are convinced that our laboratory record keeping methods meet the intent of all applicable regulations.
Very truly yours, 7
.- 2 i
William Cavanaugh III Manager, Nuclear Servi.s WC:lt
}
L -.
g g
O UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY CoMMISSloN OFFICE oF INSPECTION ANo ENFORCEMENT REGloN IV 81114YAN PLAZA oRIVE, SulTE 1000 ARLINGTON. TEXAS 76012 April 27, 1976 Arkansas Power and Light Cocpany Docket No. 50-313 ATTN:
Mr. J. D. Phillips Senior Vice President Sixth and Pine Streets Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71601 Centlemen:
This refers to the inspection conducted by Messrs D. G. Anderson and J. E. Gagliardo of this office on April 20-22, 1976, of activities authorized by NRC Operating License No. DPR-51 for the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 facility, and to the discussion of our, findings j
held with Mr. J. W. Anderson and other members of your staff at the
/
conclusion of the inspection.
Areas examined during the inapection and our fid ings are discussed in the enclosed inspection report. Within these areas,.the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspectors.
During this inspection it was found that certain of your activities were not conducted in full compliance with NRC requirements, as set t
forth in the Notice of Violation, enclosed herewith as Enclosure (1).
This notice is sent to you pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.201 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations. Section 2.201 requires you to submit to this office, within 20 days of your receipt of this notice, a written statement or explanation in reply including:
(1) corrective steps which have been taken by you, and the results achieved; (2) corrective steps which will-I be taken to avoid further noncompliance; and (3) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
s
{
@ooyno6M 1
l
~ -
Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 Docket No. 50-313 License No. DPR-51 APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Based on the results of the NRC inspection conducted during the period April 20-22, 1976, it appears that certain of your activities were not conducted in full compliance with your Reactor License or NRC Regulations t
as indicated below:
A.
Technical Specification 6.7.3 requires for procedures that, " Temporary changes which may affect the intent of the original. procedure may be made, provided such changes are approved by the Plant Superintendent."
Contrary to the above requirement, temporary changes were made to Procedure 1502.03 on (or about) March 29, 1976 but the changes were not approved by the Plant Superintendent.
This is an infraction.
B.
Criteria XI and XVII of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 require that test records shall be documented. This requirement is further amplified by Section 11.4.2 of the licensee's Quality Assurance Manual which requires that the test records shall include the' test data.
Contrary to the above requirements, the licensee had been recording only the resultant boron concentration which was determined in the boron analysis of vessel and spent fuel storage water samples.
This is a deficiency.
6
(
80047>0[9/
v.
w
OV U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV IE Inspection Report No. 50-313/76-06 Docket No. 50-313 Licensee: Arkansas Power & Light Company.
License NO. DPR-51 Sixth and Pine Streets Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71601 Category C Facility: Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 Location: Russellville, Arkansas Type of Licensee: B&W, PWR, 2568 Mwt Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced Dates of Inspection: April 20-22, 1976 b
Dates of Prew.ous Inspection:
March 23-25, 1976 3,
\\
Principal Inspector:
Ae cara-M T
D. G. Anderson, Reactor Inspector Date Accompanying Inspector:
a-dd h
<//?-*/~4 c
I J. E. Gagliardo, Reactor Inspector Date Reviewed By:
/. 'W
- e >. n fd M76 G. L. Madsen, Chief, Reactor Operations and Date Nuclear Support Branch n
F*v ear v
v y
.e a
w---,-
-w a
e+ri.
w-w r
-ww--www+-iy-e
,yww
. i
SUMMARY
OF FINDINGS I.
Enforcement Action A.
Violations None identified by the inspectors.
i B.
Infractions Contrary to TS 6.7.3, temporary changes were made to Procedure 1502.03 on (or about) March 29, 1976 without the spproval of the Plant Superintendent.
(DETAILS, paragraph 4)
C.
Deficiencies Contrary to Criteria XI and XVII of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, the licenses was not recording the original data taken in the boron analyzes of vessel and spent fuel storage pool water samples.
(DETAILS, paragraph 5)
II. Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Items Not inspected.
d III. Design Changes Not inspected.
IV. Unusual Occurrences None reported to, or identified by, the inspector.
V.
Other Significant Findings A.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Unresolved Items
- 1. 7502/2 - The halon fire system did not meet all of the requirements of the acceptance tests.
(DETAILS, paragraph 7)
- 2. 7605/11 - The licensee's engineering group and the Safety e
Review Committee are reviewing the effect of the inadvertent addition of Na2S02 3 on the NaOH tank.
