ML20065K771
| ML20065K771 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Arkansas Nuclear |
| Issue date: | 08/19/1980 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082180535 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-82-261 NUDOCS 8210080112 | |
| Download: ML20065K771 (8) | |
Text
'
t N/f fd7ES Arkansas Nuclear One Units 1 & 2 Evaluation Period:
1/1/79 - 8/19/80 I.
General The Arkansas Nuclear One facility was determined to be weak in the areas of training (Contention A), security (Coatention B), reporting (Contention C),
ano quality control (Contention D).
T'he licensee has developed and implemented an improved, formal training program that meets regulatory requirements, including (1) a schedule of training. lectures and requalification programs, (2) a method for performing performance evaluations, (3) a system to identify weak areas in the annual examination, then retrain and reexamine individuals, and (4) a better system-of record keeping to provide confirmation that required training is being performed.
The quality control area has received increased management attention resulting in (1) increased review and followup of procedures, design changes and maintenance activities, (2) reinstruction of personnel on the requirements for adherance to procedures, and (3) increased. control of equipment and verification of work performed.
i The licensee has provided additional ie:urity training and increased area surveillance, resulting in a reduced ntaber of violations during the last four months of the evaluation per_iod.
WOs In the matter of reporting, the licensee has provided more complete LER's l
in ecent months, and shown increased willingness to keep the NRC notified of problem areas and corrective actions taken.
i I
In all areas of concern to the NRC, AP&L management has demonstrated increased interest and direct involvement in the implementation of corporate policies.
II.
Specific Contentions A through D below are examples of the more general contention,-
"The Arkanas Nuclear One facility displayed evidence of weaknesses in the areas of training (See Contention A), security, (See Contention B),
r'eporting (See Contention C), and quality control (See Conterition D).
~
l A.
Contention
" Portions of the licensee's training plan were not implemented and portions of the requalification training program were not accomplished.
Several items of noncompliance were identified a civil penalty was subsequently devised, and licensee management meetings were held to correct training weaknesses."
l 1.
Basis References There were several instances of failure to properly IE Rpt. 50-313/
'*('gf; '
train personnel at the Arkansas Nuc, lear one 79-15 l
)
facility.
Examples include:
a schedule was not IE Rpt. 50-313/
l provide for training lectures and requalification 79-16 i*
I B210080112 820712 i PDR FDIA
]
(
UDELL82-261 PDR
i 1
programs; their licensed operators were not given IE Rpt. 50-368/
lectures in areas where weaknesses were noted in 79-14 the annual requalification examinations; their IE Rpt. 50-368/
operators did not receive perfomance evaluations; 79-13 the licensee did not maintain a retraining and 3
replacement training program for the facility staff as required-by the Technical Specifications; p; -
the licensee did not provide means for evaluating the effectiveness of the training program;.and the licensee hed not instructed its emmployees as g
- required by 10 CFR 19.12 to promptly report any condition which may result in a violation of. regulatory,
r, l
requirements or unnecessary exposure to radiation or 4
radioactive material.
y The several training problems.were not in the train-IE Rpt. 50-31-*
ing program itself. but in the implementation of the.
79-1f training program and the lack of a management IE Rpt. 50-368/
overview of training activities.~
79-14 j
A Failure of licensec to conduct requalification IE Rpt. 50-313/
Mi lectures and to perform performance evaluations.
80-12 j
~.
The licensee's Training System had not been revised 50-568/
~
and significant portions of the training referred 80-12 1
to by the licensee had not been conducted, as of i
l July 1980, when this training was committed to begin by 'the first quarter of 1980.
Written examinations t
were not administered to several. individuals who, due to weaknesses identified during the annual examination, participated in the requalification l
lecture series.
Annual operator and SRO written examinations administered during May-June 1979, identified specific weaknesses in the area of instrumentation and control systems and lectures were not conducted
.to correct these specific weaknesses.
l Fire brigade training was not conducted six times i
per year as required.
Records were not maintained, as required, to furnish evidence of activities affecting quality.
(
J
r 2
\\
('
t u.
2.
NRC Actions An inspector attended a classroom lecture and IE Rpt. 50-313/
interviewed two SRO's and two RO's related to 80-03 small break loss of coolant accident analysis and 50-368/
i procedure guidelines.
He also reviewed training 80-03 records.
No violations or deviations were identified.
An interview of a health physicist indicated that IE Rpt. 50-313/80-04 l
hands-on training had been incorporated into the 50-368/80-04 training program and would be part of the routine program in future training.
Following the inspections on June 17-20, 1980, and July 14-18, 1980, a management meeting was held in tne ibgion IV office on August 11, 1980, to discuss the-licensee's nuclear training program.
