IR 05000313/1997013: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot change)
(StriderTol Bot change)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Adams
{{Adams
| number = ML20148P592
| number = ML20217K859
| issue date = 06/28/1997
| issue date = 10/22/1997
| title = Insp Repts 50-313/97-13 & 50-368/97-13 on 970512-0605. Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Maintenance & Engineering
| title = Ack Receipt of 970728,0825 & 0930 Ltrs Informing NRC of Steps Taken to Correct Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-313/97-13 & 50-368/97-13
| author name =  
| author name = Powers D
| author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
| author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
| addressee name =  
| addressee name = Hutchinson C
| addressee affiliation =  
| addressee affiliation = ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.
| docket = 05000313, 05000368
| docket = 05000313, 05000368
| license number =  
| license number =  
| contact person =  
| contact person =  
| document report number = 50-313-97-13, 50-368-97-13, NUDOCS 9707020376
| document report number = 50-313-97-13, 50-368-97-13, GL-89-04, GL-89-4, NUDOCS 9710300053
| package number = ML20148P531
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE
| document type = INSPECTION REPORT, NRC-GENERATED, TEXT-INSPECTION & AUDIT & I&E CIRCULARS
| page count = 4
| page count = 14
}}
}}


Line 19: Line 18:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:. .. . . - - . . . - . .- -._. . . . . - . - . . .- ...-. - .. ...-. .
{{#Wiki_filter:..
  .
b
- j 8 " "' GN  UfelTI D sT AT EE
*
f,,  ,\  NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$ _. -
  '' l [  H EoloN IV
'
Sit RY AN PLAZA oRIVE. SutTE 400
%,, ' #
.....
  [  AH LINGToN, T E X AC 76011 8064 October 22, 1997 C. Randy Hutchinson, Vice President Operations Arkansas Nuc!oor One Entergy Operations, Inc.
 
1448 S.R. 333 Russellville, Arkansas 72801 0967 SUBJECT: NRC INSPECTION REPORT 50-313/9713; 50 368/9713 AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND NOTICE OF DEVIATION
 
==Dear Mr. Hutchinson:==
'ihank you for your letters of July 28, August 25, and September 30,1997, in response to our letter, Notice of Violation, and Notice of Deviation dated June 28,1997, and telephone call on August 21,1997.
 
Your letter dated September 30,1997, provided an acceptable change to your response contained in your letter dated August 25, 1997.- Specifically, your August 25,1997, letter stated that you would test Arkansas Nuclear One Check Valves BW-4A, BW 48, CA 61, CA 62, BW 2, and BW 3 under a work plan to meet the quarterly testing frequency and
_
that permanent test procedures would be developed and implemented by September 30,
-1997. Your letter dated September 30,-.1997, stated that all valves _ were tested satisfactorily, test procedures developed, and quarterly testing scheduled, except for Sodium Hydroxide Tank Outlet Check Valves CA-61 and CA 62. You determined that system :onfiguration did not allow for reliable and repeatable quarterly testing of their functional capability. Per the provisions of Generic Letter 89 04, " Guidance on Developing Acceptable inservice Testing Programs," you have chosen to disassemble, inspect, and manually stroke these valves during alternate refueling outages, and have revised your inservice test program and inservice Test Program Bases Document to reflect this change.
 
It is our understanding that all other valves identified in the Notice of Violation have been appropriately tested and found to be acceptable. Please inform us if our understanding is /
not correct.     i
        {
        .
We will review the implementation of your corrective actions duiing a future inspection to determine that full compliance has been achieved and will be maintained.
 
Sincerely, 9710300053 97 2R  "  #
PDR ADOCK 0 313  Dr. Dalt A. Powers, Chief G  POR  Maintenance Branch Division of Reactor Safety Docket Nos.: 50 313;50-368 License Nos.: OPR-51; NPF 6    llllll '
-  __
  ,
 
f.
 
.
.
  .
[ Entergy Operations, Inc. 2-cc:
Executive Vice President
  & Chief Operating Officer Entergy Operations, Inc.


ENCLOSURE 3 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
P.O. Box 31995 Jackson, Mississippi 39286 1995 Vice President Operations Support Entergy Operations, Inc.


