ML20147C544
| ML20147C544 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 08/11/1978 |
| From: | Madsen G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Cavanaugh W ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20147C548 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7810130045 | |
| Download: ML20147C544 (2) | |
See also: IR 05000313/1978012
Text
p Kao
UNITED STATES
ug[o
..
.,
f
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[$
[
REGION IV
)n
,
ll
'
611 RYAN PLAZA ORIVE, SUITE 1000
.. g
- .M
?f*w /
....
August 11, 1978
'In Reply Refer To:
Docket Nos. 50-313/78-12
.
50-368/78-20
,
Arkansas Power and Light Company
AiTN:
Mr. William Cavanaugh III
Executive Director of Generation
and Construction
P. O. Box 551
Little Rock, Arkansas 72203
Gentlemen:
This refers to the inspection conducted by Messrs. T. F. Westennan, M. W.
Dickerson and D. L. Kelley of this office on July 10-14 and 25-28, 1978, of
activities authorized by NRC Operating License No. DPR-51 and NRC Construction
Permit No. CPPR-89/NRC Operating License No. NPF-6 for the Arkansas Nuclear
One, Units 1 and 2, and to the discussion of the findings by the inspectors
with members.of your staff at the conclusion of each segment of the inspection.
'
Areas examined during .the inspection and our findings are discussed in the
'
enclosed inspection report.
Within these areas, the inspection consisted of
selective examination of procedures and representative records, interviews
with personnel, and observations by the inspectors.
We have also examined actions you have taken with regard to previously
identified enforcement matters, unresolved items and open items.
The status
of these items is identified in paragraph 3 of the enclosed report.
During t is inspection it was found that certain of your activities were not
conducteo in full compliance with NRC requirements, as set 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 statem2nt or explanation in reply including:
(1)
corrective steps which have been taken by you, and the results achieved;
-(2) corrective steps.which will be taken to avoid further noncompliance; and
(3) the date when full- compliance will be achieved.
I
J
--
- . . . . -
- . _ .
,
,
_ , . . . . -
. . .
.~
.-
. , ~ .
. . , _ . .
.
.
_.
_ . _ . .
. .
_
_
_ _ _
__.
.
. -.
.
,
..
'
.
.
i
Arkansas Power and Light Company
-2-
August 11, 1978
.
It was also found that certain of your activities were in' deviation with
your commitments to the Commission as set forth in paragraph 3 of the
'
enclosed inspection report.
You are requested to submit to this office
-
-
within 20 days of your reccipt of this letter, a written statement in
reply which includes:
(1) actions that you plan to take to. meet your-
commitments; and (2) the date when the above actions will be completed.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part
!
2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the
enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document
'
Room.
If the report contains any infonnation that you believe to be '
.
,
'
proprietary, it is necessary that you submit a written application to. this
office within 20 days of the date of this letter, requesting that such.
information be withheld from public disclosure.
The application must
include a full statement of the reasons why it is claimed that the
,
information is proprietary. The application should be prepared-so that
,
any proprietary infonnation identified is contained in an enclosure to
c
!
the application, since the application without.the enclosure will also
'
be placed in the Public Document Room.
If we do not hear from you in-
_;
this regard within the specified pericd, the report will be placed in the
Public Document Room.
i
Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be
j
pleased to discuss them with you.
,
>
Sincerely,
e
'
w
'G. L. Madsen, Chief,
.
Reactor Operations and
i
Nuclear Support Branch
<
Enclosures:
i
1.
Notice of Violation (Docket No. 50-313)
2.
IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-313/78-12
!
'
50-368/78-20
'
cc w/ enclosures:
Arkansas Nuclear One
ATTN: Harvey Miller, Plant Superintendent
P. O. Box 608
Russellville, Arkansas 72801
j
i
L. Alexander, QC Supervisor
(Same Address)-
- , . .
.
.
. .
. .
.
..
...._..__.,_..~._.....___._.._._...J
'
.
.
