IR 05000313/1997006

Insp Repts 50-313/97-06 & 50-368/97-06 on 970831-1011.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Operation,Maint & Plant Support

ML20198Q058
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	11/06/1997
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20198P990	List: IR 05000313/1997006 ML20198P986
References
50-313-97-06, 50-313-97-6, 50-368-97-06, 50-368-97-6, NUDOCS 9711120094
Download: ML20198Q058 (13)

Text

.

.

.

>

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION IV

Docket Nos: 50 313,50 368 License No : DPR-51, NPF 6 Report No: 50 313/97-06, 50 368/97-06 Lic,nsee: Fntergy Operations, In Facility: Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2 Location: 1448 S.R. 333 i Russellville, Arkansas 72801 Dates: August 31 through October 11,1997 Inspectors: J. Melfi, Resident inspector, Acting Senior Resident S. Burton, Resident inspector Approved by: Elmo E. Collins, Chief, Project Branch C Division of Reactor Projects Attachment: Supplemental information 9711120094 97 PDR

'

ADOCK o G pg13

_ _ .

.

i

.

l EXECUTIVE SUMMARY l

'

Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2 NRC inspection Report 50 313/97 06;50-368/97-06 I

This routine announced inspection included aspects of licensee operations, maintenance, and plant support. The report covers a 6-week period of resident inspectio Operations

The licensee inadvertently moved a restricted fuel assembly to a nonrestricted location due to a misread map location. They subsequently reanalyzed the fuel assembly as nonrestricted. The licensee took appropriate corrective actions on this event to enhance the procedure (Section 01.2)

The inspectors found the emergency feedwater (EFW) system to be > perly aligned and in good material condition (Section 01.3).

The licensee's analysis of the potential for reactor overpower durir.g EFW testing wan comprehensive and the licensee had not exceeded 100 percent power. The licensee revised procedures to preclude exceeding 100 percent power (Section 01.4).

Mainterance

Maintenance performed on three seperate activities was completed in a professional and thorough manner. All work was performed according to procedures by knowledgeable personnel. Appropriate supervisory involvement was seen in all the maintenance activities observed (Section M1.1).

Unit 2 maintenance technicians demonstrated good work practices and knowledge when repairing exhaust manifold leaks and rep. acing fuelinjectors on the emergency diesel generator (EDG). Their questioning attitude and experience properly identified and corrected inaccuracios in the job order (JO) which were introduced during the planning phase (Section M1.2).

The surveillance activities performed by the licensee were done by knowledgeable workers following approved procedures. Licensee personnel were knowledgeable of the components being tested and demonstrated good communications (Section M1,3).

Plant Suonort

'

During the decontamination of Unit 2 spent resin storage tanks, health physics technicians demonstrated proper concern for as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) levels and safety. Radiation work permits (RWP) and JOs were properly followed (Section R1,1).

'

.

.

I Rep _ortjetails Summary of Plant Status At the start of the reporting period, Unit 1 was operating at 100 percent power and, except for a planned downpower to 84 percent on September 24,1997, for main turbine valve and governor valve testing, remained at 100 percent power throughout the inspection reporting period. Unit 2 was operating at 100 percent power and remained at 100 percent power through the end of the reporting pcrio . Operations 01 Conduct of Operations 0 General Comments (71707)

The inspectors observed various aspects of plant operations, including compliance with Technical Specifications (TSs); conformance with plant procedures and the Safety Analysis Report; shift manning; communications; management oversight; proper system configuration and configuration control; housekeeping; and operator performance during routine plant operations, th9 conduct of surveillances, and plant power change The conduct of operations was professional and safety conscious. Evolutions such as surveillances and plant power changes were well controlled, deliberate, and performed according to procedures. Shift turnover briefs were comprehensiv Housekeeping was generally good and discrepancies were promptly correcte Safety systems were found properly aligne The inspectors noted the following specifics on the licensee's activities. The inspectors observed a security tour on September 29,1997, and found night time lighting adequate in low level areas, the perimeter well patrolled, and that security activities included additional checks on vehicles and inaccessible areas. A tour with a waste control operator on October 2 was well performe Specific events and other noteworthy observations are detailed in the following report section .2 Unit 1 Miscositioned Fuel Assembiv in tne Scent Fuel Pool Inspection Scone (71707)