==REGION IV==
P.O. Box 31995 Jackson, Mississippi 39286 Manager, Washington Nuclear Operations ABB Combustion E' ,'~ ring Nuclear Power 12300 Twinbrook Parkway, Suite 330 Rockville, Maryland 20852 County Judge of Pope County Pope County Courthouse Russellville, Arkansas 72801 Winston & Strawn 1400 L Street, N.W.
Docket Nos.: 50-313 50-368 License No DPR-51 NPF-6 Report No.: 50-313/97-13 50-368/97-13 Leensee: Entergy Operations, In Facility: Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2 Location: Junction of Hwy. 64W and Hwy. 333 South Russellville, Arkansas Dates:  May 12-June 5,1997 inspectors: Lawrence E. Ellershaw, Reactor Inspector, Maintenance Branch William M. McNeill, Reactor inspector, Maintenance Branch Yun-Seng Huang, Senior Mechanical Engineer, Mechalical Engineering Branch, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Approved By: Dr. Dale A. Powers, Chief, Maintenance Branch Division of Reactor Safety ATTACHME; . T: Supplemental Information 9707020376 970628 PDR ADOCK 05000313 G  PDR


. _ . _ _ . . . . . . . ~ . . . _ . . _
Washington, D.C. 20005 3502 David D. Snellings, Jr., Director -
    . q. . . . _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ . . . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ .
Division of Radiation Control and Emergency Management Arkansas Department of Health 4815 West Markham Street, Mail Sbt 30 Little Rock, Aikansas 72205 3867 Manager Rockville Nuclear Licensing Framatome Technologies 1700 Rockville Pike, Suite 525 Rockville, Maryland 20852
.' -
_.
          \
;-
i! .
V
;
.
      -2-
*
I l
h'
. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
.'l j'    Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2
[    NRC Inspection Report 50-313/97-13;50 368/97-13


#
-
This inspection consisted of a review of the licensee's implementation of its inservice
  ,
;. inspection program, and followup to unresolved items regarding inservice testing issue The inspection report covers a 2 week period onsite, with followup in the office by a
l l
, . regi on-b ased inspector.
.
Entergy Operations, Inc. 3-Distribution w/conv of licensee's letters dated Julv 28. Auount 25. and Sootember 30.1997
    ~
DCD (IE01)        l Regional Administrator  Resident inspector DRP Director  MIS System Branch Chief (DRP/C)  RIV File Project Engineer (DRP/C)  DRS PSB Branch Chlef (DRP\TSS)  D/DRS DD/DHS  LEEllershaw, DRS/MB l-l
        -i
        .l l
l DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ REPORTS \AN713AK. LEE    Al 97 G 0076 To receive copy of document. Indicate in box:"Cae Copy without enclosures *E" * Copy with enclosures *N" * No copy RIV:MB l. f.. C:DRS/MB -
LEEllershawnfd - DAPowers)ff'
  '
100//97 10/8/97 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY n


L i ' Maintenance
  - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  __ _
h
!
!
!  * The installation of eddy current testing robotics for steam generator tubing and the j   inservice inspection were performed very well (Section M1).~
Entergy Operations, Inc.  -3-DIEltibullDn.YdcDRY_011ictuitE11c11cIlduled_ July _2BJtuust 25. and statember 30m1D31; DCD (IE01)
,         J
Re0i onal Administrator   Resident inspector DRP Director  Mis System Branch Chief (DRP/C)   RIV File Project Engineer (DRP/C)  DRS PSB Branch Chief (DRP\TSS)  D/DRS DD/DRS    LEEllershaw, DRS/MB DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ REPORTS \AN713AK. LEE    Al 97-G 0076 To receive copy of document. :ndicate in box: *C" = Copy without enclosures "E" = Copy with enclosures "N" = No copy RIV:MB l e.,. C:DRS/MB
:  * The inspectors identified a deviation wherein the licensee failed to meet j   commitments regarding testing of h'gh pressure injection / makeup nozzles
    ,LEEllershawidiE- DAPowers df 100//97  10//V97 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
      .
 