(DETAILS, paragraph 8) e f
(continued) s_
l I
s 3-
.,,,,. _...,.. ~.. _
,,_m
_,.7_,,
o_
s 4 -
VI.
Management Meetings A.
Entrance Meeting A pre-inspection meeting was conducted with Mr. J. W. Anderson, Jr.,
Plant Superintendent and members of his staff on April 20, 1976.
Mr. Anderson was informed that the purpose of this inspection was to review in detail the preparation for and activities conducted during this defueling outage.
B.
Exit Meeting At the conclusion of the inspection on April 22, 1976, a management exit meeting was conducted with Mr. J. W. Anderson, Jr., ANO-1 Plant Superintendent, and members of his staff. Items reviewed at this meeting are as follows:
- 1. The items of noncompliance noted as a result of this inspection.
- 2. Apparent inadequacy in the implementation of procedures with regard to loose tools noted on the catwalk above the reactor vessel.
(DETAILS, paragraph 10)
- 3. The need for a pre-startup test program / plans to be developed in preparation for operations after this extended outage.
(DETAILS, paragraph 6)
- 4. Review of A0 76/01 and A0 76/02. The inspectors expressed, in general, satisfaction with the ANO-1 staff's detail to and execution of procedures and activities during this defueling outage. The licensee representative acknowledged this commendation.
t e
l (continued)
,n-
,r
~.
t
_4_
i t<
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted, Arkansas Power and Light Company (AP&L)
J. W. Anderson, Jr., Plant Superintendent G. H. Miller, Assistant Plant Supervisor T. Martin, Maintenance Supervisor R. G. Carroll, Health Physics Supervisor L. W. Humphrey, Quality Assurance Engineer V. Kinsey, Secretary, PSC M. Bishop, Records Supervisor L. Alexander, Quality Control Engineer R. Fishencord, Health Physicist J. L. Bates, Radiochemistry Supervisor C. Zimmerman, Reactor Operator B. Simmons, Reactor Operator B. Parker, Shift Supervisor J. Robertson, Assistant Supervisor of Plant Operations M. E. Frala, Radiochemist C. Mayers, QA Inspector i
Babcock and Wilcox (B&W)
F. R. Faist K. Wandling 2.
Plant Status The plant was shutdown and completely defueled during the period encompassed by the inspection. The reactor core barrel and reactor plenum were removed and the surveillanca specimen holder tubes were being removed from the thermal shield at the time of the inspectors i
exit from the plant on April 22, 1976. The licent.ee representative indicated that a request had been submitted to NRC/DRL by AP&L to provide relaxation of the requirement (TS 4.2.7) related to the surveillance schedule for these reactor vessel specimens. AP&L would like to operate without these surveillance specimen tube holders in place at least until the next anticipated refueling outage late in 1976.
i (continued) s
.,4 h.
,,.-..--,.r..,
w,m_e._...,.. _,.
-..,.,-..,.,m-~-
, G' 3.
Reactor Vessel Video Scanning The inspectors observed video movies of scans of the surveillance specimen holder tubes and the area at the bottom of the reactor vessel surrounding the incore instrument nozzles.
Representatives of Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) were present at the plant to coordinate these inspection activities. In particular, a 1-3/4" diameter Reiss Series 80 Watertight camera was being used and the visual incge was being reproduced in tape on a Sony AV 3650 Videocorder.
The inspectors reviewed the tapes on a Setchell-Carlson television monitor. The inspectors noted that due to the presence of suspended material in the reactor vessel water, some optical clarity of the Picture was lost, but the B&W representatives indicated that further filming will take place after the water is cleaned up.
The inspectors indicated that a complete review of these films will be made by NRC representatives at a future inspection.
4.
Preparation for the April 1976 Outage The objective of this inspection effort was to verify that the licensee's preparations for the April 1976 Outage were in conformance with all applicable NRC surveillance requirements.
a.
Scope of Inspection
)
The inspector reviewed licensee records to verify that:
(1) The feci transfer system checkout had been performed in accordance with Procedure 1502.03.
(2) The main and auxiliary fuel handling bridges had been checked out in accordance with Procedure 1502.03.
(3) The spent fuel handling bridge checkout had been performed in accordance with Procedure 1502.03.
(4) The communications systems had been checked out in accordance with Procedure 1502.03.
(5) The Source Range Monitors (SRM) had been functionally tested in accordance with Procedure 1105.01.
(6) The Area Radiation Monitors (ARM) on the refueling level (RE-8017) and the spent fuel storage area (RE-8009) were operational.
