IR 05000313/1991019

Insp Repts 50-313/91-19 & 50-368/91-19 on 910520-24.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Handling of External Info & Implementation of 10CFR21 Requirements

ML20198C801
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	06/24/1991
From:	Barnes I NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20198C784	List: IR 05000313/1991019 ML20198C778
References
50-313-91-19, 50-368-91-19, NUDOCS 9107030159
Download: ML20198C801 (5)

Text

.

.

APPENDIX U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION RECICN IV NRC Inspection Report: 50-313/91-19 Operating Licenses: 0FR-51 50-368/91-10 NPF-6 Dockets: 50-313 50-368 Licensee: Entergy Operations, In Routc 3, Box 137G Russellville, Arkansas 72801 Facility flame: Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO), Units 1 ard 2 Inspection At: ANO, RusseMv111e, Arkansas Inspection Conducted: May 20-24, 1991

'

Inspector: R. C. Stewart , Reactor Inspector, Matcrials and Cuality Programs Section, Division of Reactor Safety Approved: M u _- , c - 2.14. - ? /

I. Barnes, Chief Materials and Quality Date :

Progranis Section, Division of Reacter Safety Inspection Sumary Inspection Conducted May 20-24, 1991 (Report 50-313/91-19; 50-368/91-19)

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the licensee's handling of externel infonnation and the implementation of 10 CFR Part 21 requirement Results: Within the arcas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified. In general, the licensee had established a comprehensive and well l functioning program for hardling external information. Administrative tracking of condition reports and plant inipact evaluation requests was well performed and resulted in timely responses and corrective actions. Procedures had been established to provide the means for' implementing the regulations contained in

'

10 CFR Part 21 with respect to ider,tification, evaleation, and reporting of defects; maintenance of records; and posting requirements. The inspection i revealed that selected evaluations were cetennined to have been properly performe PDR ADOCK 05000313 o PDR

- - . - - -

.

.

..

DETAILS  ; PERSONS CONTACTED LICENSEE PEF.SONNEL

• Cooper, Licensing Specialist

• L. Humphrey, Director, Quality

• G. Ashley, Licensing Specialict

• R. King, Supervisor, Licensing

• P. Wade, Administrative lead, In-House Events Analysis

• J. Fisicaro, Director, Licensing

• J. Yelverton, Director Operations

• Fcnech, Plant Manager, Unit 2

• Day, Systems Engineering Manager, l' nit 1

• C, Gaines, Manager, Industry Events Analysis

• Daniels,!!anager, Plant Assessments

• E. Rogers, Superintendent, Maintenance Engineering

• M. Harris, Project Manager, Outages

• R. Gillespie, Manager Central Support D. Wells, Technical Specialist Industry Events Analysis NRC PERSONNEL T. McKernon, Acting Senior Resident Inspector L. Smith, Resident Inspector

• Denotes those attending the May 24, 1991, exit meetin The inspector also interviewed other onsite personnel during this inspectio . LICENSEE'S HANDLING OF EXTERNAL INFORMATION (92700)

The purpose of this inspection was to verify the effectiveness of the licensee's program for handling externally generated information from such sources as NRC, vendors, other licensees, and the industry in genera Emphasis was placed on reviewing the licensee's evaluations with respect to safety and operability considerations, timeliness in effecting any required actions, and the appropriateness of the supporting documentatio The inspector determined that the ANO licensing group administrative 1y controlled licensee responses to bulletins, generic letters, and 10 CFR Part ?)

reports. All other externally generated information was administrative 1y-controlled by the Industry Events Analysis Section and the In-Pouse Events Analysis Section. The principal document that prescribed the methodology for

- reviewing infomation originating from sources external to the plant was AN0 Procedure 1010.008, " Industry Events Analysis Program." The program criteria addressed by the procedures included source document receipt and processing (screening, evaluation, action recomendations, action tracking, and closecut);

program status reporting; and program effectiveness revie _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.

.

3-The inspector noted that the Jndustry Fvents Analysis Section conducted daily screening of all externally generated docunents, including industry network ,

info Tiation and the Nuclear P~ ant Reliability Data System. 1he screening evaluator disst<minated information considered to potentially inpact operability, safety, and reliability at At:0. The condition reporting and corrective action program (AND Procedure 1000.104) was the principal mechanism used for initiating the review, evaluating corrective action, and tracking infomation disseminated by the screening evaluator. In addition, a plant impact evaluation request occompanied the condition report, when applicabl The purpose of the plant impact evaluation was to detemine the irap11 cations of the described event, and to recomend corrective actions, as necessary, with respect to the adequacy of plant procedures, design, training, and operating practices. All issued plant impact evaluations were entered into the Industry Events Analysis Computcr Tracking System for followup and closcout. Evaluations and corrective ections based on NRC uullctins, generic letters and other HEC documents were initiated throuch the plant licensing group. This included documents that require 10 CFR Part 21 consideratio All issued condition reports and corrective actions were found to be administratively centrolled, evaluated, and tracked through closecut, by the In-House Events Analysis Section. The engineering staff of this section was resnonsible for reviewing each cendition report to ensure package completeness, adequacy of evaluations, and timeliness of responses. The inspector met with the lead engineer from this section in order to review the administrative controls and effectiveness of the licensee's program for handling condition reports that had been issued in response to externally generated information. The lead engineer provided the inspectur with a copy of a database summary of the status of 41

