ML20211B639

Ack Receipt of Informing NRC of Steps Taken to Correct Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-313/86-26 & 50-368/86-27

ML20211B639
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	02/12/1987
From:	Gagliardo J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Campbell G ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO.
References
NUDOCS 8702190473
Download: ML20211B639 (1)

See also: IR 05000313/1986026

Text

_

a .. >

FEB 121987

In Reply Refer To:

Dockets: 50-313/86-26

50-368/86-27

Arkansas Power & Light Company

ATTN: Mr. Gene Campbell

Vice President, Nuclear

Operations

P. O. Box 551

Little Rock, Arkansas

72203

Gentlemen:

Thank you for your letter of December 19, 1986, in response to our letter

and Notice of Violation dated October 6, 1986. We have reviewed your reply and

find it responsive to the concerns raised in our Notice of Violation. We will

,

review the implementation of your corrective actions during a future inspection

to determine that full compliance has been achieved and will be maintained.

Sincerely,

Drfginal Signed Dy

J. E. Gag!!ardo

J. E. Gagliardo, Chief

Reactor Projects Branch

cc:

J. M. Levine, Director

Site Nuclear Operations

Arkansas Nuclear One

P. O. Box 608

Russellville, Arkansas

72801

Arkansas Radiation Control Program Director

bec to DMB (IE01)

bec distrib. by RIV:

RPB

RRI

R. D. Martin, RA

R&SPB

SectionChief(RPB/B)

D. Weiss, RM/ALF

RIV

DRSP

RSB

MIS System

RSTS Operator

Project Inspector

R. Hall

PI

V

C:RPE

C:RP

MEMurph :cs

DRHurWr

JEGag1_1ardo

2/// /87

2/g/87

2// /87

-

8702190473 070212

PDR

ADOCK 05000313

G

PDR

r

.,,

I

.]

i

.

. .

ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY

POST OFFICE BOX 551 UTTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72203 (501) 371-4000

December 19, 1986

@SOMMp

I

OCAN128605

l

,b

J

Mr. J. E. Gagliardo, Chief

i

j

Reactor Projects Branch

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Region IV

611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000

Arlington, TX 76011

SUBJECT: Arkansas Nuclear One - Units 1 & 2

Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368

License Nos. DPR-51 and NPF-6

Response to Inspection Report

50-313/86-26 and 50-368/86-27

Dear Mr. Gagliardo:

The subject inspection report has been reviewed.

A response to the Notice

of Violation is attached.

Very truly yours.

. Ted Enos, Manager

Nuclear Engineering and Licensing

JTE/RJS/sg

Attachment

,

l

l

l

$"/(3l_l.5h

0

4pp

E

003

gg

,

MEMBEA MOOLE SOUTH UTIUTIES SYSTEM

<

-

-

-

-

,

.; . ,

!, . .1

'i

.

.

'

A.

Unit 2 Technical Specifi' cation (TS) 6.8.1 requires, in part, that

written procedures shall be established, implemented, and maintained

covering the applicable procedures recommended in Appendix A of

Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.33.

Section 1.6 of Appendix A to RG 1.33, Revision '2, February 1978, states

that safety-related activities such as, " Authorities and

Responsibilities for Safe Operation and Shutdown," should be covered by

written procedures.

,

Section 8.7.1 of Operations Administrative Procedure 1015.01, " Conduct

of Operation," requires that conditions which re,sult in actuation of

the annunciator system should be promptly investigated and corrective

action taken to clear the alarm.

Contrary to the above, on August 13, 1986, the licensee failed to

properly respond to an annunciator alarm indicating low level in the

_.

cooling water expansion tank for one of the emergency diesel

generators.

\\

This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I.0) (368/8627-01).

Response to Violation 368/8627-01

An operator initially responded to the alarm and acknowledged it as

appropriate.

The violation occurred when the responding operator was

distracted while in the process-of taking corrective actions.

The

operator completed proper corrective actions when the NRC Inspector

brought it to his attention.

The actions were to close the tank drain

valves which had been inadvertently partially opened and to open the

fill valve to reestablish level.

