|
|
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Adams
| | #REDIRECT [[IR 05000313/1985007]] |
| | number = ML20126C057
| |
| | issue date = 06/07/1985
| |
| | title = Insp Repts 50-313/85-07 & 50-368/85-07 on 850401-30. Violation Noted:Failure to Follow Requirements for Radiologically Posted Area & Install Fire Door
| |
| | author name = Harrell P, Johnson W, Martin L
| |
| | author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
| |
| | addressee name =
| |
| | addressee affiliation =
| |
| | docket = 05000313, 05000368
| |
| | license number =
| |
| | contact person =
| |
| | document report number = 50-313-85-07, 50-313-85-7, 50-368-85-07, 50-368-85-7, GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8506140296
| |
| | package number = ML20126C009
| |
| | document type = INSPECTION REPORT, NRC-GENERATED, INSPECTION REPORT, UTILITY, TEXT-INSPECTION & AUDIT & I&E CIRCULARS
| |
| | page count = 18
| |
| }}
| |
| See also: [[see also::IR 05000368/1985007]]
| |
| | |
| =Text=
| |
| {{#Wiki_filter:- - -
| |
| . .:
| |
| APPENDIX B
| |
| U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
| |
| REGION IV
| |
| NRC Inspection Report: 50-313/85-07 Licenses: DPR-51
| |
| 50-368/85-07 NPF-6
| |
| Dockets: 50-313
| |
| 50-368
| |
| Licensee: Arkansas Power & Light Company (AP&L)
| |
| P. O. Box 551
| |
| Little Rock, Arkansas 72203
| |
| Facility Name: Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO), Units 1 and 2
| |
| Inspection At: AN0 Site, Russellville, Arkansas
| |
| Inspection Conducted: April 1-30,1985
| |
| Inspectors: [J/ S//3/gf
| |
| W.~0. )1[nson, Senior Resident Date '
| |
| ReactoF Inspector
| |
| (pars. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
| |
| 10, 12 13)
| |
| -
| |
| 5-10- % 6
| |
| P. HF Harrell, Resident Reactor Date
| |
| Inspector
| |
| (pars. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
| |
| 10, 11, 12)
| |
| Approved: - #M/ff
| |
| L.*E. Martin,C)tief,Re5ctor D6J4
| |
| Project Section 2A'
| |
| 8506140296 850610
| |
| PDR ADOCK 05000313
| |
| G PDR
| |
| k _ - - - - - _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - ._
| |
| | |
| . . .
| |
| -2-
| |
| Inspection Summary
| |
| Inspection Conducted April 1-30, 1985 (Report 50-313/85-07)
| |
| Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection including operational safety
| |
| verification, maintenance, surveillance, followup on previously identified
| |
| . items, followup on IE information notices, emergency preparedness exercise, and
| |
| followup on Generic Letter (GL) 83-28.
| |
| The inspection involved 98 inspector-hours (including 10 backshift hours)
| |
| onsite by two NRC inspectors.
| |
| Results: Within the seven areas inspected, no violations were identified.
| |
| Inspection Summary
| |
| Inspection-Conducted April 1-30, 1985 (Report 50-368/85-07)
| |
| Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection including operational safety
| |
| verification, maintenance, surveillance, followup on previously identified
| |
| items, followup on licensee event reports (LERs), followup on IE information
| |
| - notices, spent fuel pool activities, emergency preparedness exercise, followup
| |
| on GL 83-28, facility modifications, refueling activities, and pipe support and
| |
| restraint systems.
| |
| The inspection involved 145 inspector-hours (including 21 backshift hours)
| |
| onsite by.two NRC inspectors.
| |
| Results: Within the 12 areas inspected, two violations were identified
| |
| (failure to follow requirements for a radiologically posted area, paragraph 8,
| |
| and failure to install a fire door (FD) in accordance with an approved plant
| |
| design change, paragraph 5).
| |
| L
| |
| | |
| =- .
| |
| - ? '4, s 4
| |
| . .
| |
| ,
| |
| .
| |
| -
| |
| -
| |
| ;< '
| |
| *
| |
| . T*3
| |
| ,
| |
| - *
| |
| ,
| |
| .
| |
| ,
| |
| ?
| |
| ; * x[~
| |
| w
| |
| _ .
| |
| _'?'
| |
| *
| |
| C .. ,,
| |
| #
| |
| v'v
| |
| '
| |
| ' - '
| |
| , ; , ,
| |
| ;
| |
| '
| |
| -3 -
| |
| '
| |
| , [w .= .
| |
| - *-
| |
| ,
| |
| ,
| |
| -
| |
| DETAILS
| |
| .
| |
| 1. - Persons Contacted ' F
| |
| , ,
| |
| ,
| |
| ,
| |
| JJLevine,ANOGeneralManageri
| |
| , ,
| |
| *B.; Baker, Operations: Manager' _
| |
| . .
| |
| B. Bata, Quality Assurance (QA) Engineer
| |
| :R.'Blankenship~," Nuclear Engineer
| |
| ' '
| |
| .M. Bolanis, Health Physics. Superintendent
| |
| : - ,
| |
| ~ '
| |
| 'L. Bramblett, Plant Performance En'gineer
| |
| ~D.-Brown,' Electrical: Engineer ' ,
| |
| -
| |
| .
| |
| > M. Browning, . Maintenance Engineer. A. i
| |
| *P : Campbell , - Licensing Engineero ,1
| |
| . . i
| |
| - '
| |
| *T.;Cogburn, Special~ Projects Manager .
| |
| ', M. Cooper,' QA Inspector .
| |
| '
| |
| B. Converse,-Plant Performance Supervisor = '
| |
| ;
| |
| iD.DCrabtree, Mechanical Engineer. ' 4
| |
| , l
| |
| s L; Dugger, Acting I&C. Maintenance Superintendent
| |
| ''
| |
| i *E.~ Ewing', Engineering & Technical Support Manager
| |
| -l '
| |
| .
