ML20195G994
| ML20195G994 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 11/17/1988 |
| From: | Ray Azua, Seidle W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20195G978 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-313-88-35, 50-368-88-35, NUDOCS 8811300166 | |
| Download: ML20195G994 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000313/1988035
Text
_ _ _ - -
_--
- - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
,
..
.
.
.
'
APPENDIX
'
1
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
i
i
NRC Inspection Report: 50-313/88-35
Operating Licenses: OPR-51
'
50-368/88-35
!
'
Dockets:
50-313
50-368
-
!
Licensee: ArkansasPower&LichtCompany(AP&L)
l
P. O. Box 551
i
I..ittle Rock, AR 72203
t
Facility Name: Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO), Units 1 and 2
Inspection At: ANO site, Russellville, Arkansas
InsWction Conducted: October 30 through Novet6ber 4, 1988
,
i
Inspector:
M
wh 7// /
-
e
R. V. Azua.,Jeactor Inspector Test
Date
i
Programs Section, Division of Reactor Safety
,,
.
!
Approved:
-
h/// M/
'
W. C. Seidly Chief, Test Programs Section
Date
Division of Reactor Safety
j
i
!
Inspection Summary
Inspection Conducted October 30 through November 4, 1988 (Report 50-313/88-35)
[
i
'
Areas Inspected:
Routine, announced inspection of the Unit 1 Containment
.
Integrated Leak Rate Test (CILRT).
I
Results: Within the area inspected, one apparent violation was identified.
j
(Failure to correstly follow procedures, paragraph 3)
7
{
Inspection Conducted October 30 through November 4, 1988 (Report 50-368/88-35)
f
I
Areas Inspected:
No inspection of Unit 2 was conducted.
!
l
R?sults:
Not applicable.
6
!
8811300 66 88111e
i
A
M 05000313
f
0
PNU
[
- -
- - - - - -
-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
_ _ - _ _ _ _
_ ___ _ . _ _ _
_ _ - _ _
l
l
j
.
-2-
.
.
DETAILS
l
1.
Persons Contacted
- J. Levine, Executive Director, Nuclear Operations
)
- J. Vandergrift, Manager, Nuclear Operations
- R. Lane, Manager. Engineering
,
- H. Greene Superintendent, Quality Assurance
- J. Taylor-Brown, Superintendent Quality Control / Quality Engineering
- D. Crabtree Supervisor, Engineering Services
.
J. Roberson, Supervisor, Instrumentation and Controls (I&C)
- D. B. Lomax. Supervisor, Plant Licensing
- P. Michalk, Licensing Specialist
- R. Oxner, Engineering Services. CILRT Test Director
!
- R. McWilliams, Engineer Engineering Services
'
B. Neal, Instructor. I AC Training
i
Bechtel, Inc.
A
L. ' Young, Engineer (CILRT)
R. Blum. Engineer (CILRT)
NRC
- W. Johnson, Senior Resident Inspector
The NRC inspector also contacted other plant personnel, includire
l
operators, technicians, and administrative personnel.
- Denotes those present during the exit interview.
2.
Unit 1 CILRT Procedure Review (70307)
!
Ouring the week of October 30 through November 4,1988, the licensee was
preparing for a full pressure CILRT on the Unit I containment building.
The NRC inspector reviewed the licensee's CILRT Procedure No. 1092.030,
Revision 0, to verify that the requirements of the Unit 1 Technical
l
Specifications; ANSI N45.2 (1972), ANSI /ANS 56.8 (1981) and Bechtel Topical
Report BN-TOP-1 had been incorporated.
In addition, the procedure was
i
verified to have the proper approvals as indicated by appropriate
!
signatures.
,
l
The NRC inspector randomly chose several systems, which were addressed in
[
Procedure No. 1092.030, for review against the licensee's Piping and
'
Instrumentation Diagrams (P&lDs). This was done in an effort to
detertnine that all the appropriate valves in the selected systems were
addressed in the procedure (Appendix B). The NRC inspector also reviewed
l
,
-
- - - -
.
, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _
_
,
4
9
.
3-
the test position of the valves, listed in the same procedure, to verify
that the associated systems were placed in correct alignment for the
performance of the CILRT.
Finally, the NRC inspector detennined that all
appropriate systems required to be aligned for the CILRT were addressed
in the procedure.
The NRC inspector reviewed the changes that were made to the CILRT
procedure and found them to be acceptable. They did not alter the
technical content of the procedure or change the way in which the test was
being performed. The NRC inspector also verified that the changes were
approved, as indicated by the appropriate signatures.
The CILRT procedure listed, in Appendix B, the valves that were required
to be aligned for the test.