  -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .._ - _ . - - .  - - -
        , ......a......-
*
*
u:: .s ; x  '
  ,
Icil', ga g { * ,
 
10CFR2.201  i
          '
          .
July 28,1997
_
OCAN079709    O U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission  ' '
          ,
Document Control Desk   /    '
Mail Station Pl.137 Washington, DC 20555 g,,/(g eh zGio',n Subject: Arkansas Nuclear One Docket Nos. 50 313 and 50-368
      'S'.!'' N/ /
License Nos. DPR.51 and NPF 6 Response to Inspection Report 50 313/97-13;50 36&l97 13      '
      *
Gentlemen:
'
'
.   (Section M8.1).
L Pursuant to the provisions of 10CFR2.201, attached is the response to the notice of violation identified during the inspection activities associated with the.Inse.vice Testing Program and the response to the notice of deviation identified during the inspection activities associated with conunitments to perform radlugraphic and ultrasonic examinations.


l'  .* A weakness in the condition reporting and corrective action procedure was identified, in that, it did not require positive verification of completion from the responsible personnel prior to closing a condition report (Section M8.3).
<
Should you have questions or comments, please call me at 501-858-4601.


* The inspectors identified a viotation of 10 CFR 50.55a and the ASME Code regarding a failure to include required valves in the inservice test program, and a failure to test or exercise valves that were included in the inservice test program to verify their ability to fulfill their intended safety functions (Section M8.5).
I
,
Very truly yours, d'*" C 77/,,,1 Dwight C. Mims Director, Nuclear Safet)
.
DCM/RMC Attachments
;    .
97- ISM
,
- . - = . . ..  .. . - - - - - .- .-
 
00AN079709 Page 2
-
cc;
 
Mr. Ellis W. Merschoff Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RegionIV        j 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400      *
. Arlington, TX 760118064
          .
NRC Senior Resident Inspector Arkansas Nuclear One P.O. Box 310 London,AR72847 Mr. George Kalman-NRR Project Manager Region IV/ANO.1 & 2      *
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRR Mail Stop 13113 One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852
          !
f i
          '
b a
          '
          >
gw r. ,e.>- . e- ~
r--- , ,g.e --gg- -s - - , , - - - < < ns.<g ,m ,w--, - . - , , y -
p,,-n, - - , . - --- - -, ,,~.y wn,- *-o


L i
( *
l
Attachment t2 I' '
          )
OCAN079709
*
Page I cf 6
..
NOTICE OF VIOLATION l
During an NRC inspection conducted on May 12 through June 5,1997, one violation of NRC requhements was identified. Ia accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG 1600, the violation is listed below:
10 CFR 50.55a(f) requires inservice tests to verify the operational readiness of pumps and valves, whose function it required for safety, to comply with the requirements ret forth in Section XI of the appropriate edition and addenda of the AShiE Boiler and i'ressure Vessel Code.


_ _
Article IWV-Il00 of the ASME Code provides the rules and requirements for
.
   'nse:vice testing to assess operational readiness of certain ASME Cooe Class 1,2,
.
    -3-Report Details
      ,
Summary of Plant Status    j Unit 1 was operating in Mode 1, and Unit 2 was in a refueling outage for the entire inspection perio \
ll. Maintenance   j M1 Conduct of Maintenance M 1.1 Inservice insoectior&3]ji2 Insoection Scone The inspectors observed nondestructive cxaniinations on the following welds and support * Liquid Penetrant Examination - Exam 79-068W (4 lugs) Integrally Welded Attachments for Support 2HCB-27-H5 on Containment Spray Line 2HCB-27-2 * Automated Ultrasonic Examination - Exam 17-001 Circumferential Pipe Weld of Feedwater Loop Line 12DBB-1-24 to the Transition Piece of the Steam Generator Feedwater Nozzl * Magnetic Particle Examination - Exam 19-040W (4 lugs) Integrally Welded Attachments for Support 2DBB 2-H14 on Feedwater Line 2DBB-2- The inspectors observed the installation of the " Genesis Manipulators" robotics used for the eddy current testing of the steam generator tubes. This included verification of manipulator arm position, Observations and Findinas The inspe:, tors found the observed examinations were performed in accordance with the applicable procedures Lnd ASME Code requirements. The examination personnel noted a limitation during the liquid penetrant examination in which the last 1/4-inch of the welds could not be inspected because of interference from a pipe clamp. The examiners also noted a curvilinear indication during the liquid penetrant examination of Lug 1 which was appropriately dispositioned in accordance with the
,
,
procedure.
aad 3, valves which are required to perform a specific function in shutting down a reactor to the cold shutdown condition or in mitigating the consequences of an accident.