| |
| G. Fiser, Radiochemistry Superviso'r- -
| |
| -
| |
| M. Frala, Assistant' Radiochemistry Supervisor
| |
| > B. Garrison, Operations Technical Supporti; '
| |
| t L. Gulick Unit 2 Operations' Superintendent 1 s_.
| |
| ,
| |
| c D. Hamblen,. Quality. Control _(QC) Engineer -
| |
| ,
| |
| R. Hargrove, Unit 2 Lead Trainer-,
| |
| '
| |
| .
| |
| , , ,
| |
| '
| |
| . -H. Hollis, Security Coordinator ' '
| |
| *L.- Humphrey, Administrative Manager
| |
| '
| |
| *H.' Jones, Field Construction Manager
| |
| 1 P.- Kearney, Mechanical Engineer
| |
| -'
| |
| ..
| |
| J. Lamb,:-Safety and Fire Protection Coordinator "
| |
| *D. Lomax, Licen'ing s Supervisor
| |
| *J. Marshall,'ANO Project Manager
| |
| B. McCord, QC Inspector
| |
| W. McKelvy,. Assistant Radiochemistry Supervisor
| |
| J. McWilliams, Unit 1 Operations Superintendent
| |
| ~
| |
| *J. Montgomery, Human Resources Supervisor
| |
| >
| |
| R. Moore, Pianning and Scheduling Coordinator
| |
| J. Orlicek, Field Engineering Supervisor
| |
| '~7
| |
| *M. Pendergrass, Acting Engineering & Technical Support Manager
| |
| -V. Pettus, Mechanical Maintenance Superintendent '
| |
| R. Pool,' Assistant Radiochemistry Supervisor
| |
| ~
| |
| ;
| |
| *D._Provencher, Quality-Engineering Supervisor' ~
| |
| J. Ray, QC Engineer-
| |
| P. Rogers, Plant Licensing Engineer ,
| |
| *L.. Sanders, Maintenance Manager
| |
| *L. Sch~empp, Nuclear QC Manager
| |
| i
| |
| 4
| |
| '
| |
| r
| |
| "
| |
| 4 4
| |
| 4
| |
| w--+- e __w---
| |
| | |
| m, _
| |
| -
| |
| ._
| |
| ,
| |
| '
| |
| ,
| |
| . .
| |
| 3
| |
| +p
| |
| -
| |
| ' 4-
| |
| Shively, Plant Engineering Superintendent
| |
| ~
| |
| ,
| |
| *C.
| |
| ' *G. Storey, Safety and Fire Protection Coordinator
| |
| S. Strasner, QC Supervisor '
| |
| M.,Stroud,~ Electrical Engineer
| |
| C. : Taylor, Operations Technical : Support
| |
| L. Taylor, Operations Technical Engineer
| |
| .
| |
| -
| |
| B. Terwilliger, Operations Assessment Supervisor
| |
| R. Tucker, Electrical Maintenance Superintendent
| |
| D. Wagner, Health Physics Supervisor-
| |
| *R. Wewers, Work Control Center Manager
| |
| *Present at exit interview.
| |
| The inspectors.also contacted other.p'lant personnel, including operato'rs,
| |
| technicians, and administrative personnel.
| |
| 2. Followup on Previously Identified Items (Units 1 and 2)
| |
| (0 pen) 0 pen Item 313/8017-03: Reactor building purge alarm setpoint.
| |
| ' The NRC inspector obi;erved a portion of the Unit 1 reactor
| |
| building purge conducted'on April 11,'1985,.under permit 1GR 85-20.
| |
| Although the Technical Specification gaseous release rate limits
| |
| were not approached.or exceeded during this purge, observations
| |
| during the purge and subsequent discussions with operations and
| |
| radiochemistry personnel indicate that improvements are needed
| |
| in the procedures used for conducting a reactor building purge.
| |
| Problem areas identified included:
| |
| ,
| |
| . . The alarm setpoint calculated for RE-7400 was 'about.46 times
| |
| as high as the highest actual count rate observed during
| |
| the purge.
| |
| . The special particulate iodine noble gas (SPING) monitor
| |
| -
| |
| alarm setpoint was about a factor of nine lower than the
| |
| calculated concentration-in the reactor building prior to.
| |
| the purge.
| |
| '
| |
| '
| |
| . The SPING monitor alarm setpoint was written on the reactor
| |
| '
| |
| building purge gaseous. release permit in'the space provided
| |
| .
| |
| for the RE-7400 alarm setpoint.
| |
| , . Sample flow to RE-7400 was not lined.up initially, as.
| |
| indicated by this instrument's lack of response during the
| |
| first segment of- the purge. ,
| |
| y,
| |
| 9
| |
| i !
| |
| >
| |
| '
| |
| t
| |
| .
| |
| *
| |
| i
| |
| -
| |
| | |
| - , - - -
| |
| 7g ..
| |
| ,
| |
| ~ i . .
| |
| -
| |
| i
| |
| .
| |
| '
| |
| ; * "
| |
| [1.1 <
| |
| ,
| |
| ,
| |
| ,
| |
| i
| |
| ' '
| |
| }
| |
| .
| |
| , r
| |
| ,
| |
| *
| |
| A 9
| |
| y
| |
| J- -5- .
| |
| % '
| |
| . iThe purge was secured during the.first segment due to
| |
| confusion _and concern over the meaning of the SPING monitor
| |
| ; alarm which was activated.
| |
| . Dual calculations performed as required by concurrently
| |
| , applicable old_and new Technical Specifications contributed
| |
| -
| |
| c - an additional confusion factor.
| |
| 4
| |
| "
| |
| . 'The post release permit update was recalculated following '
| |
| :
| |
| identification of a computer input error in which reactor- '
| |
| w >
| |
| , ,, , building' pressure was entered-in units'of psia into a
| |
| 1
| |
| l program designed to accept an input in units of psig. ~ '
| |
| '
| |
| V* O ~
| |
| '
| |
| .. Thecomputer;generat$dprereleasepermitdidnot'flagthe ..
| |
| *
| |
| :
| |
| i', l' r. fact that the SPING monitor setpoint was much lower than 0 ; ;;
| |
| rg s. :
| |
| ' ~
| |
| q actual concentration. ,
| |
| ,
| |
| -7@ "
| |
| ([ In discussions with the NRC inspector, operations-and
| |
| radiochemistry personnel stated that they would review and
| |
| .
