ML20199L115

Requests Addl Info Re 860523 Response to Safety Sys Function Insp Rept 50-313/86-01.Complete Discussion of Intended Action to Be Taken to Improve Mgt Controls Over Mechanical Design Activities Requested within 45 Days

ML20199L115
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	07/01/1986
From:	Partlow J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To:	Enos J ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO.
References
NUDOCS 8607090314
Download: ML20199L115 (2)

See also: IR 05000313/1986001

Text

_ _ _ . . _ . . __. _- _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ --_ _ _ _ _ .

.r  !*

.

>M E req %,, UNITED STATES

8 o

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

5 E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

-

1  %...../

<

In Reply Refer To: July 1, 1986

Docket No. 50-313/86-01

Arkansas Power & Light Company

i

ATTN: Mr. J. Ted Enos

Manager - Nuclear Engineering and Licensing

, P. O. Box 551

Little Rock, Arkansas 72203

Gentlemen:

j

SUBJECT: SAFETY SYSTEM FUNCTIONAL INSPECTION REPORT 50-313/86-01

i

Thank you for your letter of May 23, 1986, in response to our letter dated

March 31, 1986, that transmitted the Safety System Functional Inspection

(SSFI). Report 50-313/86-01. We reviewed this response, your letter dated

April 11,1986, in relation to our concern about your seismic design, and

your May 14, 1986, letter in relation to our concerns about your motor-operated

-

'

valve (M0V) program. Your May 23, 1986, letter did not adequately address

several of our concerns. As a result, we find that additional information

i

is needed. In this regard and as previously requested, please respond to this

!

<

office within 45 days of this letter with a complete discussion of the actions

you have taken, or intend to take, to improve the management controls over the

ANO-1 mechanical design activities, test programs covering the emergency feed-

i water (EFW) system components, and configuration control activities.

,

The following comments are made relative to your response to SSFI Report

50-313/86-01 issues and should be addressed as appropriate:

'

1. In regard to your response to Item II.A.I.a. your statement that the

identified design inadequacy represented a minimal potential for

degradation of the level of protection for public health and safety seems

,

unsupported. Complete consideration on your part of the effects of not

! having check valves in the EFW turbine steam supply lines, other than the'

!

!

potential for a loss of EFW flow, wa:; not apparent. Your response was

also considered weak concerning long-term corrective actions. The response

focused only on 10 CFR 50.59 reviews. Improvements to the design review

and verification process were apparently not considered.

! 2. In your response to Item II.A.1.b, the statement was made that the high-

, energy line break calculations were not required because there were no

safety-related components near the subject piping. However, this does

!

not appear to be consistent with the fact that the motor operators for

CV-2617 and CV-2667 are installed on the subject piping in the area of

concern. There are other safety-related components, such as CV-2613

SV-2613, CV-2663, and SV-2663, that apparently have not been considered

,

and are located in the area of concerr.

i

8607090314 060701

PDR

G ADOCK 05000313

PDR

i

_ _ . . _

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

.

'

Arkansas Power & Light Company -2- July 1, 1986

3. Your letter dated April 11, 1986, to Mr. John Stolz in regard to ANO-1

seismic design, stated on page 4. "In addition, design procedures instruct

the engineers to apply the latest criteria for 2 over 1 wherever

practicable." Please identify in your response the applicable procedure

references referred to that pertain to AN0-1.

4. Your response to Item II.B.3 regarding overall actions being taken to

address configuration control problems lacked sufficient detail. Of the

30 individual configuration control items identified in the SSFI report,

many identifying multiple problems, 8 items were in regard to the identi-

fication of normal valve positions. Your statement that normal valve

positions cannot be shown accurately on P& ids is not consistent with

industry practice. Additionally, your P&ID legend, drawing M-200,

Revision 4, identifies normally open, nonnally closed, locked open, and

locked closed valve symbols that are used uniformly throughout your P& ids.

Several of these issues may be discussed at an upcoming enforcement conference

with NRC Region IV. Please include in your response any commitments made to

NRC Region IV applicable to these issues.

Sincerely,

ORIGINAL SIGNED B6

MMES G. PARTLOW

James G. Partlow, Director

Division of Inspection Programs

Office of Inspection and Enforcement

cc: J. M. Levine, Director, Site Nuclear Operations

Arkansas Nuclear One

P. O. Box 608 .

Russellville, Arkansas 72801

Arkansas Radiation Control Program Director

Distribution:

DC5 - J. E. Gagliardo, RIV

ORPB reading D. P. Hunter, RIV

DI reading R. D. Martin, RIV

J. M. Taylor, IE E. H. Johnson, RIV

J. G. Partlow, IE W. D. Johnson, SRI

R. L. Spessard, IE G. Vissing, NRR

8. K. Grimes, IE NRC PDR

J. A. Axelrad. IE Local PCR

P. F. McKee, IE o

L. J. Callan, IE $

T. O. Martin, IE

F

7C3W\ -tCM knf / /

OFC :IE:DI:0RPB :1E:DI:0RPB :I MgR8F :IE:DI:D :IE:DI:9 /  :  :

_____:____________:.___________:. L _______:______ _____:______3_\__.:..._________:_________..

.

NAME :T0 Martin:cb :LJCallan :D IcKee :RLSp sard :JGPartlow  :  :

_____:.___________:.___________.;___________... ________.__ .________......____ __.___________

DATE :6/25/86 :6/ts/86 :6/d/86 :6 /86 :6 rA/86  :  :

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

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

-

__.