,
Arkansas Power and Light Company
Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 1
Docket No. 50-313
ENCLOSURE 1
' NOTICE OF' VIOLATION
Based on the results of an NRC inspection conducted July 11-14, 1978, it
appears that certain of your activities were not conducted in full ccm-
pliance with conditions of your Operating License No. DPR-51 as indicated
below:
1.
Technical Specification 6.5.2.8.C states that, " Audits of
facility activities shall be performed under the cognizance of
the SRC.
These audits shall encompass:
...
"c.
The results of all actions taken to correct deficiencies
occurring in facility equipment, structures, systems or
method of operation that affect nuclear safety at least
once per six months."
,
Contrary to the above, no audits per Technical Specification 6.5.2.8.C
have been conducted since July 28, 1977.
This is an infraction.'
2.
The facility Technical Specifications, Section 4.19.3, states in
part, "The non-supervised circuits between the local panels in
Specification 4.19.2 and the control room shall be demonstrated
operable at least once per 31 days."
Contrary to the above, the operability of the non-supervised circuits
has not been demonstrated since the issuance of Amendment No. 30
(March 3,1978) to the Unit No.1 Facility Operating License.
This is an. infraction.
3.
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, requires in part that, " Activities
affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions,
procedures, or drawings of a type appropriate to the circumstances
and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions,
procedures, or drawings."
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
.
..- -
..
- - . . -
.
-
,
-
.
-2-
Bechtel Procedure WFMC-1, " Welding Filler Material Control Procedure
Specification," paragraph 4.3.4, requires that, " Portable rod
warmers shall be checked out and into the rod room on a daily basis.
During use, portable rod wanmers shall be continuously heated.
. . . Unused electrodes shall be returned to the rod storage area
at the end of each shift or . destroyed."
Contrary to the above requirements, an unplugged (cold) rod warmer
(Number 145) containing E-7018 weld rod was found on level 314 ft.
level of the reactor building.
This-is'an infraction.
. , .
l
,
1
, ,
. , _ . . . . . , <
~ - . _ , - ,
..
-
.
.
. - . . , - . . _ . , . - . - . . . . _ . . . _ . , - .
. . . . . . . . . - . . .
.
. -
,
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND' ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Report Nos. 50-313/78-12
50-368/78-20
Docket Nos. 50-313
License No. DPR-51
50-368
Construction Permit No. CPPR-89/
License No. NPF-6
Licensee:
Arkansas. Power & Light Company
P. O. Box 551
Little Rock, Arkansas 72203
Facility Name: Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO), Unit Nos.1 ari 2
Inspection At: AN0 Site, Russellville, Arkansas
and AP&L Corporate Offices, Little Rock, Arkansas
Inspection Conducted: July 10-14 and 25-28, 1978
Inspectors:
Mde h
P//e[76
'
'T. F. Westerman, Reactor Inspector
Date
~,
l
/
Rl/6l?F
ou
.
D. E.' Ablley, Reactynspec
r
Dete'
bA~/
/
2//c'l7Y
><
1. W. Dickerson, Reactor Inspector
Date
k
<t2 ->G
8//0l W
'G. L. Madsen, Chief, Reactor Operations and
Date
Nuclear Support Branch
Approved By:
%
M M/7F
G. L. Madsen, Chief, Reactor Operations and
Date
Nuclear Support Branch
.e
i,,..-. -
9
g,r.m
-
9.
,--y,+9
,,py,-
,**i,y
q
,
,
w
+m.
.y
w
_.
-
.-
..
-
..
.
-2-
Inspection Summary -
Inspection on July 10-14 'and'25-28, ~1978'(Report'No. ' 50-313/78-12)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, Unannoun::ed inspection of proctrement,' review
_
and audit, and plant operations.
The inspection. involved.48 inspector-
'
hours on-site by one NRC inspector.
-
Results: Within the three areas inspected, three infractions were-
identified relating to'SRC audits, fire protection instrumentation surveil-
lance and control of weld electrodes (DETAILS, par.agraphs 13,14 and 11).