| |
| ' L5 .
| |
| ~,
| |
| ,
| |
| 4 ,, 1
| |
| ' . revise the procedures associated with. reactor building purge '
| |
| .
| |
| r -
| |
| releases. This item remains open. ,
| |
| w/:,. , - s .
| |
| , p -
| |
| (Closed),10 pen. Item 368/8206-01: Reactor coolant pump (RCP) seal sensing >
| |
| Pc '
| |
| -
| |
| line supports.
| |
| . - ,
| |
| 7
| |
| .
| |
| ' : ;The licensee has' inspected the RCP seal pre'ssure sensing lines
| |
| and supports and implemented DCP 83-2011 to reduce the problem
| |
| ,of leaks in:these lines. This DCP removed unnecessary lengths
| |
| ^
| |
| * ,
| |
| ,
| |
| j3;< +
| |
| - of piping, added supports where necessary, and replaced some
| |
| ~
| |
| ' C piping with tubing. During outage 2R4, the licensee inspected ,
| |
| the seal injection and controlled bleedoff lines and developed a !
| |
| '
| |
| i design change to upgrade'the supports on these lines.
| |
| V .DCP 84-2084 was partially implemented during the' outage. These .
| |
| '
| |
| ' inspections, evaluations, and design changes were intended to'
| |
| reduce or eliminate leaks such as those reported in
| |
| LERs 82-017/03L-0, 83-023/03L-0, and 83-039/03L-0. '
| |
| (Closed) 'Open Item 368/8212-06: Smoke and heat detectors in containment. ;
| |
| ~
| |
| .+ :The NRC inspector toured the Unit 2 containment and verified
| |
| that heat and smoke collectors were installed over the heat and.
| |
| ~
| |
| '
| |
| smoke detectors in the containment,.as required by the Unit 2
| |
| ,
| |
| _
| |
| = Fire Protection Safety Evaluation Report.
| |
| ' '
| |
| -(Closed) Open Item 313/8304-03; 368/8304-03: Control of maintenance to [
| |
| ensure' interferences are reinstalled upon completion of work ,
| |
| activities.
| |
| '
| |
| ?
| |
| "
| |
| s
| |
| >
| |
| ''
| |
| S S
| |
| ~
| |
| -...~,,.---n ,-..~ -n,..,..,.-..a.,--,-.n,, ., , , . . ~ . _ - + , - . - , , - .
| |
| | |
| m n . , . ,, .
| |
| - --
| |
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| |
| K%j {l 7p' C ,
| |
| - c. fc 4 '
| |
| /, N
| |
| ' '
| |
| *
| |
| .av a uj4 '
| |
| ,
| |
| ,~
| |
| .
| |
| -
| |
| -
| |
| .,( , 4.
| |
| e 4[d..'s - a} % . - . - , -
| |
| e .
| |
| -
| |
| . . .
| |
| " ' '
| |
| <
| |
| *
| |
| . 3 yr q : , s.
| |
| ; % lq: jij -E-
| |
| . y -
| |
| 2 * .,
| |
| h.. .. . .
| |
| .
| |
| ,iThe licensee has; established a program'in-Procedures'1025.03,
| |
| ~
| |
| '
| |
| tu;. # c
| |
| '
| |
| ~
| |
| ' l l ".i ' ' s
| |
| J'! Conduct of Maintenance" and 1000.24, " Control of Maintenance,";
| |
| to ensure that interferences are reinstalled upon' completion of.
| |
| .
| |
| work~ activities. .The program requires that a'new job order (J0)
| |
| '
| |
| be written for interferences thati require removal if not within
| |
| .,'
| |
| _ . :the scope of-the original J0.. ,
| |
| ,
| |
| (Closed) UnresolvedItem,313/8304-04;368/8'304-04:
| |
| '
| |
| Utilization of
| |
| ,
| |
| -quality control (QC).
| |
| ~
| |
| During followup of t'his item, the NRC inspector reviewed l
| |
| . .
| |
| ,
| |
| -
| |
| Administrative Procedures 1000.23, " Quality Control. Program,"
| |
| -
| |
| 'and'1004.01, " Quality Control Program Implementation." In
| |
| W
| |
| ,
| |
| addition,--. discussions were held ~with personnel at.various levels
| |
| in the.ilcensee's organization. Since this unresolved item was
| |
| identified, several changes and improvements have been made to
| |
| . increase ~the efficiency and effectiveness of QC personnel at the
| |
| plant site.' These changes include:
| |
| . The~ addition of QC engineer positions and a QC engineer
| |
| supervisor;
| |
| l-
| |
| ~
| |
| . Assignment of a.QC engineer to the Work Control Center;,
| |
| . -Assignment of a-QC inspector to the receipt ins'pection *
| |
| . function;
| |
| -
| |
| . Utilization of QC engineers for review of J0s and DCPs and
| |
| , designation of QC hold points;
| |
| . EUtilization of a'dditional contract QC inspectors during
| |
| h outage periods to enlarge the scope of activities which are
| |
| inspected;
| |
| > -
| |
| ,
| |
| '
| |
| y ' . Establishment of the construction management QC group.for
| |
| inspection of construction and installation activities and
| |
| ' '
| |
| e-
| |
| ,
| |
| oversight over the resident construction contractor QC .
| |
| s
| |
| "
| |
| * organization; w .
| |
| >
| |
| #
| |
| r ) k
| |
| {Y 1 >4
| |
| ,
| |
| -#
| |
| c'' '
| |
| ;
| |
| -,
| |
| '
| |
| ". More frequent use of QC hold points in J0s and procedures;
| |
| .and
| |
| '
| |
| ', -
| |
| ,
| |
| -i - r; ;
| |
| , ,, ~
| |
| '
| |
| ,
| |
| ,1 : .f Improved availability and visibility of QC inspectors in A e / '
| |
| !