l i
Article IWV 3000 in Section XI of the ASME Code specifici, the type of tests to be peiformed on each category of valve, and Subarticle IWV-3412(a) states that valves are to be exercised to the position reauired to fulfill their fbnction (i.e., open or closed).
I


- ._ _
Contrary to the above, the following conditions were identified:
_ ._ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ __
1. Seven Unit 2 ASME Code valves, which had a safety fbnetion to opa and were reqaired to be tested in accordance with Section XI of the ASME Code, were not included in the insenice test program. The normally closed Category B valves were located la the service water piping which provides makeup water to 'he spent fuel, snd were identified as 2FP-31; 2FP-46; 2SW-56; 2SW 5 ,2SW-62; 2SW 67; and 2SW-138.
.
e


The inspectors witnessed the calibration of the ultrasonic equipment and verified the linearity checks. .The inspectors verified the use of proper search units, calibration
2. Eight ASME Lode vah es (six in Unit I and two in Unit 2) that were in the
-
,
block, and testing materials. The inspectors also verified that proper examination coverage was accomplished during the ultrasonic examinatio The inspectors observed that contractor installation of the eddy current testing robotics for Steam Generator A cold and hot legs was in accordance with the procedures. The inspectors witnessed the position verification activitie Conclusions The inservice inspections and installation of the eddy current robotics for steam generator tube testing were performed in accordance with the appliccble procedure .
'
M3 Maintenance Procedures and Documentation (73753)
insenice test program, were not being tested or exercised to verify their abliity to fulfill their closed safety function. The Unit I valves were identified as: BW-4A/4B (Borated Water Storage Tank Outlet Check Valves); CA-61/62 (Sodium Hydroxide Storage Tank Outlet Check Valves), and BW-2/3 (High Pressure Injection Pump- Suction Check Valves). The Unit 2 valves were identified os: 2BS-1AliB (Refueling Water fank Outlet Check Valves).
,. The inservice inspection records were in accordance with licensee program, procedure, and ASME Code requirements. The inspectors observed, however, that
: the baseline liquid penetrant examination report for Support 2HCB-27-H5 on Containment Spray Line 2HCB-27-20. did not identify the limitation or the curvilinear indication that was observed during this examination. The inspectors ,
considered the failure to identify the limitation during the baseline examination to be
,  a lack of attention to detail. This was discussed with the licensee nondestructive examination supervisor who considered this to be a minor and isolated condition.


[  Without further observations to the contrary, the inspectr'r2 agreed with the ,
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement 1)(50-313;-368/9713-01).
supervisor's positio '
M4 Maintenance Staff Knowledge and Performance (73753)
. The inspectors reviewed the qualification records of the personnel observed performing the examinations and found them to be appropriate. The inspectors ]
concluded that the inservice inspection personnel were knowledgeable and that their j performance was goo l l
M8 Miscellaneous Maintenance issues (92902)    )
M8.1 Followuo on Industry Event at Oconee Unit 2: Unisolable pressure boundary lea On April 21,1997, Duke Power Company, the licensee for Oconee 2, identified leakage in a high pressure injection nozzle. The leakage appeared to be the result of
.
high-cycle, low-stress, thermal fatigue with flow-induced vibration as a likely
'
contributor. The unisolable pressure boundary leak was a precursor to a small break loss-of-coolant-accident. This failure mechanism was identified in 1982 at Crystal ;
4  River, Unit 3, which experienced an unexplained loss-of-coolant on January 24, 1 1982. Subsequently, it was revealed that the high pressure injection / makeup