This discussion included actions completed, projects'under- -
way, and long-term projects and goals.
As a result of this meeting, the licensee made firm commitments Letter froin to having a nuclear training program which meets licensee to or exceeds.r,egulatory requirements.
RIV, dated x
8/13/80.
bnOctober 20, 1980, the licensee was issued a Civil Penalty related to the June 17-20, 1980, and July 14-18, 1980, inspections.
The licensee's November 12, 1980 response to the October 20, 1980 escalated enforcement -..
i action was reviewed and the licensee's actions and pro-i posed actions to correct the problems in the area of training have been found acceptable.
Subsequent inspec-l tions have monitored licensee progress in implementation l.
of the corrective actions related to the licensee's November 12r 1980 response.
No violations or deviations l
have been identifeid~in the area of training.
A special inspection was conducted on March 2-13, IE Rpt. 50-313/
l 1981, regarding the status of the training 81-06 1
program.
50-368/
81-05 NRC inspector attended'a requalification lecture for IE Rpt. 50-313/
licensed personnel and a portion of the licensee's 81-18 health physics training program for new employees.
50-368/
Lesson plan objectives were met and training in 81-16 accordance with requalification program.
3.
Licensee's Corrective Actions The liceasee has taken specific corrective actions in response to identified items (violations and w
c
3
(.
deviations) and to events described in LER's.
In
~
addition, the licensee had submitted progress reports on May 8, 1981 and April 14, 1981 to up-date Region IV on the status of the licensee's training progress and status of commitments.
The licensee has met his commitments.
IE Rpt. 50-313/
81-06 50-368/
81-05 Licensee' letters to RIV, dated 8/13/80, 4/14/81, 5/8/81.
IE Rpt. 50-313/
81-06 50-368/
81-05 IE Rpt. 50-313/
81-18 50-368/
81-16
%S B.
Contention
" Numerous noncompliances were identified.in the security area.
There were weaknesses in the training of secu.rity personnel and other members of the plant staff regarding security requirements.
Instances.were identified in which licensee audits of security programs were not sufficient to identify discrepancies."
1.
Basis References The following are examples of weaknesses in the training of security personnel and other members of the plant staff regarding security requirements and instances where the licensee audits of security programs were inadequate.
A door in the protected area perimeter at the IE Rpt. 50-313/
egress from the administration building did 79-05
' not always close locked and could be opened 50-368/
from outside the protected area.
79-05 A gap existed under a fence of a vital' area for Unit 2.
This gap was about 18 inches from the ground to the fence.
i
... ~.... -
=
4 A purse carried by an NRC inspector was not searched prior to her entry into the protected l
area.
i Access to vital areas is afforded by keys-issued l
by the shift supervisor.
This person did not i
have a list indicating which individuals should be granted vital area access.
Vital area door was unlocked and the door latch IE Rpt. 50-368/
taped such that the lock was inoperable.
79-21, para. 10 One of the licensee designated vehicles was IE Rpt. 50-313/
- unlocked with the keys in the ignition.
79-27 50-368/
79-26 Unlocked door on roof outside a certain Unit 1 IE Rpt. 50-313/
area and it was possible to enter a vital area 80-10 through this door.
2.
NRC Actions
[g$$
Following the NRC inspections that identified IE Rpt. 50-313/
the above items, Notices of Violation were issued 80-19 i
to the licensee.
In addition, the NRC increased 50-368/
their inspection efforts in the area of egress 80-19 into vital or protected areas.
IE Rpt. 50-313/
81-09 50-368/
81-08 The licensee's responses were carefully evaluated and corrective actions completed by the licensee were verified.
Subsequent inspections monitoring the licensee's progress in the security area indicated improvement in this area.
3.
Licensee's Correct.ve Actions The licensee has taken specific corrective Licensee letters to actions in response to the above identified NRC dated 3/16/79, violations in the security area.
7/29/80, 8/27/80.
During the period of April 22 and May 21, 1980, IE Rpt. 50-313/80-07 an inspector verified that the security plan was 50-368/80-07 being implemented by observing selected areas for observation.
No deviations or violations were identified.
An inspection was conducted on June, 15-19, 1981.
IE Rpt. 50-313/81-19 No deviations or violations were identified.
,.,,m.
_,.s
+
i 5-C.
Corstention "The reporting was characterized by several licensee event reports that were late or incomplete."
1.
Basis References The licensee's reporting of abnormal and unusual IE Rpt. 50-313/
operating conditions and/or problem area were 80-12 weak, in that the LER's were too brief, did not 50-368/
contain information necessary to evaluate the LER, 80-12 and at times omitted the actual conditions or results and necessary data or information to determine if appropriate corrective action or preventative measures had been completed or planned.