On September 6,1997, while perforrning a review to select fuel assemblies for dry fuel storage, the licensee identified inconsistencies in the location histories of some assemblies. The inventory storage locations did not match the locations indicated on the fuellocation records. On September 24, the licensee discovered that one restricted assembly was in a fuellocation that was classified as nonrestricted. The inspectors reviewed the circumstances surrounding this error to determine if other fuel assemblies could have been misplace r

,

<

l

.

2 Observations and Findions The Unit 1 spent fuel pool has two regions: one restricted region and one nonrestricted region. The determination of whether a fuel assembly is restricted depends on the fuel enrichment and amount of fuel burnup, as required by TS 3.8.16 and Figure 3 8.2 flestricted assemblies have more nuclear reactivity and are placed in a checkerboard pattern in the spent fuel pool to reduce the potential for an inadvertent criticalit The licensee determined that restricted Fuel Assembly NJ0225 had been placed in a nonrestricted location. This assembly had been placed in the wrong location because similarly numbered Fuel Assembly NJ022S was desired to be moved in

- 1992. The I;censee had reviewed a handwritten tocation map of the assemblies, identified the location of Fuel Assembly NJ0225 as the location of Fuel Assembly NJ022S, and inadvertently moved the wrong assembl The licensee initiated Condition Report (CR) 1 97-0266, moved Fuel Assembly NJ0225 to an appropriate location, and verified that all other restricted fuel assemblies were stored in the appropriate locations. The licensee performed an evaluation of Fuel Assembly NJ0225 to determine if it could be classified as nonrestricted. The determination of whether an assembly is restricted depends on the initial enrichment plus the maximum enrichment error as compared to the amount of fuel burnup. The reanalysis, using the actual data sheets on enrichment, showed that Fuel Assembly NJ0225 should have been classified as nonrestricte The inspectors reviewed this reanalysis and concurred with the licensee's conclusion. The fuel assembly ultimately was found to have been stored in accordance with TS requirement The licensee added cautions to Procedure 1022.012, " Storage, Control and Accountability of Special Nuclear Material," to enhance procedure controls, Conclungm The inadvertent move of a restricted fuel assembly to a nonrestricted location was due to a misread map location. The licensee subsequently reanalyzed the fuel assembly and determined it to be nonrestricted. The licensee took appropriate corrective actions to enhance the procedur . .

. . . . .

.

.

3-01.3 Unit 1 EFW Sntem Walkdowo . Lnjipect.on Sagpe (7170]]

The inspectors walked down accessible portions of the Unit 1 EFW system to inspect the general condition of the syrtem. The inspectors observed that valves were in the correct position; power was aligned to required valves; supports were in place; and major system components were correctly labeled, lubricated, and free of leakage, Q_bservations and Findinns The inspectors generally found the EFW system to be well maintained and in good material condition. The inspectors notod that supports were in place, no leaks were observed on the system, and surveillance tests were performed as scheduled. The inspectors determined that the system was capable of performing as require The inspectors found some minor labeling deficiencies, such as hard to read tag Additionally, the inspectors found one comoonent that was mislabeled and a tag from Steam Trap 78 missing. Apparently, the tag off the steam trap had been placed on nearby Valve HV 365. The inuectors determined that the valve was in its correct position. The licensee properly tagged the valv The inspectors also noticed that main steam check valves, MS 271 and MS 272 to the EFW terry turbine, where chattering. Apparently, steam leakage past some downstream solenoid valves' seats was letting a small amount of steam throug This issue has been previously identified as Unresolved item 50 313/97 201-17 and will be evaluated in a future report, Conclusions The inspectors found the EFW system to be properly aligned and in good material condition. However, some labeling deficiencies were note .4 Unit 2 - Reactor Overpower Durina EFW Testina Inspection Scope (71707)

The licensee evaluated industry information about possible overpower events during EFW check valve testing. The licensee initiated CR 2 97-0532 on September 18, 1997, following their data review of a surveillance test. The inspector reviewed the events surrounding the possible overpowe .=

_

- .