"outside notification oriented" cordition reports. The inspector observed that the database summaries included appropriate corrective action descriptions, responsibility assignments, assigned dates, due dates, and current corrective action status. In addition, the inspector perfomed a review of the following dispositioned cordition report packages er,d other related docuntnts:

Repcrt of Industry Events Analysis Screening dated Pay 3, 1991;

"

Screening Form SCR-91 0080 dated April 1,1991 - NRC Information Notice 91-1P, "High-Energy Piping failures Caused by Wall Thinning";

l

Condition Peport CR-1-89-0533 dated October 30, 1989 - Letter from Babcock

& Wilcox (B&V) to infom B&W plants of preliminary safety concerns regarding high pressure injection flow instrumentation accuracy; l

Condition Report CR-C-89-0053 dated /1pril 7,1909 - 10 CFR Part P1 l notification from Limitorcue Corporation reporting common mode failure

,- of melamine torque switches resulting from post-mold shrinkage of melamine;

'

Condition Report CP-1-89-0134 dated February 27, 1989 - Letter from vendor i pertaining to a design problen with swing chett valves which could result

'

in disc loosening or separation; l

l

- ._ _ ._- _ _ . _ _ _ , _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ . . _ . _ . , , _ _ _ _ , , . _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _

. ._ __

.

.

-4-

Condition Report CR-2-90-0161 dated March 30, 1990 - Letter free emergency diesel generator vendor infortdng ANO of a potential defect in supplied piston pins; and

"

Condition Peport CR-1-90-0100 dated June 4, 1990 - 10 CFR Part 21 notification by Dresser Industries of a change in K Factor used for edjusting pressurizer and main steam relief valve In the review of the condition reports cutlined above, the inspector determined that the licensee's evaluation with respect to safety end operability appeared to be appropriately supported, corrective actions were adequately documented, and each condition report closecut was appropriately dispositioned by the

, condition report review grou The inspector also observed that the ANO condition report tracking system ,

provided for identification of overdue responses and subsequent notification of the responsible organization. These attributes appeared to enhance the *

timeliness ui evaluations and corrective actions. For those overdue corrective actions observed by the inspector in the ANO condition reporting system, there appeared to be reasonable justification for delayed actions (e.g., material procurement,refuelingoutage,etc.).

No violations or deviations were identified in this area of the inspectio . 10 CFR pART 21 NOTIFICATION (36100) ,

Administrative centrol of the licensee's program for implementation of 10 CFR

Part 21 was found to be performed by the plent licensing group. The following impicmenting procedures were reviewed by the inspector:

Procedure 1062.002, " Nuclear Regulatory Conrnission Correspondence Control," Revision 5;

• -

Procedure 1062.005, " Licensing Information Rtquests," Revision 1; and

Frocedure 1062.001, 'NRC Reporting," Revision The inspector found that the above procedures approprintely defined responsibilities and provided detailed instructions for perfonning reportability reviews with respect to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 21

" Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance." There were no discrepancies noted in the progrannatic as .ts of the 10 CFR Part 21 notification proces In'eddition, the inspector reviewed the following evaluations of condition reports that were deemed by the licensee to be nonreporteble:

CR-2-90-0542, dated May 9.-1991; and

CR-2-91-333, dated April 23, 199 .-_ .- -- _ _ - - - . -- . - _ - - - _ - - - .- _ - _ _ _-

- _ _ . _ . _ . ~ . _ . _ . . . . _ . ~ . . . _ . _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . ~ . - . _ - _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _

.

.

.

. 5 The inspector concurred with the licensee's reportability determination of the specific ccndition report No violations or deviations v.ere identified in this area of the inspectio '

4 EXIT MEETING The inspector met viith the personnel identified in paragraph 1 on May 24, 1991, ano discussed the scope and findings of the inspection. The licensee did not identify as proprietary, any of the infonnation reviewed by the inspector during the inspectio l

<

.r.~ - + - - . . - . _ . . . - - - . - - - - - - - , . - - . - - - - . - -- , - - - - - -