| |
| 9 c
| |
| '
| |
| / , the plant. -
| |
| '
| |
| "
| |
| 1 ;.(Closed 'Open Item 313/8331-01; 368/8331-01: ' Completion of a fire
| |
| '
| |
| ['
| |
| .
| |
| protection / prevention program consolidation and clarification-of- .
| |
| '
| |
| h. c
| |
| '
| |
| ' applicable. license conditions. ,
| |
| ? .s
| |
| , z4. ,e * d'
| |
| ." .
| |
| mh
| |
| 1 .
| |
| F y p i
| |
| #
| |
| $ 4 44
| |
| 4-
| |
| A. A -
| |
| _ ' -
| |
| *
| |
| | |
| . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ .
| |
| *
| |
| F( .;
| |
| ,
| |
| ,
| |
| ' '
| |
| 'i
| |
| .
| |
| '
| |
| *
| |
| .(
| |
| j s
| |
| E , '
| |
| _7
| |
| ,
| |
| ,
| |
| '
| |
| i- The licensee has1 issued a set of manuals that consolidate the
| |
| ): information related~to fire protection.for Units 1 and 2. These
| |
| E Fire Protection Program Manuals are issued and maintained by the
| |
| '
| |
| AP&L, licensing group. .The manuals will be updated,.as
| |
| necessary, to provide the latest information for the fire
| |
| protection program.
| |
| *
| |
| (Closed) Open Item 313/8331-02; 358/8331-02: Indiscriminate fire
| |
| > ' suppression system activation.
| |
| The licensee has revised Procedure 1903.22 to delete the
| |
| statement that any plant personnel may activate sprinkler or
| |
| deluge , systems in the event of a fire, prior to the arrival of
| |
| the fire brigade. Procedure 1903.22 now states that system
| |
| > activation will only be performed per the direction of the fire
| |
| brigade captain.
| |
| '(Closed)' Unresolved Item 313/8331-03; 368/8331-03: Fire brigade
| |
| ' participation tracking system.
| |
| The NRC. inspector reviewed the records maintained for -
| |
| participation in fire brigade training. .The records maintained .
| |
| by the licensee include individual participation in fire brigade
| |
| drills, practice sessions, and classroom instruction. The NRC
| |
| inspector also reviewed the quarterly training department memos
| |
| that list individuals qualified as fire brigade members.
| |
| (Closed) Violation 313/8429-04: Procedure change conflicting with
| |
| '
| |
| Technical Specification requirements.
| |
| The licensee's corrective action in' response to this violation
| |
| included procedure revision to eliminate the conflict with
| |
| Technical Specifications and placing administrative restrictions
| |
| on changing procedures without going through the revision
| |
| process.
| |
| .
| |
| (Closed) Violation 368/8431-01: Control of combustibles.
| |
| The NRC inspector reviewed the corrective actions taken with
| |
| respect to this violation. The licensee's corrective actions
| |
| included the immediate posting of a fire watch in the affected
| |
| *
| |
| . area, improved documentation of periodic fire / safety
| |
| inspections, and presor,tation of a training program for those
| |
| individuals primarily responsible for housekeeping. In
| |
| addition, discussions are presented during general employec
| |
| training and subsequent yearly retraining in the areas of
| |
| control of combustibles, ignition sources, and fire barriers.
| |
| .
| |
| E t
| |
| v
| |
| L
| |
| | |
| __ __ _ . - _ _ _ - ___ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ __ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ - - _ _ _- . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
| |
| ^
| |
| s
| |
| ., .
| |
| .
| |
| ,
| |
| -
| |
| -8-
| |
| <
| |
| .
| |
| 3. LicenseeEventReport(LER) Followup (U, nit}2)
| |
| ~
| |
| Through direct observation, discussions with. licensee' personnel, and
| |
| review of records, the following Unit 2 event' reports were reviewed to '
| |
| determine that reportability requirements were fulfilled, inmediate
| |
| e corrective action was accomplished, and corrective action to prevent-
| |
| recurrence has been accomplished in accordance with Technical
| |
| -Specifications.
| |
| 82-017/03L'-0 'RCP seal pressure sensing line leak
| |
| '
| |
| 83-023/03L-0 RCP seal pressure sensing line leak
| |
| 83-039/03L-0 RCP seal pressure sensing line leak
| |
| 84-004-00 Reactor trip on low steam generator level
| |
| 84-008-00 Reactor trip on-low steam generator-level
| |
| r '
| |
| 84-011-00 Reactor trip on high steam generator level
| |
| 84-014-00 Reactor trip on high steam' generator level
| |
| 84-020-00 Reactor trip on high steam generator level
| |
| 84-021-00 Reactor trip on high steam generator level
| |
| 84-028-00 Reactor' trip on low steam generator level
| |
| The three LERs concerning ' leaks'in RCP seal pressure sensing lines are
| |
| discussed in paragraph 2 of_this. report in conjunction with Open
| |
| Item 368/8206-01.
| |
| LERs 84-004-00, 84-008-00, and 84-021-00 relate to high'and low steam
| |
| generator (S/G) level actuated reactor trips during low feedwater flow
| |
| operations. To minimize the number of trips due to this cause, the.
| |
| licensee is installing low flow range indication during the current outage
| |
| -(2R4). This' indication is provided to assist the operator in controlling
| |
| S/G levels during low flow operations. LERs 84-011-00, 84-014-00,
| |
| 84-020-00, and.84-028-00 relate to reactor trips due to high or low S/G
| |
| levels due to equipment malfunction or procedural inadequacies. In each
| |
| case, the equipment was repaired and/or. modified or procedure changes
| |
| were issued to prevent recurrence. To minimize the number of reactor
| |
| trips due to S/G levels, the licensee proposed a Technical Specification
| |
| change to reduce the low S/G level trip setpoint from 46 pcecent to
| |
| 23 percent. This request was approved by the NRC in Amendment 65 to the
| |
| ' Unit 2 Technical Specifications on April 30, 1985J
| |
| No violations or deviations were identified.
