ML20005G016
| ML20005G016 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 01/10/1990 |
| From: | Collins S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Campbell G ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9001170503 | |
| Download: ML20005G016 (2) | |
See also: IR 05000313/1989030
Text
.
.
.
..
-
-
.
.-
-
_.
.
_
,
!
!
.
.
'
!
JAN I O flB0
..
-
l
,
,
l
t
In Reply Refer To:
Dockets: 50-313/89-30
-
50-368/89-30
!
!
!
Arkansas Power & Light Company
ATTN:
Gene Campbell, Vice Pmsident
l
Nuclear Operations
3
P.O. Box 551
Little Rock, Arkansas 72203
j
,
Gentlemen:
Thank you for your letter of December 5,1989, that provided additional
information about maintenance and engineering interfaces at Arkansas Nuclear
.l
One. This information was requested in addition to the required response to a
!
!
Notice of Violation dated September 7,1989
We will review this area during
j
,
future inspections.
[
Sincerely,
f
Original Signed By:
l
Samuel J. Collins
'
t
Samuel J. Collins, Director
!
Division of Reactor Projects -
l
!
'
CC:
Arkansas Nuclear One
ATTN:
Early Ewing, General Manager
Technical Support and Assessment
!
P.O. Box 608
!
Russellville, Arkansas 72801
i
Arkansas Nuclear One
ATTN:
Neil Carns. Director
Nuclear Operations
P.O. Box 608
Russellville, Arkansas 72801
l
!
$
h
RIV:DRP/A Ok
C:DRP/A
ho
ATHowell;df
DDChamberlain
ns
,
1/g/90'
1/3/90
90
gga"l%B8A 888Sh3 [
Iso /
l
0
-
. -
. - -
-
.-
// t
.
.!
-__
__
_
.
.
_
_
!
i
..
e
.*
- l
\\
.
.
,
Arkansas Power & Light Company
-2--
Combustion Engineering. Inc.
' ATTN:
Charles B. Brinkman, Manager
'
Washington Nuclear Operations
12300 Twinbrook Parkway, Suite 330
)
Rockville, Maryland 20852
Honorable Joe W. Phillips
I
County Judge of Pope County
.
Pope County Courthouse
'
Russellville, Arkansas 72801
Bishop, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds
ATTN: Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
1400 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005-3502
i
ATTN: Ms. Greta Dieus, Director
Division of Environmental Health
Protection
4815 West Markam Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Babcock & Wilcox
Nuclear Power Generation Division
ATTN: Mr. Robert B. Borsum
1700 Rockville Pike, Suite 525
Rockville, Maryland 20852
P
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
ATTN: Senior Resident Inspector
1 Nuclear Plant Road
Russellville, Arkansas 72801
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
ATTN: Regional Administrator, Region IV
611 Ryan Plaza Drive. Suite 1000
l
Arlington, Texas 76011
bectoDMB(IE01)
bec distrib. by RIV:
R. D. Martin
Resident Inspector
DRSS-FRPS
SectionChief(DRP/A)
Lisa Shea, RM/ALF
RIV_ File
MIS System
RSTS Operator
Project Engineer (DRP/A)-
,
.
C. Harbuck NRR Project Manager (MS:
13-D-18)
l
C. Posiusny, NRR Project Manager (MS:
13-D-18)
l
l
"
,
'
-
s . .,
h
-
u .n .r o . a u m ce ,.n,
.wAPOL
=r
o
wenxanm,
,
Te! 501377 Or
- m,
--
i ii!s.@ M.. 0W/m
,
P3
!a
DEC I i 1989
L
y
December 5, 1989
_
SCAN 128902
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Document Control Desk
Mail Station P1-137
Washington, D. C. 20555
SUBJECT:
Arkansas Nuclear One - Units 1 and 2
Docket Nos. 50-313/50-368
Response to inspection Report
50-313/89-30; 50-368/89-30
Dear Gentlemen:
In the subject inspection report, Arkansas Power & Light was requested to
review the maintenance and engineering personnel involvement when discre-
pancies are identified during the conduct of maintenance.
As discussed in
the cover letter of our response to Violation 313/8930-01, dated October 6,
1989 (OCAN188903), this letter provides the results of our review in the-
enclosed attachment.