.

k 4-b. Observations and Fin @las Previous industry events revealed that reactor power can increase when cold water is added to the steam generators by the EFW system. Water is added to the steam generators when verifying thut the emergency check valves can open to the steam generators during surveillance tests. Based on these industry events, the licensee took data during the September 16 performance of Procedure 2106.006, supplement 7, " Quarterly EFW Check Valve Test," Revision 46, " Emergency Feedwater System Operation." This data revealed that core power increased slightly when using the differential temperature across the core as a measure of reactor powe Unit 2 calculates the core thermal power by use of the core operating limits supervisor system (COLSS), which calculates core power by a secondary calorimetric by steam flow or feedwater flow and by the differential temperature across the reactor core. The licenceo usually maintains the reactor near but below 100 percent power. The TS limit Unit 2 reactor power to 2815 megawatts (thermal). The licensee uses the calorimetric with steam flow as the basis for -

determining 100 percent power, since the feedwater flow indication can degrade and the differential temperature indication has data scatter on i The EFW check valva tests verify that the emergency check valves open to each steam generator from either EFW pump. Analysis of the results of the September 16 test using core differential temperatures revealed power increases

-

above 100 percent of 0,22 to 0.40 percent power, depending on the flow path and pump used. The duration of these varied from 3 to 23 minute The licensee performed further analysis to determine if reactor power actually exceeded 100 percent by using the actual veam conditions versus what COLSS assumes, The licensee previously performed a moisture carryover test on the quality of the main steam and found that the quality was slightly less than assumed by COLSS and resulted in a 0,12 percent conservatism of calculated reactor powe The licensee also evaluated the effect of reduced steam pressure, which resulted in a 0.23 percent conservatism. There is also a 0.06 percent offset between the secondary calorimetric and the core differential power. Combining these conservatisms, the licensee determined that they did not exceed 100 percent powe The licensee plans to revise the COLSS to account for the reduction of steam quality. The licensee revised the EFW check valve procedure to reduce power to 98 percent before performing this test to preclude exceeding 100 percent power, The inspectors assessed whether the licensee inadvertently exceeded power in the past, During the previous cycle, the licensee operated previously at a power of 98 percent due to reactor coolant system temperature limitations. Since the reactor power increasco seen on this test were less than 0.5 percent, the licensee probably

.

_ _ -

_

.

.

> **

did not exceed 100 percent power during the previous cycle. Also, previous NRC guidance hua stated that achieving 100.5 percent power for up to 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> was acceptable, and the licensee did not exceed 100.5 percent for that length of time, Conclusions The inspectors concluded that the licensee's analyses were comprehensive and that the licensee had not exceeded 100 percent power. The licensee revised procedures to preclude exceeding 100 percent power, 11. Maintenance M1 Conduct of Maintenance M1,1 General Comments Insocction Scope (6270 The inspectors observed all or portions of the following rnaintenance activities:

• Unit 1 JOs 00969212 and 00967757, "B Service Water Pump Motor Replacement," on September 24,199 * Unit 1 JO 000966566, " Swap out Two Channel A EFIC Compensation Modules," on October 1,1997, ,

• Unit 2 JO 00956169, " Control Room Damper Positioner Replacernent," on October 10,1997, b, Observations and Findinns The inspectors found all the work performed in these activities to be professional and thorough. All work was performed according to procedures and the workers were knowledgeable of their assigned tasks, Maintenance supervisory involvement was observed on all these activities and appropriate foreign material exclusion controls were implemented. infrequently performed tests or evolution briefs were held when required, in addition, cee the specific discussions of maintenance observed under Section M1,2 belo .. . ___ _ __ _J

- - - -- -

-

-

. . - .