(continued)
N
~s
, +-
. ph r
\\s_/
(7) Preventative maintenance checks had been performed on the reactor building polar crane prior to handling vessel components.
(8) The vessel water boron concentration for refueling was established prior to head removal in accordance with TS 3.8,4.
b.
Inspection Findings 4
The inspector found that the licensee had completed and documented all of the above requirements. While reviewing the licensee's records, the inspector found that changes had been made on (or about)
March 29, 1976 to the working copies of Attachments "D" and "F" to Procedure 1502.03 (? reparation for Refueling). The intent of these procedures was changed, however, the changes were not subsequently approved by the Plant Superintendent.
Technical Specification (TS) 6.7.1 establishes the requirements for detailed written procedures including the above procedure. TS 6.7.3 provides the mechanism by which temporary changes may be made to the procedures covered by TS 6.7.1.
The second sentence of TS 6.7.3 states that, " Temporary changes which may affect the intent of the original procedure may be made, provided such changes are approved by the Plant Superintendent."
The licensee's failure to have the Plant Superintendent approve the above temporary changes is contrary co the above TS requirement.
No other discrepancies were found in this area.
5.
Fuel Handling Activities The objective of this part of the inspection was to verify that the licensee's actions to defuel the reactor vessel and remove the vessel internals were conducted in conformance with the requirements of the licensee's technical specifications.
a.
Scope of Inspection The inspector reviewed the licensee's records of the defueling and verified that:
4 i
(1) neutron monitoring of the core was in accordance with TS 3.8.2.
4 (2) containment integrity was maintained in accordance with TS 3.8.6 and 3.8.7.
(3) radiation levels at the refueling area and at the spent fuel storage area were monitored in accordance with TS 3.8.1.
(continued)
'~
s_
. OQ (4) one decay heat removal pump and cooler were operable.
(5) baron concentrations in the reactor vessel and in the spent fuel storage pool were maintained at greater than that required for refueling.
I (6) fuel accountability methods were in accordance with procedure 1502.05.
The inspector also toured the facility to verify that items (3) and (6) above were being maintained on a c~r wing basis. The inspector also observed the storage of core r :ernals and studs to assure that they were properly stored to protect against damage, b.
Inspection Findings The inspector found that all of the TS and licensee requirements cited above had been completed satisfactorily. The licensee was also maintaining controls to assure that the requirements of items (3) through (6) are being satisfied on a continuing basis.
While reviewing the licensee's surveillance of baron concentrations, the inspector found that the licensee was not retaining a record of the data used to calculate the boron concentrations of vessel and spent fuel storage pool water samples. The chemistry technicians are
}
recording only the final boron concentration of the water sample.
Criterion II of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 states in part that, " Test results shall be documented and evaluated to assure that test requirements have been satisfied." Criterion XVII of 10 CFR 50, 4
Appendix B states in part that, " Inspection and test records shall, as a ninimum, identify the inspector or data recorder, the type of observation, the results, the acceptability,..
i Sections 11.4.1 and 11.4.3 of the licensee's Quality Assurance Manual amplify the licensee's commitment to the above Appendix B requirements as follows:
11.4.2 Records of test results shall include at least the following:
- 1) Identity of part or material, system, structure, or component under test.
i
- 2) Date of test.
- 3) Date taken.
- 4) Name and signature of individual performing test.
(continued) n
.-a m
-e
,.e--,e
__.,,----,,--g--w
p
.8-
- 5) Test results and conclusions.
- 6) Identity of portable test equipment.
- 7) Recommendations for corrective action or ratesting resulting from the test.
- 8) Review signatures of cognizant supervisors, and final review signature of Plant Superintendent r
when required.
11.4.3 Testing records shall provide objective evidence that the test was performed in compliance with approved pro-cedures. Testing records shall be maintained in the plant files in accordance with the procedures for document retention (QCP 1004.25).
The licensee's failure to record test data, other than the final results, constitutes an item of noncompliance with the above Appendix B requirements.
No other discrepancies were found in this' area.
6.
Preparation for Operations After the Outage n(
The inspector discussed.with licensee representatives their plans for
\\s_,,
testing those systems which will be disturbed during the outage. The licensee representatives said that the plans for the preoperational testing have not yet been formulated. They said that these plans would be developed later into the outage. This item will remain open pending the inspector's review of the test program / plans at a future inspection.
7.
Other Activities Underway during this Outage The inspectors noted that several other activities were taking place during this outage.
Representatives of Westinghouse are performing the warranty inspection on the Main Turbine. The inspectors noted the disassembled turbine and were favorably impressed with the excellent condition of the turbine blades and internals.