Inspection'on~ July'10-14'and 25-28,'1978'(Report No.'50-368/78-20)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection involving .the review of
test program status, follow up on IE Bulletins and Circulars, review of
Construction 1 Deficiency Reports, items preparatory to operating license
issuance, witness of initial fuel load and management meeting. The
inspection involved 63 inspector-hours on-site by three NRC inspectors.
Results: - Within the six areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were
identified. One apparent deviation from comitments to the NRC was
identified relative to fire protection (DETAILS, paragraph' 3).
!
1 .
.
.
.
. .
.
. .
. . .
.
. .
. .
. .
.
-
-
-
.
-
.
.-
- -
-
- - .
'
.
-
,
,
i
-
.
-3-
,
t
DETAILS
.,
.
!
1.
Persons Contacted
.
' Arkansas Power & Light Company Employees
>
J. ,WEAnderson, ANO Plant Manager.
L. Alexander,~QC Engineer
.
J. R. Anderson,1 Assistant Production Startup Supervisor
1
B. A.' Baker, ANO-2 Operations Supervisor
4
R. L. Bata, QA Engineer
.
.*
T. N. Cogburn, Nuclear Engineer
.
E. C. Ewing, Production Startup Supervisor
D. R.'Hamblin, QC Engineer
T. Holcomb, Scheduler
P.~ Jones, Maintenance Supervisor . .
G.; H. Miller, Assistant: AN0 Plant Mar.ager-
S. . Petsel, Licensing- Engineer
J. Robertson, ANO-1 Operations Supervisor-
S. M. Strasner, QC Engineer
'
B. A. Terwilliger, Supervisor Plant. 0perations:
D. Trimble, Training _ Coordinator
. i
.CE Employees
R.'Ahrens, Startup Engineer
L. Arnold, Startup Engineering Group Leader
2.
Inspection Follow'Up on Previous Inspection Findings
(Closed)OpenItem(Inspection' Report 50-368/77-20): . Qualification of
,
Refueling Machine and Crane Operators.
Fifty-eight maintenance personnel have received documented training on
lifting equipment. . Qualification and training on the refueling machine
has ' een completed and documented for 14 licensed operators.
Seven
non-licensed operators have also received tnining under supervision of
l
a licensed operator.
!
3. .
Fire Doors'(Unit 2)
The inspector identified during this inspection that fire doors were not
being maintained closed.- These doors included 274, 266, 269, 278,.260,
261, 259, 251 and 262.
In the licensee's reply to NRR (letter dated.
.i
5/17/77) which. provided a' comparison of ANO-2 Fire Protection' to
Appendix A of Branch Technical Position APCSB 9.5-1, the licensee
stated that, " Fire doors are normally. closed." The licensee's failure
'
to maintain fire doors closed. is considered a deviation to previous
conini tment.
~
i
i
<
r
. . .-
.
.
. .
~
.
- . . .
.
. . . . .
,__..,._.-.~..._.c__.._..-.~._,,.____._,....-,-
_
.
-
'
4_
.
4.1
Initial Fuel Load (Unit 2)
a.
' Scope
The~ inspector verified conformance to licensee requirn"lents-by
-
.
selective review of applicable Technical Specification require-
,
ments.
The inspector verified conformance to administrative and
procedural-requirements by observations in the following; areas:
'
I
--
- Communications between control room and the refuel level.
Crew operations and staffing
-
Proper revision of procedure'in place
- -
Maintenance of counts and inverse multiplication plots
-
Baron ' concentration
-
Surveillance of monitoring equipment
-
Shift turnover
-
Control of_ personnel access-
-
Refueling status boards
-
Discussions with personnel on loading stations
-
,
Shift schedules
-
The inspector. reviewed the fuel . loading procedure to verify the ,
following:
Master. copy was being assembled
-
Proper control of procedure changes
-
Test deficiencies
-
Data sheet legibility, traceability and permanence
-
The inspector reviewed the control room log for the 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />
preceding fuel loading.