<

b

,

i

.

,

6- Cfn_g]htsiOR2 The maintenance performed by the licensee was done professionally and thoroughly. All work was performed according to procedures by knowledgeable personnel. Supervisory involvement was seen in all the maintenance activities observe M1.2 Unit 2 Two iniector Renlacements and Exhaust Header Renair Inspection Scope (627011 On September 3,1997, maintenance was performed on EDG 2 to repair exhaust header leaks and replace fuelinjectors. The inspectors observed maintenance activities which included reviews of the associated JOs, procedures, and work practices, Qbservations and Findinna Maintenance technicians replaced several fuelinjectors and exhaust manifold gaskets using JOs 00965617 and 00966058 and Procedure 2306.005, Revision 16, "18 Month Surveillance on Unit 2 Emergency Diesel Generator 2K 4."

Bench testing of the removed injectors was conducted using the same procedure and Job Request 92589 The licensee repaired the exhaust manifolds as part of the corrective actions for leaking oil which resulted in an exhaust manifold candle flame. This condition was identified and documented in CR 2 97-0419. The licensee replaced injectors to correct hot cylinder temperatures identified during trending of operational logs by system engineering. Postmaintenance testing revealed that this maintenance corrected the exhaust manifold leaks and lowered cylinder exhaust tempereture The inspectors observed portions of the maintenance activities and found technicians knowledgeable, utilizing correct procedures and applying proper foreign material controls during the maintenance activities. TechM inns applied proper methods for obtaining a procedure change when they identified a step that required the application of Lubricant N 5000 to the exhaust manifold bolts. The technicians'

prior experience with this maintenance had not required this action. The licensee identified that a human error during the planning phase of job preparation resulted in the inclusion of this erroneous step and therefore removed it from the JO.

7 Conclusions Unit 2 maintenance technicians demonstrated good work practices and knowledge when repairing exhaust manifold leaks and replacing fuelinjectors on the ED Their questioning attitude and experience properly identified and corrected inaccuracies in the JO which were introduced during the planning phas .

_

- . _ . . . .

.

.

M1.3 Gmetal Comments on Sttr_ysilipnge_A_gjivities Inspection Scope (61726)

The inspectors observed all or portions of the following surveillance activities:

• Unit 2 - Procedure 2104.005, Revision 37, " Containment Spray System,"

Supplement 4, "2P130A Quarterly Test," performed on September 8,199 * Unit 1, Procedure 1304.128, Revision 12, " Unit 1 RPS D/CRD Breaker Trip Test," performed on September 23,199 * Unit 1, " Procedure 1304.208, Revision 2, " Unit 1 EFIC Channel D Monthly Test, SG Pressure Greater than 750 PSIG," performed on September 26, 199 * Unit 1 Procedure 1104.029, Revision 49, " Service Water and Auxiliary Cooling Water," Supplement 2, * Service Water Pump P-4B Test," performed on October 1,199 * Unit 2 Procedure 2104.029, Revision 45, " Service Water Pump Quarterly Test of C Service Water Pump," performed on October 2,199 Observations and Findinns The inspectors found that these surveillance activities were performed according to the licensee's procedures by knowledgeable workers or operators. When applicable, calibrated test equipment was used, poisonnel were knowledgeable of the components being tested, and there was control of Category E valves. The personnel demonstrated very good communications, self checking, peer checking and following of procedures. Supervisory involvement in the performance of these surveillances was noted by the inspectors. Where applicable, appropriate radiological work permits were followed, in addition, see the specific discussions of surveillances observed under Section M1.4 below, Conclusions The surveillance activities performed by the licensee were done by knowledgeable workers following approved procedures. Licensee personnel were knowledgeable of the components being tested and demonstrated good communication .__

- - .- - _ _ - -

- - -

'

l I

f0

'