Unit I was operating at a steady power level of
'LER'80-015 86% when a reactor coolant pump seal partially IE Rpt. 50-313/80-17 failed and a large leak developed.
This LER was so devoid of information that the leakage (60,000 gallons into the Reactor Building) was not included in the LER.
The significance of the seal failure was also omitted ih this LER.
Region IV personnel pw learned of this significant seal failure through -
TM and only through - the resident inspectors.
Sub-sequently, Region IV required a revised LER to be LER 80-015-01X-2 submitted.
This revised LER reported the necessary elements of the seal failure.
The significance of failures of the emergency steam IE Rpt. 50-368/
driven feedwater pump (2P7A) was partially masked
__ 80-17 by the lack of information in the LER's. The 50-368/
necessary information was supplied through the 79-08 resident inspectors. Again it was required that 50-368/
the licensee submit revised LER's that were 79-24 informative and technically correct.
50-368/
~
30-05 l
50-368/
80-21 l
50-368/
80-25 2.
NRC Actions Region IV met with the licensee in the Region IV IE Rpt. 50-313/80-17 Offices on August 11, 1981. The licensee 50-368/80-17 committed to improving his overall communications.
Letter from licensee to Region IV, dated l
8/13/81.
(
\\
e
.----r.
- - ~
v-
_~i---,
r 6
3.
Licensee's Actions References The licensee's overall LER system has improved.
Letter from licensee l
The LER information is generally discussed with to Region'IV, dated the resident inspectors prior to completion of 8/13/81.
l the LER.
The information contained in LER's l
generally meets the criteria to assure that informed readers can readily understand the information and determine the significance of l
the event.
l D.
Contention
" Quality control weaknesses precluded the licensee from identifying and correcting some discrepancies that were subsequently identified by the NRC."
1.
Basis j
There were several instances where the licensee's quality control system failed to identify or correct quality control discrepancies at the Arkansas Nuclear One facility.
Some of the more significant quality control items not identified by 3
the licensee, but subsequently identified by the NP,C include:
u.,,
O An inspector observed welding and grinding being IE Rpt. 50-313/
performed without appropriate authorization.
79-07 An NRC inspector observed that Unit 1 emergency IE Rpt. 50-313/
~
feedwater system was not capable of being started 79-11 i
automatically.
Trending of noncompliance, licensee events, or IE Rpt. 50-313/
beyond the co*ginzant supervisor's daily awareness 79-16 component failures, was not being accomplished 50-368/
of plant activities.
79-14 2.
NRC Actions NRC inspectors followed up on previously identified IE Rpt.
unresolved items, open items, licensee SRC reviews 50-313/
and other quality control items.
79-02 50-368/79-02 l
l An NRC inspector observed the licensee IE Rpt. 50-313/
performing a proper valve line-up.in accordance 79-11 l
with the established procedures.
I The inspector verified that appropriate IE Rpt. 50-313/
i had been prepared and issued 80-05 50-368/
80-05
l l
7 The inspector verified that the licensee had IE Rpt. 50-313/
issued the proper "Q" List 80-03 50-368/
80-03 An inspector verified that the licensee had IE Rpt. 50-313/
added a provision for a review of test results 80-05 to Procedure 1401.03.
Failure of licensee to properly review a safety IE Rpt. 313/
question was forwarded to NRC management for 80-05 resolution.
The item had been determined to be an item of noncompli'ance with 10 CFR So 59.
(
3.
Licensee Actions The licensee's design, design changes and modifications 50-313/
were accomplished in accordance with licensee procedures 80-01 I
and 10 CFR 50.59 requirements..
50-368/
80-01 An NRC inspe'ction determined that the licensee was 50-368/
performing the required activities in the areas of:
80-03 g
. performing the required activities in the areas of:
50-313/
y;;
Plant Operations Review, Test and Measuring Equipment 80-03 Program, and Maintenance as required.
The licensee revised Procedures 1401.03 by adding a IE Rpt. 50-313/
provision for the review of test.results (related to 80-05 the Pressurizer Code Safety Valve testing).
The licensee improved his independent Safety Review IE Rpt. 50-313/
Committee (SRC) reviews of safety evaluations for 80-05 design chan,ges.
Licensee corrective actions and improvements were inspected 50-313/
and considerable improvement over previous inspections in 81-06 this area were noted.
50-368/
81-05 E.
Contention l
"The licensee had weaknesses in the staff support of licensing activities."
(See Contention A and D, which represent weaknesses in staff' support with regard to: training and quality control) l l
l l
-