.
b.
Inspection Findings
(1)
The. inspector found that the fuel loading was proceeding
in a safe and efficient manner.
'
(2)
The inspector did identify that compliance with the fire
protection Technical Specifications as an unresolved item.
It is the licensee's intention to request relief-from a
portien of these specifications for approximately. 45 days.
These Tcchnical Specification (TS) requirements include
TS 4.3.3.8, 4.7.10.2.C 4.7.10.3.C.2 and 4.7.10.1.2.C.1
(UnresolvedItem7820-1).
(3)
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.
. . ,
.u.~4n,,.
a
s - . -
,,
,-,y
a
e,.e
w
, - -
,-e
4
.--,...e.,,,ww.
.so
s. ~ w e
e
m
,e,
,eg.,e
, -.,
.r--
..~
4-~
.e-~4q
-q
s
,
.
._
__
.
.
..
l
.,
-5-
.
5.
Fuel Load ~ License Conditions (Unit 2)
a..
Excore Nuclear Instrumentation
The inspector verified that the excore nuclear instrumentation
'
had been installed (SWR 3014).
Difficulty had been experienced
.in that there was not sufficient clearance between the-
-
~ detectors and detector well.
This problem was resolved by-
enlarging the diameter of the . detector well by use of a reaming.
!
. tool..
b.
Preoperational Test 2.60012A'"Special Test of Boration/ Dilution -
System
i
The inspector' verified. satisfactory completion of Preoperational-
Test 2.600.12A.
Completion of this test had been delayed pending
installation of the seal _ ring 'around the reactor vessel.
c.
' Conduit' Fire' Barriers
.The inspector . verified completion of the _ installation of fire
-
-
barriers. .The resolution of questions concerning the installation
of the fire barriers at the end.of conduits rather than at wall
,
penetration is to be completed by Mode 2.
'
6.
Operator-Training -(Unit 2)~
The inspector followed up on the licensee's July 5,1978 letter to
NRR, Operator Licensing Branch, regarding the plant's response to
April 20,1978.0perator Licensing Branch. - The specific items verified .
by the inspector are as follows:
i
OP 2202.36 Determining Magnitude of Release, Rev. O, was issued
j
May.27, 1978.
A four hour training session was provided for each prospective operator.
Fuel Handling _
j
j
Additional hands-on fuel handling training has been completed.
EachL
licensed operator has ccmpleted at least one transfer of the dummy
fuel element from the upender into the: vessel and back,
j
Control Systems
]
I
Training sessions of approximately two hours duration have been con-
ducted for each licensed operator relating to the Steam Dump and Bypass
Control System and the Feedwater Control System.
t
-
x
. - .
.-.. -
. . - .
. _ . , _ _
--_.--__,,....._..._,,,-m
. ~ . _ - ,
.
.....
, , - .
. , . _ ,
- . . - -
,
-6-
'
Safeguards Actuation
Emergency Procedure OP 2202.08, Revision 0, Inadvertent Safety
Injection Actuation, has been written.
j
,
~
CPC/COLSS/ Computer,
OP 2105.01, Permanent Change 2, has been discussed. This change
!
-
delineates the department responsible for changing addressable
l
constants and establishes administrative controls required to
I
I
maintain the validity' of the addressable constants.
The inputs for letdown flow and steam generator blowdown' flow are
l
being changed to analog inputs.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
'
7.
Follow Up on NRR Site Visit, July'6-8,1977 (Unit 2)
During the site visit by NRR/ DSS on July 6-8,1977, it was determined
!
that a method of level detection in the Service Water Pump bays was -
necessary. The applicant, through various discussions with NRR/ DSS,
agreed to provide an alternate to the installation of class IE level
detection.
Letters of agreement with the Corps of Engineers providing
j
telephone and two-way radio communication with the Corps at the Dardanelle
'
Dam plus plant procedures were agreed upon for the following conditions:
a.
Deliberate reservoir drawdown below the 335 foot level.
b.