l
l
- . .  .. -  . . - -


.
    . ..
e 5-nozzles were cracked. The NRC issued Information Notice 82-05. The licensees who were users of Babcock & Wilcox nuclear steam supply systems formed a
      .
  "B&W Owners' Group Safe-End Task Force," that established a root cause and made recommendations to address the problem. This problem became Generic Issue 69 and the NRC issued Generic Letter 85-20, which endorsed the Owners'
      -
Group recommendation The licensee committed to perform Recommendation 3, which was then added to the inservice inspection program augmented testing requirements for the injection nozzles. By letter dated April 22,1985, the licensee informed the NRC of its agreement to implement the recommendations of the B&W Owners' Group. The licensee had, in fact, already initiated implementation of the augmented testing during the Unit 1 forced outage in 198 Recommendation 3 addressed the following nozzle conditions and the associated examination schedule:
.. Page 3 cf 6
Unrepaired nozzles were to be examined by radiography and ultrasonics during each of the next five refueling outages, then every fifth refueling outage thereafter; Nozzles with the new sleeve design were to be similarly examined during the first, third, and fif th refueling outages, then every fifth refueling outage thereafter; and Nozzles that were re-rolled were to be examined by radiography during each of the next five refueling outages, then every fifth refueling outage thereafte The radiographic testing was to ensure no gap existed between the thermal sleeve and the safe end. The ultrasonic testing was to detect cracking of the safe end and the adjacent pip Unit 1 has four high pressure injection nozzles (Nozzles A through D) with one nozzle also providing makeup flows (Nozzle D). Each nozzle has a thermal sleeve within the nozzle and safe-end. The original Babcock & Wilcox design was for a safe-end to be welded to the injection pipe. A thermal sleeve was " lightly" rolled into the incide diameter of the safe-end to minimize thermal transients. The thermal sleeve extended beyond the nozzle into the reactor coolant loop. The safe-end was welded to the nozzle. During the Unit 1 forced outage in 1982, Nozzles A and D were replaced with the new sleeve design, which had a "hard" roll, and had pins installed to secure the thermal sleeve. Nozzle B was re-rolled, and Nozzle C was unrepaire l l
  .* ,
*
I Resnonne to Notice of Violation 50 313: Si 3/9713 01 l*
\
(1) Reason for the violation:
On May 19,1997, the inspector noted that the Unit 1 Borsted Water Storage Tank -
  (BWST) Outlet Check Valves BW-4A and BW-4B were included in the inservice test (IST) program; however, they were identified as having an open safety function only. These valves are the first isolation valves, of dual isolation valves, in paths from the emergency core cooling system (ECCS). Since these valves were not identified as having a closed safety function, they were not being tested in the closed position. ANO 2 check valves 2BS 1 A and 2BS 1B, ANO-2 Refbeling Wster Tank (RWT) Outlet Check Valves were similarly identified.
 
In response, a condition report was initiated. The condition report noted that prior to 1993, IST testing of BW 4A and BW-4B consisted of valve disassembly and manually moving the valve disk to the open and closed position per approved relief requests. Additionally, four other ANO 1 valves were identified u not having a closed safety fbnction, yet were considered to be part of a dual isolation configuration (CA-61, CA 62 Sodium Hydroxide Tank Outlet Check Valves and BW-2, BW 3 - High Pressure Injection Pump Suction Check Valves). Another condition report action was initiated to determine if a similar condition existed on ANO 2. As a result of fbrther review, seven additional ANO-2 ASME Code, safety related, normally closed valves that have an open safety fbnction, but were not in the IST program, were identified. The identified valves were 2FP 31, 2FP-46,2SW-138,2SW-56,2SW 57,2SW-62, and 2SW-67, all Category B valves in the service water piping which provide makeup water to the spent fbel pool.
 
These valves, except those providing service water make.up to the spent fbel pool, were previously identified for inclusion in the IST program. In the fall of 1996, an independent review of the ' ANO-1 and ANO 2 IST basis documents was performed. One of the observatiom, made during the review was that ANO 1 valvea. BW-2, BW-3, BW-4A, BW-4B, CA-61, and CA-62, had a closed safety fbnction. A procedure improvement form was provided to ANO-1 Operations to inform them that the subject valves had a closed function and test procedures
,  needed to be developed. Additionally, another observation fkom the review identified ANO 2 valves,2BS 1A and 2BS 1B as having a closed fbnction and discussions with ANO 2 Operations were ongoing.
 
The root cause of 2BS 1 A,2BS 1B, BW 2, BW-3, BW-4A, BW-4B, CA-61, and CA 62 not being reverse flow tested in the IST program was the failure to recognize the closed safety function'that these vah es perform, i.e., the second of two valves need to complete a closed system. The root cause of the seven ANO 2 savice water valves not being within the IST program was not recognizing that these valves had a safety function that fell within the scope of the IST program.
 
However, flow verification and preventive maintenance activities are performed on
  .


