ML20215E841
| ML20215E841 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 12/11/1986 |
| From: | Heishman R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Tison Campbell ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215E843 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8612230141 | |
| Download: ML20215E841 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000313/1986023
Text
,
.
ac g
fg
UNITED STATES
[
g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
i
j
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\ . . . . . p$
.
December 11, 1986
.
Docket No. 50-313 and
50-368
,
.
Arkansas Power & Light Company
ATTN: Mr. T. Gene Campbell
Vice President, Nuclear Operations
.
Post Office Box 551
Little Rock, Arkansas 72203
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION INSPECTION - ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE
UNITS 1 & 2 - NOS. 50-313/86-23 & 50-368/86-24
-
j
.
Enclosed is the report of the team inspection conducted by Mr. R. C. Wilson
and other NRC representatives on July 14-18, 1986, at Arkansas Nuclear One
and your corporate offices. The team's findings were discussed with you and
your staff at the conclusion of the inspection. The inspection reviewed your
implementation of a program as required by 10 CFR 50.49 for establishing and
maintaining the qualification of electric equipment within the scope of
10 CFR 50.49. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of examinations
of selected procedures and records, interviews with personnel, and observations
by the inspectors.
The inspection determined that you have implemented a program to meet the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.49. Four deficiencies in your program implementation,
summarized in Appendix A, are classified as Potential Enforcement / Unresolved
Items and will be referred to the NRC Region IV office for further action. The
most significant deficiency involves failure to demonstrate qualification of
Limitorque valve operators because they contained unidentified and in some cases
unqualified internal parts including wiring splices and terminal blocks. Several
valve operators did not have T-drains installed as required based on the refer-
enced qualification tests and others did not have the shipping caps removed from
grease relief valves. While we acknowledge the position you presented to the
NRC during a meeting at the Region IV offices on August 25, 1986 and reiterated
in your October 3,1986 letter to the Region IV Administrator, that Arkansas
Power & Light's (AP&L) actions in dealing with the Limitorque internal wiring
qualification issue were considered adequate, we continue to be concerned
about the timeliness and effectiveness of your activities to assure full compli-
ance with 10 CFR 50.49. Most of the Limitorque valve operator deficiencies
discussed above were identified in an NRC information notice issued in 1983
while the wiring oualification problem was further highlighted in an information
notice issued in January 1986. Yet it appears that AP&L had not initiated a
meaningful assessment of these concerns until a comprehensive walkdown inspec-
tion of ANO-2 coincidental with the NRC inspection. The other Potential
,
S
O
6
e612230141 861211
%
DR
ADOCK 0500
3
- _ ~
_
- _ _ _ . . - - - _ _ _-__-.-
.--.- - -
. .
.
__ _ _
-
~
a
.
.
.
.
I
- r
Arkansas Power & Light Company
2-
December 11, 1986
-
'
.
'
,
.
Enforcement / Unresolved Items involve failure to fully document qualification
of Rockbestos coaxial cable and Amphenol penetration assemblies, and failure
to demonstrate that instrument accuracy requirements are satisfied. Three
,
3,
other concerns are classified,as Open Items, and a future NRC inspection will
review your actions concerning them. Details of all the deficiencies and
,
concerns are discussed in the tnclosed inspection report.
v
Completion of your corrective actions regarding the identified deficiences and
concerns should not be delayed.pending either a future NRC inspection or
furtner action by the NRC Region'lV office.
We are adallable ta further discuss any questions you have concerning this
inspection.
-
t
Sincerely,
.
)
'
-
'
.
,
g
-
s
Robert F. Heishman, Chief
Vendor Program Branch
Division of Quality Assurance, Vendor,
and Technical Training Center Programs
Office of Inspection and Enforcement
'
Enclosure:
1
Inspection Peport No. 50-313/E6-23; 50-368/86-24
'
<
1
!
'
'
t
>
k
. .
- _ .
-- .