Notification within 10 minutes if an uncontrolled' drawdown below
the 335 foot level occurs,
c.
A surveillance procedure for ensuring telephone and radio
communication.
.
The inspector reviewed the applicant's response, which consisted of
the following:
Procedure 1203.02,7/7/78, which discusses a deliberate drawdown
of the reservoir.
Procedure 1202.24,9/20/77, which discusses a loss of the
-
Dardanelle Dam.
Standing Order #31, 7/78, which requires monthly communication
check with the Corps of Engineers.
No discrepancies were noted. This item is closed.
...
.
..
-7-
8.
Cable Separation and Cable Tray Covers (Unit 2)
This item is a remaining construction item.
Due to the last minute
pulling.of cables, it was not until recently that an adequate quantity
'.
of cable tray covers could be inspected.
The inspector examined areas of the plant with an applicant represen-
i
tative.
The inspector noted, during the inspection, work in progress
in congested areas where barriers and coatings were being installed.
The two most congested areas, cable spreading room and the hallway
just outside, were the areas of closest examination. Also examined
was room 2091 which contains both red and green safety trains.
No
discrepancies were noted. This item is closed.
9.
Follow Up on Construction Deficiency Reports (Unit 2)
On June 2,1978, the applicant reported a possible significant deficiency
as defined by 10 CFR 50.5S(e) to RIV. The report concerned problems
encountered with valves manufactured by EPG.
The following is a list-
ing of the valve types and the problems encountered.
Efcomatic - Actuated Ball Valves -
- 90V DC motors supplied instead of 125V DC motors.
- One valve failed seismic testing in the Triaxial Mode.
- Valves failed to fully close.
,
Electrotrip Motor Operated Valves -
'
- Insufficient Environment Test Data.
- Cast iron trip stop failed.
Matryx Air Actuated Ball Valves -
- No seismic Test Data.
The applicant responded in writing on the following dates:
June 21, 1978 - Motor operated valve trip stop failure.
June 30, 1978 - Matryx Air Actuated Ball Valves seismic qualification.
June 30, 1978 - Efcomatic - Actuated Ball Valves seismic qualification.
July 7, 1978 - Efcomatic - Actuated Ball Valves failure to fully
close.
~
June 16,1978 - Efcomatic - Actuated Ball Valves 90V DC motor
supplied for 125V DC service.
June 8, 1978 - Motor operated Ball Valves failure of exter.., ion
stems.
i
,
,
l
.
-.
.
.
. --
. - - . . -
-
.
,
~
.
. .
-8-
The inspector reviewed the applicant's responses and reviewed the
records of the applicant's 'corre tive actions. Of the above
possible significant deficiencies, all but two were considered
reportable after evaluation. The two that were not considered
reportable were: (1) the failed trip stop motor operated ball
.
valve; and (2) the seismic qualification data for the Matryx Air
Actuated Ball valve.
This item is closed.
10.
Emergency Diesel Generator Differential Relay Seismic Qualification
(Unit 2)
This item resulted from discussion between the applicant and NRR
relative to the seismic qualification of certain instrumentation
associated with the diesel generator.
It was determined that the
!
differential relays did not meet the 1974 Revision of IEEE 323.
New relays were ordered. The' applicant issued Design Change
Package (DCP) #682 to perform the work necessary to change the
relays.
r
The inspector reviewed the Material Receiving Report (MRR #76668)
which contained the documentation of the seismic qualification.
~
The inspector also reviewed the DCP which indicated that the subject
relays had been changed. No discrepancies were identified. This
item is closed,
11.
Review of Plant Operations (Unit 1)
a.
,5 cope of Inspection
The inspector reviewed the following shift logs and operating
loga for completeness and staff review:
Station Log.(3/29/78 - 6/27/78) (3/28/78 - 7/25/78)
.
NSS and Safeguard Auxiliary Log
.
ESAS Log (3/2E/78 - 7/25/78)
.
Standing Orders
.
Jumper Bypass Log
.
Trouble Reports
.