This list contained two signature lines
beside each identified valve. One was for the operator that positioned
the valve, and the other was for the individual who verified that the
valve was in the proper position.
The methodology used for the valve
lineup is described in Appendix B (page 30 of 123) of this procedure.
In
addition Section 2.3 of Appendix B stated that "independent verification
will be done in accordance with ANO Station Policy Z."
The NRC inspector
reviewed both Appendix B and the ANO Station Policy Z, and found them to
be acceptable.
Attachment A of Appendix M in the CILRT procedure, contains an example
of the CILRT equipment tags.
The NRC inspector noted that the tags did
not provide any signature lines for either the operator, who positions
the valve, or the individual who performs the independent verification.
The licensee stated that the reason for omitting the signature lines was
because it was too difficult for the operators to sign the cards while
wearing the anticontamination clothing. The licensee explained that the
operators would carry a copy of the valve list into the containment
building and would check off those valves that were completed. The
operators would then use this list as a reference, to fign-off the
affected valves in the controlled copy of the CILRT procedure. The NRC
inspector mentioned to the licensee that a checkoff box for the
independent reviewer could be used on the CILRT tag.
This would remove the
need for a signature, but would still provide another method by which the
licensee could verify that the valve was actually reviewed.
Finally, the CILRT procedure was reviewed by the NRC inspector for
technical adequacy.
No violations or deviations were identified in the review of this program
area.
3.
CILRT Surveillance (70313)
The NRC inspector performed several tours of the containment building and
the auxiliary building. This was done to monitor the installation of the
test equiptrent and th: valve lineup process. The NRC inspector reviewed
a sample of 56 valves that had been positioned and tagged for this test.
.
- _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
___
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . __
____
.
,
.
'
-4-
.
While examining Valve ICW-32, an 8-inch valve in the instrument cooling
water system, the NRC inspector noted that the valve appeared to be
closed.
The valve lineup sheet and the attached CILRT tag called for the
valve to be open.
The NRC inspector notified the licensee who, in turn,
sent an operator who confirmed that the valve was in the wrong (shut)
position for performing the CILRT.
The NRC inspector then reviewed the
,
controlled copy of the CILRT procedure, and noted that valve ICW-32 had
,
been signed-off and second-checked as verified for proper (open) valve
!
position.
The licensee interviewed the operators involved in positioning and
[
verifying the affected valves.
In addition, other operators that had
i
been manipulating valves in the vicinity of ICW-32 were also interviewed.
Fo? lowing the interview, the licensee was unable to determine conclusively
,
how the valve. ICW-32, came to be mispositioned.
The licensee expressed a
high degree of confidence that it was not an error that was over looked by
r
the independent verification process, but that the valve was manipulated
1
inadvertently by another operator after the valve had been tagged and
verified.
Based on the information provided by the licensee, the NRC inspector
could not find enough evidence to support the licensee's contention that
the valve was manipulated after it had been tagged and verified. Without
[
any further information, the NRC inspector concluded that the error was
caused by inadequate verification.
This is an apparent violation of
the CILRT Procedure No. 1092.030, Revision 0, for valve lineup and
,
verification requirements.
i
The licensee took immediate corrective action after the operator had
[
concurred that the valve was mispositioned.
The corrective action
,
included repositioning Valve ICW-32 to its correct test position, and
!
performing a second independent verification of all valves that had
been tagged for the CILRT.
The calibration documentation for the test equipment (RTDs, dewpoint
hygrometers, voltmeters, and pressure gauges), provided by General
Electric Company, Rockwell International and the site I&C department,
!
were reviewed by the NRC inspector.
The procedures by which the plant
I
!&C technicians calibrated some of the equipment were reviewed by the NRC
!
inspector. No errors were detected and all instruments were found to be
I
in calibration for the period encompassing these tests.
The NRC
i
inspector also reviewed the certification and training records of one of
!
the technicians involved in calibrating some of the test equipment.
[
l
Due to time constraints and a slip in the licensee's schedule, the NRC
l
inspector was unable to be present during the actual test, i.e., pump-up,
i
stabilization, data taking, and pump-down.
The data and the results of
i
this test will be forwarded to the NRC for review.
The results of the
!
review will be addressed in a separate report.
j
i
!
!
. . .
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _
.
.
]
_
- _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
_
__
_
.. .
'
..
5-
The data acquisition station had not been fully assembled while the NRC
inspector was on site.
This precluded the NRC inspector from witnessing
the channel checks or the insitu calibration of the test equipment.
4.
, Exit Interview
An exit interview was held on November 4, 1988.
The NRC inspector
summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
The licensee did
not identify as proprietary any of the information provided to, or
reviewed by, the NRC inspector.