- - --
. -- .
-- -
. .
.
.-
. . - .
- -
~
'
fjj
'
'
-
3
%'
.,
-'
?
..
Arkansas Power & Light Company
-3-
December 11, 1986
DISTRIBUTION:
- p"fNiialiT FT1'eT]5F-313; 50-368)
.
NRC'PDR~~~~~
VPB Reading
DQAVT Reading
JTaylor
BGrimes
HMiller
UPotapovs
SAlexander
'
GHubbard
,
RWilson(2)
0Gormley
JStone
LParker
NLe, NRR
RLee, NRR
GVissing, NRR
JFehringer, INEL
MTrojovsky,INEL
JGrossman, SNL
DNorman, RIV
JBess, RIV
RIreland, RIV
DHunter, RIV
JGagliardo, RIV
EJohnson, RIV
- WJohnson, NRC Senior Resident Inspector
P._0. Box 2090
Russellville, Arkansas 72801
TWesterman, RIV
'
4
N
PB:0QAVT
SC/VPB:DQAVT
RIV
BC/VPB:DQAVT
RWi.lson: sam
UPotapovs
RIreland
RHeishman
12/ N/86
12/}O/86
12/lo /86
12/jo/86
. .
_
_
_.
'
-
.
.
APPENDIX A
.
Potential Enforcement / Unresolved Items
As a result of the special equipment qualification inspection on July 14-18,
1986, the following items have been referred to NRC Region IV as Potential
Enforcement / Unresolved Items (section references are to detailed portions of
4
the inspection report).
1.
Contrary to paragraphs (f) and (k) of 10 CFR 50.49 and section 5.2.2 of
the DOR Guidelines, at the time of the inspection Arkansas Power and
Light Company's (AP&L's) files did not adequately document qualification
of Limitorque valve operators because the plant equipment was not
identical in design and material construction to the qualification test
,
specimen, and deviations were not adequately evaluated as part of the
qualification documentation. Specifically, wiring and splices internal to
the components were unidentified and/or unqualified, T-drains required
for qualification were missing, and shipping caps were not removed from
grease relief valves. (Section 4.D(1), Item 50-313/86-23-1; 50-368/86-24-1.)
,
2.
Contrary to paragraph (f) of 10 CFR 50.49, at the time of the inspection
AP&L's files did not adequately document qualification of Rockbestos
coaxial cable because qualification was based on testing a similar item
and supporting analysis addressing differences was not adequate.
Specifically, similarity evaluation of the installed type "LD" cable and
the tested type "LE" cable was not provided.
(Section 4.D(2), Item
50-313/86-23-2; 50-368/86-24-2.)
3.
Contrary to paragraphs (f) and (k) of 10 CFR 50.49 and section 5.2.5 of
the DDR Guidelines, at the time of the inspection AP&L's files did not
.
adequately address instrument accuracy because the evaluation did not
compare instrument loop errors resulting from all applicable sources with
plant accuracy requirements. Specifically, error contributions from
cables and other ancillary equipment were not included in instrument
error analyses.
(Section 4.D(3), Item 50-313/86-23-3; 50-368/86-24-3.)
4.
Contrary to paragraphs (f) and (k) of 10 CFR 50.49 and sections 5.2.2 and
5.2.5 of the D0R Guidelines, at the time of the inspection AP&L's files
did not adequately document qualification of Amphenol electrical
penetration assemblies because the plant equipment was not identical to
the test specimen used to show functional performance acceptability, and
an adequate 2:aluation of differences was not provided in the files.
,
'
Specifically, an adequate similarity evaluation comparing the Amphenol
penetration with a Conax penetration for which electrical performance
characteristics were determined was not included in the files.
(Section
4.D(4), Item 50-368/86-24-4.)
,
4
5
,-,
- - - , -
.---:,n--.--m-,
,,
,,-----,w--,.w----
,ee
e
--w,,
--n-
, , . -
_