The inspector conducted a tour of accessible areas, including
observations (as apprcpriate) of the folicwing:
Monitoring Instrumentation
.
Radiation Controls
.
Plant Housekeeping
.
Fluid Leaks
.
Piping Vibrations
-
.
Pipe Hanger / Seismic Restraint
+
.
.
, , -
,--
y-
,--
,-w-s
,
- , - , n
.
..
_g.
Selected Valve Position and Equipment Control Switches
.
Lockout Tags
.
Lighted Annunciators
.
.
Plant Tours
.
Control Room Manning
.
b.
Inspection Findings
(1)
The inspector. identified one apparent item of noncom-
pliance during the tour of accessible areas. The inspector
found a Bechtel Weld Rod Warmer (Number 145) containing
E-7018 weld rod unplugged (cold) on the 314 foor level of
the reactor building near the demineralizer. The find-
ing of the uncontrolled weld rod and warmer is contrary
to the requirements of Bechtel Procedure WFMC-1, " Welding
Filler Material Control Procedure Specification," paragraph
4.3.4.
Paragraph 4.3.4 requires in part that, ". . .
Portable rod warmer shall be checked out and into the rod
room on a daily basis.
During use, portable rod warmers
shall be continuously heated.
. . . Unused electrodes
shall be returned to the rod storage area at the end of
each shift or destroyed." A check with the Bechtel Weld
Rod Room indicated that rod warmer number 145 had not
been returned to the room for some time. An attempt was
-
made to locate records for the warmer when it was issued
,
but these could not be immediately located. The' licensee
was informed that failure to properly control the warmer
and the weld rod was considered an infraction.
(2)
The inspector noticed that numerous channels of system
heat tracing were alarmed and could not be cleared by the
operator.
A discussion with a representative of the licensee
indicated that the systems were alarming on high alarm.
He
indicated that action would be taken to initiate work on
the systems to resolve the problem.
(3)
The inspector noticed that numerous indicating lights were
out on various electrical panels throughout the plant.
The licensee indicated these would be replaced and that
their program for replacement would emphasized.
The inspector had no additional questions in this area.
12.
Procurement (Unit 1)
The inspector's review of this area was based on procedures applicable
to Units No.1 and No. 2 and the intpection of implementation was based
on review of eight Unit No.1 and No. 2 procurement packages of safety
related components.
.
.
-
.
.
. . ~
~
.
.
-
-10-
The inspector verified that procurecent documents used were
properly epproved and contained quality centrol inspection and
record requirements.
In addition, the inspector verified for
those ccaponents or materials which had been delivered that:
documentary evidence was available to support confermance to
.
procurement requirements; they were inspected cpon delivery and
were handled in accordance with measures established for control
and separation of nonconforming material, parts and components;
and they were supplied by an approved vendor.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
13.
Review and Audits (Unit 1)
The inspector reviewed the licensee's program of review and audits
conducted by the plant Safety Ccemittee and the Safety Review
Cxraittee.
Included were reviews and audits required by the
Technical Specifications to be ccmpleted.
The records reviewed by the inspector were as follcws:
PSC Minutes, 5/19/77 - 4/27/78
SRC Minutes, 6/13/77 - 4/10/78
SRC Audits of 1/19-20/77 and 7/26-28/77
During this review, it was established that no audit of facility
activities relative to the results of all actions taken to correct
deficiencies occuring in facility equipment, structures, systems
or method of cperation that affect nuclear safety had been conducted
by the Safety Review Cemittee since July 23,1977 (the next scheduled
audit is for July 19-20, 1978). This is contrary to the requirements
of TS 6.5.2.8.C which requires that this audit be conducted at least
once per six month period.
This matter had been discussed in an SRC meeting on June 1,1973 but
acceptable corrective action had not been proposed or cercleted at
the time of the inspection. The inspector informed the licensee that
failure to conduct the audit at the frequency required was considered
an infraction.