8-M 1.4 Unit 2 - Sodium Hydroxide Pum_p 2P136A Quarterly Tq11 inspection Scop.f (62707)

The inspectors observed operators perform Procedure 2104.005, Supplement 4,

"2P136A Quarterly Test," Revision 37, " Containment Spray System." Observations and FindinaL The inspectors observed a quarterly surveillance of the Unit 2 sodium hydroxide pump. The inspectors observed auxiliary operators perform loce) system alignment prior to and during the conduct of the surveillance. Operators demonstrated a very good questioning attitude, looked for valve leakage during the performance of the test, and checked to ensure that existing deficiency tags were still valid. Personnel demonstrated very good communications, self checking, and peer-checking, Conclusions Operators performed the sodium hydroxide pump surveillance well and demonstrated a good questioning attitude by looking for valve leakage and ensuring deficiency tags were still vali IV. Plant Support R1 Control of Radiological Protection & Chemistry Controls R1.1 Unit 2 Health Physics Decontamination of Tank 2T153 insoection Scoojt(71750)

On September 24,1997, health physics performed decontamination of resin storage tanks located in a high radiation area. The inspectors observed tank decontamination activities that included reviews of health physics practices, the associated JOs, and radiation work permits, Observations and Findin_ng Health physics technicians performed decontamination of Tanks 2T15A/B, 2T72A/B, and 2T75 A/B utilizing JO 00963679, Job Request 921363,and RWP 970062, Task 1. The tanks decontaminated were spent resin storage tanks located in a high radiation area within the Unit 2 auxiliary buildin The inspectors observed the technician decontaminate the tank using high pressure hot water. Technicians demonstrated ALARA practices throughout the activit This was evident in the locations where they requested personnel to standby during low periods of activity or while monitoring job progression. The technician l

\\ l

( l O

'

O

. periodically resurveyed area dose rates during the decontamination process to assess any radiological changes due to the the decontamination process. When the survey resulted in unexpected radiation levels, the technician cleared the area and obtained an alternate instrument to verify the indications. It was confirmed that the first survey instrument was malfunctioning and the work was resumed, inspectors observed the technicians apply proper precautions and air sempling for this task that had a potential for causing airborno contamination. Postdecontamination surveys of the air samplers indicated that airborno contamination was undetectable. Proper safety precautions were demonstrated for working on ladders and entering confined space c. Conclui!9D1 During the decontamination of Unit 2 spent resin storage tanks, health physics technicians demonstrated proper concern for ALARA and safety. RWPs and Jos were followe .

__ _ _ _

.--

ATTACHA1WI l PAR 11A_LLIST OF PERSONS CONTACTEQ l

j Urg_nics,

'

D. Allen, Maintenance Manager, Unit 2 G. Ashley, Licensing Supervisor D. Dement, Radiation Protection /Radwaste Manager M. Cooper, Licensing Specialist D. Denton, Support Director P. Dietrich, Maintenance Manager, Unit 1 R. Fu ler, Operations Mar ager, Unit 1 B. Gordon, System Engineering Supervisor, Unit 2 J. Head, Reactor Engineering Cuperintendent R. Hutchinson, Vice President, Nuclear Operations B. James, Outage Manager, Unit 2 J. Kowalewski, System Engineering Manage, Unit 1 R. Lane, Director, Design Engineering D. Mims, Director, Licensing T. Russell, Operations Manager, Unit 2 A. South, Licensing Engineer J. Vandergrif t, Director, Quality H. Williams, Plant Security Superintendent INSPECT!ON PROCEDURES USED IP 61726 Surveillance Observations IP 62707 Maintenance Observations IP 71707 Plant Operations IP 71750 Plant Support Activities IP 92901 Followup Plant Operations LIST OF ACRONYMS USED -

ALARA as low as reasonably achievable COLSS core operating limits supervisor system CR condition report EDG emergency diesel generator EFW emergency feedwater JO job order RWP radiation work permit TS Technical Specification

.