| |
| 4. Followup on IE Information Notices (Units 1 and 2)
| |
| '
| |
| The NRC, inspector reviewed the licensee actions with respect to IE
| |
| information notices' issued during 1984. The review included verification
| |
| that all notices issued during 1984 had been received by the licensee,
| |
| were distributed to appropriate personnel for an applicability review, and
| |
| .
| |
| L.
| |
| | |
| _- - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
| |
| I
| |
| 4
| |
| , . .
| |
| '
| |
| -9-
| |
| that; appropriate corrective actions had been taken or were scheduled to be
| |
| ,
| |
| '
| |
| :taken.
| |
| .
| |
| "
| |
| The licensee has received and reviewed all 1984 information notices. The j
| |
| NRC inspector. reviewed the corrective actions taken by the licensee, and
| |
| .
| |
| it appears-that the corrective actions were appropriate. The NRC
| |
| inspector also reviewed a sampling of the implementation of the corrective.
| |
| - actions to verify the action taken was in accordance with the results of
| |
| *
| |
| 2 the documented review.
| |
| '
| |
| IE Information Notice 84-06, " Steam Binding of Auxiliary Feedwater Pumps,"
| |
| ' was issued on January 25, 1984. The NRC inspector reviewed the licensee's i
| |
| .
| |
| response'to this issue in more detail in response to a request from the
| |
| NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement. The licensee had reviewed this
| |
| issue and performed appropriate corrective action as outlined below:
| |
| . Emergency feedwater (EFW) piping is monitored twice per shift by
| |
| touch on Unit 1 and once per shift by pyrometer on Unit 2 to detect
| |
| back leakage as indicated by a piping temperature increase.
| |
| . The Unit 1 EFW operating procedure was revised to check for check
| |
| valve back leakage prior to the monthly test of each pump.
| |
| . The Unit 2 EFW operating procedure was revised to ensure seating of
| |
| the check valves by cycling the stop valves after stopping the pumps
| |
| during the monthly tests.
| |
| . The EFW operating procedures for both units were revised to provide
| |
| guidance on detecting and correcting EFW pump steam binding.
| |
| No violations or deviations were identified.
| |
| 5. Operational Safety Verification (Units 1 and 2)
| |
| The NRC inspectors observed control room operations, reviewed applicable
| |
| logs, and conducted discussions with control room operators. The
| |
| inspectors verified the operability of selected emergency systems,
| |
| reviewed tagout records, and verified proper return-to-service of affected
| |
| components. Tours of accessible areas of the units were conducted to
| |
| observe plant equipment conditions, including potential fire hazards,
| |
| fluid leaks, and excessive vibration. In addition, the inspectors ensured
| |
| that maintenance requests had been initiated for equipment in need of
| |
| maintenance. The inspectors, by observation and direct interview,
| |
| verified that the physical security plan was being implemented in
| |
| accordance with the station security plan.
| |
| During a tour of the Unit 1 auxiliary building, the NRC inspector noted
| |
| that NRC-required FD 19 was not shut as it should be. FD 19 is located
| |
| between the EFW pump and south piping penetration rooms. The NRC
| |
| ,
| |
| #
| |
| n
| |
| _. _ _ _ _ _
| |
| | |
| . .
| |
| -10-
| |
| inspector noted that the door was being held open by ventilation air flow.
| |
| The door is designed not to latch shut because the door also serves as a
| |
| vent path in the event of a high energy line break (HELB) in the south
| |
| piping penetration room. The door is normally held shut by an automatic
| |
| door closer. Flame and smoke detectors on either side of the fire barrier
| |
| were operational as required by Technical Specifications. This item is
| |
| unresolved pending a licensee evaluation of how to maintain the door in
| |
| the shut position so the effectiveness of FD 19 to contain a fire within
| |
| an affected location will not be decreased. (313/8507-01)
| |
| During a tour of the Unit 2 auxiliary building, the NRC inspector noted
| |
| that FD 210 was being held shut by a latch. FD 210 should not be held
| |
| shut because it provides a vent path for an HELB in the lower south piping
| |
| penetration room. The NRC inspector reviewed DCP 83-D-2030 and found that
| |
| the design change required a door be installed that met the requirements
| |
| of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R and for an HELB in the penetration room. In
| |
| order to meet both requirements, DCP 83-D-2030 provided instructions for
| |
| FD 210 to be installed with a door closer to ensure the door remained
| |
| shut, but without a latching mechanism so the door would open in the event
| |
| of an HELB. The DCP and associated J0 were signed off as completed even
| |
| though FD 210 was not installed in accordance with the DCP requirements.
| |
| This is an apparent violation. (368/8507-01)
| |
| In addition to the required response for the above violation, the licensee
| |
| is requested to include a written evaluation of the effect of the latched
| |
| door on the HELB analysis for the lower south piping penetration room. A
| |
| review of this item will be included in the NRC inspector's followup
| |
| inspection of the violation.
| |
| The NRC inspectors observed plant housekeeping / cleanliness conditions and
| |
| verified implementation of radiation protection controls. The NRC
| |
| inspectors walked down the accessible portions of the Unit I high pressure
| |
| injection system. The walkdown was performed using Procedure 1104.02 and
| |
| Drawing M-231. During the walkdown, minor discrepancies of an editorial
| |
| nature were noted. The discrepancies were identified to licensee
| |
| personnel.
| |
| These reviews and observations were conducted to verify that facility
| |
| operations were in conformance with the requirements established under
| |
| Technical Specifications,10 CFR, and administrative procedures.
| |
| 6. Monthly Surveillance Observation (Units 1 and 2)
| |
| The NRC inspec.t.rs observed the Technical Specification required
| |
| surveillance testing on the Unit 2 emergency diesel generator
| |
| (Procedure 2104.36, Supplement II) and verified that testing was performed
| |
| in accordance with adequate procedures, that test instrumentation was
| |
| calibrated, that limiting conditions for operation were met, that removal
| |
| .
| |
| | |
| - .
| |
| -
| |
| ,c;;', ~
| |
| ;
| |
| ~
| |
| ,
| |
| .
| |
| '; *
| |
| . ; ,
| |
| '
| |
| ,
| |
| .
| |
| .
| |
| - 2
| |
| , .