During the review of SRC minutes, it was established that the review
of proposed Technical Specification changes recorded on August 25,
1977 and October 31, 1977 as minutes of SRC meetings were actually a
polling of the members of the SRC which resulted in their concurrence
-
with the proposed TS changes. This matter was discussed with the
licensee relative to whether this constituted a meeting or censtituted
a quorum as specified in TS 6.5.2.5 and 5.5.2.5, respectively. This
matter is considered an unresolver, item pending epproval of changes to the
Unit No.1 TS which would clarify this catter.
_
-
- _ - -- .
.
.
.
.
..
.-- .
.j
4
- - '
, .
..
11-
l
-
Additionally, during- the review of the PSC minutes it was estab-
lished that the review of procedures and changes to procedures were
being conducted by routing of Special Meeting Review Sheets which
t
polled the members with respect to their. concurrence to the
-
procedures or changes to a procedure.
In this matter, procedures
.
and/or changes to procedures are thus approved. These review sheets
are then made a part of an actual meeting.
In some cases.the
'
procedures / changes are approved more than the maximum required time
>
of 14 days prior to an actual meeting of the PSC. This matter was
also discussed with the licensee and will remain an unresolved item
pending approval of changes.to the Unit No. 1 TS which would clarify
this matter.
The inspector had no' additional questions in this area.
,
14.
Fire Protection (Unit 1)
Amendment No. 30, issued March 3,1978, to the Unit No.1 Facility
'
Operating License imposed new fire protection system requirements.
The licensee is allowed to complete system surveillance requirements
within the first surveillance interval.
In follow-up to the issuance
of these Technical Specifications-(TS), the inspector found that the
31 day operability . requirements for non-supervised circuits (TS 4.19.3)
had not been conducted. The licensee was informed that this was an
~
apparent item of noncompliance.
,
'
15.
Exit Meeting
An exit meeting was conducted on July'14, 1978 with Mr. J. Anderson
and other members of the plant staff. An exit meeting was conducted
,
on July 27 with Mr. H. Miller and other members of the plant staff.
-
The inspectors discussed the scope of the inspection and sumarized
the inspection findings which are detailed in this report.
r
16. Management Meeting
A management meeting was conducted with corporate members of the Ap&L
"
staff following the conclusion of this inspection. The purpose of
this meeting was to discuss the. general status of the IE inspections
on-site and implementation of the IE Revised Inspection Program (On-
t
. Site Resident Inspector).
,
Meeting Attendance -
l
Ap&L Personnel Present
l
L
W. Cavanaugh III, Executive Director of Generation and Construction
D. A. Rueter, Director of Technical and Environmental Services
D. R. Sikes, Director of Operations
!
!
L
,,,.,_.-___,,..._,,__.,_m.____.,,,.,___.,...,,,,.y.
, _ . , , , _ , , , . , , , ,.,y,s
,,,,%,,,,
y,
,
...,._,-_.,,,..,y.m.o-m.,,.m.,.
..r.,,,.,,,,,.,
., ,+
- -
--..
.. .
_
.. _.
. . . .
. _ .
_. .-
_
_ ___ _ .
l'/4' O
.
l
.
.
4
'
'
'
- -
'
A 2-
,
.
.
t
Nuclear Regulatory Comission
-!
. s
G. L. Mad.ien, Chief, Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch, RIV-
.
c
.
i
-
T. F. Westennan, Principal Inspector.- ANO, Units '1 and 2
.
.
.
,
$
b
F
,
.
i
h
.h
t
t
c
?
'
.
.
t
,
k
-
f
a
!
l
.
r
l
!
!
!
i
>
,
,,
e
F
,
' f
'
h
ll
?
P
-r=
-e
...!-
%..
r,
y
.--ww+,
.,o,,-..,....4
-%-,w>,,-e.-wce,-
., , , , , , , , ,.ww....p,,, q r., w r.
w
..,,w y e + w w .m .nm .py ,-
,y,y,v3,-w,.
,,,y,
,
,cw-m-.
~y
-w
y,e v.,
y
-+
a r w-
. . -
-e