Very truly yours,
' f .($
.}
1
E.
. Ewing
,
General Manager
Technical Support and Assessment
ECE/JDJ/1s1
Attachment
cc:
Regional Administrator
i
Region IV
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000
Arlington, TX 76011
]
/ Uf.L ff l 0
h{A'
..
I
_ . _ _ _
_ _
_ _ _ _ __
.-
___
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
.
_ _ _
.__
~ ~ a,
t
D
U. S. NRC
-
.-
.
. Attachment
l
Page 1
.
r
December 5, 1989
!
,
.
!
+
'
REVIEW OF MAINTENANCE INTERFACE WITH ENGINEERING
Based on observations by AP&L management, the lack of engineering involve-
!
ment is attributed to the informality of (1) engineering and maintenance
interface concerning engineering involvement and (2) documenting
en0ineering resolution when involved.
These informalities result in
i
failure of maintenance personnel to stop work and ensure that proper
engineering support and approval is obtained and failure to properly
document engineering resolutions prior to commencing work activities (e.g.,
i
in some cases, resolution was obtained informally by telephone and not
followed up with written evaluations).
t
Efforts have been initiated which have clarified and strengthened the rela-
i
,
tionship between maintenance and engineering.
When the incident was
t
identified in Inspection Report 50-313/89-28; 50-368/89-28, a memorandum was
issued to all maintenance personnel (ANO-89-07321, dated August 11, 1989)
which emphasized the responsibilities of maintenance personnel with regard
[
to configuration control.
Directions were given to stop work and contact a
>
,
maintenance engineer whenever a' condition was encountered during work which
potentially impacted the design of the plant.
The maintenance engineer
l
is to evaluate the condition and determine if a change to the configuration
'
of the plant is involved.
The evaluation performed by the maintenance
I
engineer is to be documented in writing and maintained as part of the job
l
order package.
Training on the requirements of this memorandum was included
L
in training conducted for the maintenance staff on November 21 and 22, 1989,
'
and in subsequently scheduled makeup sessions.
A maintenance engineering administrative procedure has been issued which
.
contains the responsibilities of the maintenance engineers, including those
outlined in the memorandum discussed above.
These duties include supporting
,
i
the planning of maintenance work activities, as necessary, by performing
technical evaluations of problems identified in job requests or by providing
1
a technical basis for work instructions in a job order.
This will help
identify potential configuration concerns before the work is started.
At
'
any point in the maintenance process, a maintenance engineering technical
evaluation may be used to determine if a problem involves a change to plant
design.
If so, then a Plant Engineering' Action Request (PEAR) is initiated
to evaluate and implement the design change.
Technical evaluations related
t
to job orders become part of the job order package and serve to document
-
engineering resolutions.
4
The maintenance engineering staff will continue to provide the liaison between
-
'
the maintenance group and the engineering groups responsible for configuration
control. Maintenance personnel are aware that the maintenance engineers are
'
available to perform this function, and the maintenance engineering staff is
being increased to better support the needs of the maintenance group.
,
Specific action assignments are being made through the Condition Reporting (CR)
.
system to formally involve engineering in determining appropriate corrective
actions when conditions are identified by maintenance which require engineering
resolutions.
4
4
4
.--
- . , . , . . - . - . . . , - .
,.
. - . - - , - .
. , . . .
,.c
,
.---
-
- - . - ,,
r
'" 5
.
0
,4
W. S. NRC
.
,
4ttachment
f ,Page 2
December 5, 1989
-
.
Changes to appropriate procedures have been initiated to clearly delineate
the role of maintenance engineering in supporting maintenance activities
and the responsibilities of maintenance personnel to stop work and use the
maintenance engineering staff to resolve potential configuration concerns.
These revisions will be completed by January 15, 1990.
AP&L is currently reviewing the Diagnostic Evaluation Team (DET) issues
related to this subject.
Any further actions related to this issue will be
addressed as part of our response to the final DET report.
More recent observations by AP&L management and supervision indicate a
significant increase in engineering involvement with maintenance activities.
The actions that have been taken and are planned (i.e., procedure changes
and increase in maintenance engineering staff) to further enhance the
maintenance / engineering interface will better control and formalize the
i
process of involving engineering in maintenance activities.