| |
| ss
| |
| -11-
| |
| +
| |
| '
| |
| r
| |
| and resto' ration of-the affected components were accomplished, that test
| |
| <results. conformed with Technical Specifications and procedure
| |
| requirements, that test results were reviewed by personnel other than the
| |
| individual directing the test,,and that any deficiencies identified during
| |
| -
| |
| the testing were properly reviewed and resolved by' appropriate management
| |
| personnel.
| |
| The inspectors also witnessed portions of the following test activities:
| |
| ,
| |
| . Unit 2 class 1E battery charger (2032) load test (Procedure 2403.53)
| |
| . Unit 1 low pressure injection pump monthly test (Procedure 1104.04,
| |
| 4 Supplement I)
| |
| . Unit 2 visual inspection of mechanical snubbers (Procedure 1406.36)
| |
| . Unit 2 functional testing of mechanical snubbers (Procedure 1406.40) >
| |
| . Unit 2 engineered safeguards features relay testing (JO 71748)
| |
| No violations or deviations were identified.
| |
| 7. Monthly Maintenance Observation (Units 1 and 2)
| |
| ,
| |
| Station maintenance activities of safety-related systems and components
| |
| listed below were observed to ascertain that they were conducted in
| |
| accordance with approved procedures, Regulatory Guides, and industry codes
| |
| '
| |
| or standards; and in conformance with Technical Specifications.
| |
| The following items were considered during this review: the limiting
| |
| conditions for operation were met while components or systems were removed
| |
| from service; approvals were obtained prior to initiating the work;
| |
| activities were accomplished using approved procedures and were inspected
| |
| as applicable; functional testing and/or calibrations were performed prior
| |
| to returning components or systems to service; QC records were maintained;
| |
| activities were accomplished by qualified personnel; parts and materials
| |
| used were properly certified; radiological controls were implemented; and
| |
| fire prevention controls were implemented,
| |
| i Work requests were reviewed to determine status of outstanding jobs and to
| |
| ensure that priority is assigned to safety-related equipment maintenance
| |
| which may affect system performance.
| |
| '
| |
| The following maintenance activities were observed: ,
| |
| .
| |
| . Unit 2 control element assembly extension shaft removal
| |
| (Procedure 2401.17)
| |
| e
| |
| | |
| -
| |
| -_
| |
| ,
| |
| .. .
| |
| +
| |
| -
| |
| 12-
| |
| ,-
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| ..- Unit 2 S/G tubesheet cleaning (Procedure 2402.98)
| |
| . Replacement of insulation on motor leads for the high pressure
| |
| injection pump.(JO 84217)
| |
| . Removal and replacement of Unit 2 mechanical snubbers (JO 79534)
| |
| . Tightening of a loose nut on service water support for Unit 2
| |
| containment cooling' unit (JO 73025)
| |
| '
| |
| i . Replacement of the mechanical seal on Unit 2 low' pressure safety
| |
| . >
| |
| injecti_on pump (JO 76038)
| |
| '
| |
| i -
| |
| . Cleaning of Unit 2 RCP oil drain lines (JO 81998)
| |
| ,
| |
| ,
| |
| LNo v'iolations or deviations were identified. .
| |
| ' '
| |
| , '8. LSpent'FuelhoolActivities(Unit 2)
| |
| '
| |
| IDuring this refueling outage (2R4), the licensee offloaded all fuel ^;
| |
| k' '
| |
| -
| |
| assembli_es from the core into the spent fuel pool. This was done to
| |
| . perform shoulder gap measurements on selected fuel assemblies, remove
| |
| control element assemblies (CEA) from spent fuel assemblies into new fuel '
| |
| assemblies,'and replace spent fuel assemblies with new fuel assemblies. '
| |
| i 1,
| |
| The' NRC -inspectors observed spent fuel pool activities to verify that
| |
| operations'were being conducted in accordance with Procedures.2409.43,
| |
| -
| |
| "CEA Movement Utilizing CE Equipment"; 2503.01, " Refueling Shuffle"; and
| |
| ,
| |
| 2503.03, " Operation of Fuel Handling Equipment." No problems were noted
| |
| with the mechanics of handling fuel assemblies in the spent fuel pool..
| |
| During observation of operation of the~ spent fuel pool bridge, the NRC
| |
| inspectors noted that the HP area entrance requirements for portions of
| |
| the bridge stated that beta protection was required. However, an
| |
| individual operating the CEA handling tool within the posted area was not
| |
| using the HP-required beta protection (i.e., glasses or goggles). This is
| |
| an apparent procedural ~ violation involving failure to comply with the
| |
| posted area entrance requirements. (368/8507-02)
| |
| 9. Emergency Preparedness Exercise Observation (Units 1 and 2)
| |
| The NRC inspectors observed the licensee's annual emergency preparedness
| |
| exercise held on April 24-25, 1985. The inspectors were located in the
| |
| Unit 2 control room and in the technical support center where they
| |
| performed observation and participation activities. A detailed discussion
| |
| of the NRC' findings during the exercise is provided in NRC Inspection
| |
| Report 50-313/85-10; 50-368/85-10.
| |
| u-
| |
| | |
| -_ _ ,
| |
| ,
| |
| .
| |
| . ..
| |
| ,
| |
| < '
| |
| .
| |
| .
| |
| !
| |
| -
| |
| -13-
| |
| 10. Facility Modifications (Unit 2)
| |
| Y . The NRC inspectors reviewed two design changes performed on Unit 2 systems
| |
| during the current outage (2R4). The DCPs reviewed were DCP 83-2006,
| |
| -
| |
| " Service Water Pump Disconnect Switches and Cable Reroute," and
| |
| DCP 84-2018, " Service Water Valve Replacement." The following items were
| |
| .
| |
| verified for these DCPs:
| |
| . The changes were reviewed and approved by the licensee in
| |
| accordance with 10 CFR Part 50.59 and with licensee procedures.
| |
| ,
| |
| . The implementation of the DCPs was controlled by established
| |
| '-
| |
| procedures.
| |
| . Following implementation, the modified systems were tested in
| |
| accordance with approved test procedures.