The operator'was counselled by his

supervisors.

The incident wad discussed by the Operations

Superintendent in the operator requalification training cycle that

followed the incident.

Full compliance was achieved when corrective

actions were completed on August 13, 1986.

L

e,

s -

.

.

B.

Criterion II of Appendix B to 10CFR Part 50 and Section 2.4 of the

approved Arkansas Power and Light Quality Assurance Manual - Operations

(AP&L QAM), requires that activities affecting quality shall be

accomplished under suitably controlled conditions.

Criterion V of

Appendix B to 10CFR Part 50 and Section 5 of the AP&L QAM requires that

activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented

instructions, procedures, or drawings.

Contrary to the above, the controls for erection of scaffolding were

less than adequate in that, on August 21, 1986, the NRC Inspector found

that a temporary scaffold had been installed in the Unit 2 auxiliary

building in the vicinity of the "A" emergency diesel generator with one

side of the scaffold wired to the diesel fuel oil supply line.

This

line, 2HBD-103-3, is seismic Category I piping.

This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I.D) (368/8626-02).

Response to Violation 368/8627-02

AP&L was unable to ascertain how and when the wire was placed on the

scaffold.

The scaffolding controls recently implemented (reference

response to violation 368/8615-08, OCAN088613) require an engineering

review for attaching scaffolds to seismic piping.

The installation

control form indicated no engineering review was required.

This

indicates that the scaffolding would not be secured to piping, pipe

hangers, etc., associated with safety-related systems.

Immediate

actions were to remove the wire.

As a result of this violation, the

use of " tie wire" to stabilize scaffolding has been prohibited without

approval by supervision.

Additionally, crafts involved in scaffolding

installation were re-instructed that engineering approval is required

before scaffolding can be tied or braced to any safety-related

component.

AP&L maintenance personnel were cautioned not to modify

scaffolding installations without supervisor approval and re-instructed

on the scaffolding controls.

Full compliance was achieved at the time

the wire was removed from the scaffold and piping.

.

e

..

"

i -),

i

A

,

e,

,

,

.

. .

-

C.

Criterion V of Appendix B to 10CFR Part 50 and Sectior 5 of the

i

Arkansas Power & Light Quality Assurance Manual - Operations require,

in part, that activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by

documented drawings and shall be accomplished in accordance with these

drawings.

3

Design Drawings 2C'CB-70-H19, Revision 4, dated December 17, 1982, and

'

2CCB-13-H8, Revision 3, dated March 26, 1982, show the design

configuration of' seismic supports 2CCB-70-H19 and 2CCB-13-H8 including

the specifications for the baseplate concrete expansion anchor bolts.

Contrary to the above, on August 8, 1986, and August 25, 1986, seismic

supports 2CCB.70-H19 and 2CCB-13-H8, respectively, were found not to

match the de. sign drawings in that the first support had one anchor bolt

with no nut and the second support had one anchor bolt in which the nut

made no contact with the washer.

<

>

This is a Severity Level V violation (Supplement I.E) (368/8627-03).

Response to Violation 368/8627-03

We believe the discrepancies to have resulted due to original

construction as there have been no design changes performed on these

seismic supports.

The supports are dssociated with piping less than

four inches in diameter and are, therefore, exempt and not inspected

under the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI inservice

inspection (ISI) requirements.

This Code provision is based on the

significant conservatism of the design requirements for such piping.

The supports identified in this violation and the support discussed in

NRC Inspection Report 50-313/86-29 and 50-368/86-29 are for the

following piping:

1

2CCB-70

3" piping

2CCB-13

3" piping

20CB-511

2" piping

Our seismic support inspections for ISI (4" or greater piping) are not

presently augmented for piping exempt from Code requirements.

However,

AP&L plans to initiate inspections of supports for exempt piping and is

presently investigating the appropriate scope and methods. We expect

to finalize the scope and schedule of such inspections by March 31,

1987.

Repairs have been completed and we are in full compliance for the

supports cited. We are also evaluating the as-found condition of these

suppot ts to verify there was no impact on the operability of the

piping.

l

l

l

l

l

-

--

~