6 The licensee representative indicated that the Na2 2 3 recirculation S0 pump is scheduled for installation during this outage (7502/1),
i f
(continued) 1 J
i
. LJ The int,pector discussed the results of the Halon Fire System acceptance tests (7502/2) which were conducted on March 31, 1976.
The licensee representative indicated that the ceiling and false floor areas of the relay rooms maintained the required halon concentration for the specified ten minute period, however, the ceiling of the control room was only able to maintain the required halon concentration for a period of four to six minutes. A report is being prepared for review by NELPIA which documents the results of this test. The inspector will review this report and NELPIA evaluation in a future inspection.
The inspectors had no further comments on these items.
8.
Inadvertent Addition of Na,S903 to the NaOH Tank (76-05/11)
The inspector reviewed a memorandum from the Plant Superintendent to the Plant Safety Committee (PSC) addressing the need to investigate the Na2 2 3 addition incident for possible safety implications. The S0 Plant Superintendent requested that the PSC recommend any corrective action, procedures, or changes to procedures which might be needed in order to prevent this type of incident in the future.
The PSC met on April 13, 1976 and recommended that AP&L Engineering and the Safety Review Committee investigate the effect of Na2 2 3 S0 O
on the carbon steel tank walls of the NaOH Tank.
i Corrective action taken to date has been the labeling of each tank and preparation of additional procedures for sampling of both tanks.
The inspector reviewed rough drafts of the following applicable procedures:
OP 1607.11 Sampling the Reactor Boilding Spray Pumps OP 1607.12 Sampling of the Borated Water Storage Tank (BWST)
=
GP 1607.13 Sampling the Sodium Hydroxide Tank (T-10)
OP 1607.14 Sampling the Sodium Thiosulfate Tank (T-9)
This item remains unresolved pending analysis of this incident by the SRC and approval of procedures by PSC.
i (continued) a
~
9.
Review of Plant Operations a.
Shift Logs and Operating Records The inspector reviewed the records listed below, held discussions with plant staff members and inspected the Control Room on April 21 and 22, 1976.
(1) ANO-1 Station Log: Entries made in this log from January 1, 1976 to April 21, 1976 were observed to be filled out, initialed, and reviewed.
(2) Auxiliary Operators Log: The inspector reviewed entries in this log for the period January 1,1976 to April 21, 1976.
(3) Jumper and Bypass Log: The inspector reviewed entries in this log for the period December 30, 1975 to April 19, 1976.
The log did not contain discrepancies which were in conflict with Technical Specification requirements.
(4) Trouble Reports: The inspector selected seven trouble tickets for review, but complete history on each item was not immediately available during the time period of the inspection. The licensee indicated that the information will be available for evaluation at the next inspection.
\\
('j The inspector noted from observation of entries in the station log that inspections are being made at least once per day of suction line piping on the makeup, decay heat removal, and building spray systems.
The inspector had no further comments on this item.
10.
Tour of Accessible Areas The reactor was completely defueled, so access was allowed to all areas of the plant. The inspectors observed that the normal shift require-ments in the control room were being met even though there was no fuel in the reactor. The inspectors also observed that:
Monitoring instrumentation is being recorded as required.
Radiation controls have been properly established.
Plant housekeeping conditions are adequate.
There are no significant fluid leaks.
There is no excessive piping vibrations.
Pipe hanger / seismic restraint setting and oil levels are satisfactory.
1 (continued) d
.~ _
t
. The inspectors did note, however, that a "C" clamp and an open end wrench were not secured on th2 catwalk above the reactor vessel refueling pool. The inspectors also noted an empty reservoir on a shock suppressor attachment to a main steam line in the reactor building. This had been reported previously as Licensee Event Report 76/05. The licenses representative indicated that the seals will be replaced and the reservoirs refilled on any leaking shock suppressors during this outage.
The inspectors had no further comments on this item.
11.
Review of Licensee Event Reports The inspectors reviewed plant records related to the following Licensee Event Reports:
A0 76/01 Group 6 Ratchet Rod Drop A0 76/02 Failure to Record Station Battery Voltage for each Pilot Cell This review was performed to verify that:
a.
The cause was identified, evaluated, and corrective action taken.
b.
The details were clearly reported to the NRC and facility manage-ment as required by the Technical Specificacious.
Each report was submitted for distribution and review was performed c.
as required by the Technical Specifications.
1 d.
Follow-up action is in progress or completed.
i Limiting conditions for operation were not exceeded.
e.
The inspectors had no additional comments on this item.
i 1
h 6
h n
u
-- --- -