| |
| . The necessary changes to operating procedures were being approved and
| |
| were scheduled for implementation prior to plant heatup.
| |
| . Operator training on the DCPs was conducted.
| |
| . Changes to piping and instrumentation drawings were scheduled to be
| |
| issued prior to plant heatup.
| |
| . Ignition source permits were issued when required.
| |
| . For DCP 83-2006, the licensee had reviewed and approved the seismic
| |
| qualification report for the new disconnect switch cabinets.
| |
| . Field change notices to the DCPs were used to document and control
| |
| design revisions found to be needed after DCP implementation was
| |
| started.
| |
| . Checks were performed at various times during installation to verify
| |
| that the change was being performed in accordance with the DCP.
| |
| No violations or deviations were identified.
| |
| 11. Near-Term Inspection Followup to GL 83-28 (Units 1 anJ 2)
| |
| GL 83-28, " Required Actions Based on Generic Implication of Salem ATWS
| |
| t Events," was issued by the NRC on July 8, 1983. GL 83-28 required each
| |
| licensee to address the near- and long-term programs associated with post-
| |
| trip review, equipment classification, vendor interface, and maintenance
| |
| programs for safety-related components within safety-related systems.
| |
| This inspection addressed the near-term programs currently in effect at
| |
| ANO. The long-term programs, currently being reviewed by the NRC Office
| |
| a
| |
| | |
| , _, . _ , , _ _ , - . _ - -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
| |
| .
| |
| >
| |
| m -
| |
| , a.
| |
| * ' '
| |
| $.; 9 .4 h
| |
| * Q
| |
| 3
| |
| ; - ~ ~
| |
| , ,
| |
| m 1 . : .
| |
| ' *' '
| |
| .
| |
| _ x. -14-
| |
| . l' , > ~
| |
| ,
| |
| ( . ofNuclearReactorRegulation,willbeexaminedduringafutureinspection
| |
| .c -
| |
| i after issuance of safety evaluation reports. Each of the four areas
| |
| reviewed during this near. term inspection are discussed below.
| |
| . ,
| |
| a. The area of posttrip review wa's discussed in NRC Inspection
| |
| Report 50-313/84-18; 50-368/84-18.
| |
| b. .The purpose of equipment classification area of this inspection was
| |
| to verify that the licensee has established a program for use in-
| |
| identification of components as safety-related; that the program is
| |
| adequately described in appropriate procedures, drawings, and
| |
| instructions; and that the program is being '
| |
| implemented in daily
| |
| plant activities.
| |
| The NRC inspector performed the following activities for this area of
| |
| the inspection.
| |
| . Reviewed the appropriate procedures to verify that an equipment
| |
| classification program has been established that conforms to the
| |
| licensee's response to GL 83-28, codes, standards, the AP&L QA
| |
| Manual-Operations, and the safety analysis reports.
| |
| . . Reviewed procurement, maintenance, and' modification activities
| |
| to verify these activities were being performed in accordance
| |
| with the controlling procedures established for program
| |
| implementation.
| |
| . Verified that audit, training, and nonconformance programs were
| |
| established and implemented for activitles associated with
| |
| equipment classification.
| |
| c. The purpose of-the vendor interface area of this inspection was to
| |
| verify that the licensee has established and is implementing a
| |
| program to ensure vendor information is complete, current, and
| |
| controlled, and that the vendor information has been-included in the
| |
| licensee's test and maintenance procedures.
| |
| The NRC inspector performed the following activities for this area of
| |
| the inspection.
| |
| '
| |
| . Reviewed vendor technical manuals for selected plant components
| |
| and verified the test guidance and maintenance information ,
| |
| provided had been incorporated into the appropriate procedures.
| |
| .$ Reviewed the technical manuals for Units 1 and 2 reactor trip .
| |
| ,' breakers (RTBs) and appropriate procedures to verify information '
| |
| ,
| |
| contained in the procedures was accurate and detailed enough to '
| |
| o -,
| |
| eb
| |
| l
| |
| r
| |
| -
| |
| | |
| , - - - - . - _ _ _
| |
| ,
| |
| '~
| |
| x, s. ~
| |
| -15-
| |
| . provide adequate instructions for the technicians performing RTB
| |
| I
| |
| maintenance and testing.
| |
| s
| |
| . Verified that RTB modifications recommended by the vendor had ,
| |
| been completed.'
| |
| L
| |
| . Verified that the licensee is trending online and maintenance
| |
| data for the RTBs.
| |
| '
| |
| d. The purpose of the maintenance area of this inspection was to verify
| |
| that the licensee is implementing a postmaintenance testing program
| |
| .
| |
| for safety-related components to ensure operability after maintenance '
| |
| activities have been completed.
| |
| , . . .' -The NRC inspector performed the following activities related to this
| |
| ~
| |
| 4 area of the inspection. ,
| |
| ,
| |
| ' '
| |
| '
| |
| ; Verified that_a program has been established that requires post-
| |
| , *
| |
| *
| |
| maintenance testing and that the program establishes the
| |
| '
| |
| <
| |
| responsibilities for review and approval of maintenance, for,
| |
| 3' , l . designation as to whether or not it is a safety-related
| |
| 0
| |
| "'
| |
| -
| |
| maintenance activity,'and for the performance of the maintenance
| |
| ! activity.
| |
| ,
| |
| '
| |
| ,
| |
| '
| |
| . Verifled through the review of maintenance documentation on
| |
| selected plant components that the program is bc' a properly
| |
| ,
| |
| implemented and that postmaintenance testing is performed prior
| |
| to returning the component to service.
| |
| . Observed plant maintenance activities to verify that maintenance
| |
| <: . is performed in accordance with procedures and instructions.
| |
| ,
| |
| . Verified procedural requirements exist that test the
| |
| silicon-controlled rectifiers for the reactor trip system.
| |
| . Verified that procedures require testing of the manual and
| |
| automatic trip functions of the RTBs.
| |
| No violations or deviations were identified.