_ _ _ . .
  -
*
. Page 4 of 6
l l
*' .
.
'
    -6-I During this inspection, the inspectors verified that the licensee had included the high pressure injection / makeup nozzles in its augmented inservice inspection program at the examination frequency stated above. The inspectors learned that in 1989, the i licensee had identified that certain planned examinations had been missed. This was documented in Condition Report 1-89-0508. The examinations were identified i in the inservice inspection program as augmented examinations, and not identified as being associated with commitments to the NRC. As a result of the categorization of the examinations, subsequent work schedule or ALARA demands led to the examinations being cancelle The inspection history of the nozzles is as follows. During the forced outage of April 1982, all four nozzles were examined by radiography. At that time, the new sleeve design was installed on Nozzles A and D, and Nozzle B was re-rolle Approximately one year later, during Refueling Outage 5 (February 1983), Nozzles A, B, and D were ultrasonically examined. Nozzle C was not examined. The ultrasonic examinations were of the safe-end to pipe welds only, and did not include the safe-end to nozzle welds. These two efforts were considered to be the baseline or first test. During Refueling Outage 6 (January 1985), the thermal sleeve of Nozzle C was radiographically examined. During Refueling Outage 7 (November  1 1986), the safe-end-to-nozzle weld in Nozzle A was radiographically examine The corrective actions identified in Condition Report 1-89-0508 resulted in the performance of radiographic and ultrasonic examinations during Refueling Outage Licensee personnel also performed an ultrasonic examination of Nozzle D during Refueling Outage 12 in February 1995. The licensee has established plans to  ;
-
perform radiographic and ultrasonic examinations of all nozzles during the spring of 1998 (Refueling Outage 14).
the seven ANOo2 service water valves which has been considered to more adequately assess the valve's condition than manually stroking the valve quarterly.


However, between conduct of the initial committed radiographic and ultrasonic examinations during Refueling Outage 5 in February 1982, and Refueling Outage 9 in November 1990,12 of the 14 scheduled examinations were not performed. The I licensee failed to meet the commitments made to the NRC in the April 22,1985, letter (1CAN048501) and the NRC was not informed of a change to the commitment. This failure to implement a commitment was identified as a Deviation (50-313/9713-02). j l
(2) Corrective actions taken and results achieved:
M8.2 (Closed) Insoection Followuo item 50-313/9511-01: monitoring and quantifying of I leakage through the refueling cavity liner plate because of weld crack During this inspection, the inspectors verified that the licensee had established i procedural requirements to identify if water was leaking from the fuel transfer canal '
Check valves SW 4A; BW-48i 2B_S-1 A, and 255 .18 tore smooseddyg to demonstrate their ability to close.   ''
leak detection system. Those new requirements were contained in Procedure 1102.015, " Filling and Draining the Fuel Transfer Canal," Revision 17, and i Procedure 2102.015, " Filling and Draining the Fuel Transfer Canal," Revision 9. No !
leakage had been identified and no problems were identifie !
       .
       .
  ,
An operability assessment for valves CA-61,, CA-62, BW-2, and BW-3 was performed and the valves were determined to be operable based on recent surveillance test information and peiodic maintenance.


.
The ANO-2 service water valves,12FP-31l2PP 46,'2SW 138,2SW-56,2SW 57c 12SW-62,' and 25W-67/'were tested successibily prior to heat-up Eom ANO 2 refueling outage 2R12.
.
 
    -7-   '
(3) Corrective steos that will be taken to prevent recurrence:
M8.3 (Closed) Unresolved item 50-313:-368/9604-01: Possible premature or inappropriate closure of a condition report and certain of its action item This item, which was identified during review of licensee actions associated with inservice testing and backleakage issues, was comprised of four examples in which it appeared that all actions may not have been completed prior to closure of the condition report and its action item The inspectors reviewed each of the identif;ed action items and determined that they had been appropriately closed. in each case, all specified actions had been completed. The condition report had also been appropriately closed in accordance with Procedure 1000.104, " Condition Reporting and Corrective Actions,"
  ,
Revision 1 The inspectors did identify a weakness in the procedure, in that condition report final closure verification was a passive process. Rather than requiring positive affirmation from cognizant individuals that a condition report could be properly closed, a passive process (i.e., not responding to or acknowledging a closure verification request within a specified time) was being used. Thus, no response or acknowledgement could be taken to mean that the identified condition report could be appropriately closed. The passive system did not take into consideration the possibility of a request being lost or misplaced. Licensee personnel agreed to review the closure verification process for possible enhancement to the procedur M8.4 (Closed) Unresolved item 50-313:-368/9604-02: Engineered safety features system leakage surveillance procedures did not require assessment of total leakage to assure that Final Safety Analysis Report allowable values were not exceede Engineered safety feature system leakage norveillance proceduras did, however, have either train or component acceptance criteria which were set conservatively low to minimize the possibility of exceeding Final Safety Analysis Report total system leakage allowable values. Further, the procedures required initiation of a condition report if an individual component leak rate criterion was exceede Licensra e personnel evaluated the condition and initiated action items to revise cyste:n leakage surveillance procedures to incorporate the total leakage criteria specified in the Final Safety Analysis Report. This is designed to identify and prevent the total leak rate from exceeding any total limit specified in the Final Safety Analysis Report. System engineering personnel were now responsible for assuring that total systern leakage assessments are performe M8.5 (Closed) Unresolved item 50 313:-368/9604-03: Engineer"i safety feature /
Test procedures will be developed by September 30,1997, to test the identified ANO l&2 valves in accordance with the IST program.
emergency core cooling system recirculation isolation valves were not being leak rate teste .- -
 