| |
| 12. Refueling Activities (Unit 2)
| |
| The NRC inspectors reviewed procedures and observed licensee activities to
| |
| determine whether refueling activities were conducted as required by the
| |
| Technical Specifications and in accordance with approved procedures. ,The
| |
| following items were included in this inspection:
| |
| ,
| |
| h_ .
| |
| | |
| -. . _ - - _ .
| |
| ' *
| |
| :
| |
| :
| |
| -16-
| |
| '
| |
| . The Technical Specification prerequisites were met prior to fuel
| |
| ,han'd ling.
| |
| . Periodic equipment testing and boron sampling required by the
| |
| Technical Specifications were conducted.
| |
| . Fuel handling operations in the reactor building and in the spent
| |
| fuel pool were being conducted in accordance with approved
| |
| procedures.
| |
| . Containment integrity was maintained as required.
| |
| . Housekeeping practices in the refueling cavity and in the spent fuel
| |
| area were appropriate. The discrepancies involving loose items on
| |
| the refueling bridge identified during the recent Unit I refueling
| |
| were not repeated during this refueling.
| |
| '
| |
| . Technical Specification and procedural requirements regarding
| |
| staffing during refueling operations were satisfied.
| |
| No violations or deviations were-identified.
| |
| 13. Pipe Support and Restraint Systems (Unit 2)
| |
| The NRC inspector reviewed the licensee's procedures and activities
| |
| relating to the inspection and testing of mechanical snubbers in
| |
| accordance with Technical Specification 3/4.7.8. Procedures reviewed
| |
| included:
| |
| Number Revision Title
| |
| 1406.36 1 Mechanical Snubber Visual Inspection
| |
| per VT-3
| |
| 1406.37 1 Mechanical Snubber Visual Inspection
| |
| per VT-4
| |
| 1406.38 1 Mechanical Snubber Removal and
| |
| Reinstallation.
| |
| 1406.40 1 Mechanical Snubber Testing - Pacific
| |
| Scientific (PSA) Snubbers
| |
| 1406.41 1 Disassembly, Cleaning, Inspection, and
| |
| Reassembly of PSA Mechanical Snubbers
| |
| The licensee contracted with Wyle Laboratories for performance of
| |
| mechanical snubber inspection and testing during outage 2R4. The NRC
| |
| inspector made observations of these activities and noted the following
| |
| items:
| |
| i
| |
| __ _
| |
| | |
| m . .
| |
| 4 '
| |
| y 41
| |
| y: * .
| |
| -17-
| |
| .
| |
| . The AP&L QA department had reviewed the calibration documentation and
| |
| verified that the testing machines and associated instruments were
| |
| calibrated.
| |
| . AP&L QA had also reviewed the qualification status of testing and
| |
| inspection personnel.
| |
| . QC for testing and inspection activities was provided by Wyle under-
| |
| the.Wyle QA Manual.
| |
| .- The snubber inspections observed were performed in accordance with
| |
| approved procedures by experienced personnel.
| |
| . Deficiencies identified during inspections were documented and
| |
| tracked to resolution.
| |
| . Functional test acceptance criteria were in conformance with
| |
| Technical Specification 4.7.8.e.
| |
| . A mechanism was in place to ensure the performance of a failure
| |
| '
| |
| analysis and an engineering evaluation of the effect on systems and
| |
| components for each snubber which failed to meet the functional test
| |
| acceptance criteria.
| |
| l . Due to.the number of failures identified, the licensee elected to
| |
| . perform a functional test on each mechanical snubber. At the end of
| |
| this inspection period, the licensee's failure analyses and
| |
| component / system operability engineering evaluations were not yet
| |
| >
| |
| s
| |
| complete. The NRC inspector will review the results of these
| |
| analyses and evaluations during the next inspection period.
| |
| ~
| |
| . Preservice operability testing and preservice inspections were
| |
| performed on repaired, replacement, and new snubbers as required by
| |
| Technical Specification 4.7.8.g.
| |
| .
| |
| .,
| |
| , .:, A calibration check was performed on each of the two snubber -
| |
| -
| |
| functional testing machines daily.
| |
| '
| |
| . . Test data was recorded for review, evaluation, and retention.
| |
| No violations or deviations were identified.
| |
| '
| |
| . .
| |
| 14. JinresolvedItem
| |
| - An unresolved item is one about which more information is required to
| |
| determine whether the item is acceptable cr is a violation. One
| |
| unresolved item is discussed in this report as indicated below:
| |
| l' Paragraph Subject
| |
| 5- FD 19 does not stay shut
| |
| b
| |
| | |
| , , . . . . . ,.
| |
| ,,
| |
| ,~
| |
| A ,; .% ,
| |
| t t. ,- .;
| |
| - - 4'
| |
| '
| |
| , . ,
| |
| . , 1 ..i
| |
| ..
| |
| 4
| |
| ,-
| |
| , ,
| |
| .
| |
| < .
| |
| , - ,
| |
| ,
| |
| . . ..
| |
| - ' ' '
| |
| it . 5 : ,
| |
| .. .
| |
| ,
| |
| -
| |
| -
| |
| ". .. -18-
| |
| a- ,
| |
| - .
| |
| >
| |
| 4
| |
| i
| |
| u- c. , 15 1; Exit Inierview
| |
| : '
| |
| .
| |
| The NRC inspectors met with'Mr. T.:.Cogburn and other members of the AP&L-
| |
| ,
| |
| staff'at the end of this inspection. At'this meeting, the inspectors
| |
| -
| |
| summar,1 zed the scope of the inspection and the findings.
| |
| ,
| |
| .
| |
| D' s
| |
| L
| |
| b
| |
| _
| |
| -
| |
| .
| |
| e
| |
| 4
| |
| m
| |
| @
| |
| ( %
| |
| f
| |
| 42
| |
| * >
| |
| L i' - f
| |
| .3.,
| |
| I i . 4 11
| |
| - + , d'- , s
| |
| '
| |
| s .
| |
| L
| |
| * * #
| |
| . .
| |
| 9
| |
| '
| |
| v' (' _
| |
| .
| |
| . .. ., ,
| |
| .J . 't _
| |
| }}
| |