a
A review of engineering standards IES-17, ANO-1 IST Program Bases Document, and HES 18, ANO-2 ISTProgram Bases Document, will be performed by December 1,1997.     >
*
An assessment of the IST program for both units will be completed by December 1,1997.
..
 
,
The IST program will be evaluated to determine the need for additional reviews by other departments of changes to the IST program. This action is scheduled to be completed by December 31,1997 (4) Date when full compliance will be achieved:
!
Full compliance was achieved on June 2,1997, when the affected valves had been successfully tested or proven operable with an operability assessment.
    -8-i
 
'
-)
In 1991, ABB-Combustion Engineering,.Inc., issued Info-Bulletin 91-03,
. . . . .
,
"Unanalyzed Potential Release Path Through Safety injection Refueling Water Tank,"
i ' and NRC issued information Notice 91-56, " Potential Radioactive Leakage to Tank
, Vented to Atmosphere." These documents were issued to inform utilities that-t leakage through engineered safety feature / emergency core cooling system i' recirculation boundary valves could result in a potential unmonitored and unfiltered radioactive materials release path from the containment sump to the atmosphere
; during the recirculation phase follawing a loss-of-coolant accident. Further, the j information notice indicated that the recirculation boundary valves may not be
{ identified in licensee inservice testing programs as ASME Code, Section XI,
; Category A valves requiring leak rate testin The inspectors reviewed the applicable sections of the Operating Licenses and Final Safety Analysis Reports for Units 1 and 2 to determine the bases for not considering the recirculation boundary valves as Category A valves. For Unit 1, external emergency core cooling system leakage was considered to be a part of the design / licensing basis, and was addressed in Final Safety Analysis Report, Section 6.4, " Engineered Safeguards and Radiation Leakage Considerations." Section 6. states, "With the exception of the boundary valve discs, all of the potential leakage paths are examined during periodic tests or normal operations." The potential external leakage sources are identified as valves, flanges, and pump seals, with boundary valve disc leakage assumed to be retained in other closed systems and i not released to the auxiliary building. Section 6.4.3 also stated that for those paths from the emergency core cooling system.that contain dual isolation valves, the closed system definition is met since the first isolation valve serves as the interfacing system isolation valve and the second isolation valve provides closur Even though the Unit 1 Final Safety Analysis Report considered boundary valve seat leakage to remain in the interfacing system, the total leakage estimate shown in Final Safety Analysis Report Table 6.11 included boundary valve seats. The assumed values were an estimate of leakage, and were not intended to provide operational or testing requirement With respect to Unit 2, engineered safety feature leakage was discussed in Chapter 15 of the Final Safety Analysis Report. As with Unit 1, valves, flanges, and pump seats were considered for contribution to the total engineered safety feature leakage, and were identified in Table 15.1.13-5. Th'.e offsite dose for engineered safety feature leakage assumed the total leakapa to be released into the engineered safety feature pump rooms. ,There was no discussion or consideration regarding valve seat leakage to other systems. The Final Safety Ar? lvsis Report did not address any of the various types of leakage paths listed in Table 15.l.13-5 on an individual basis. Since allleakage was assumed to contribute to the offsite dose, the Unit 2 analysis was considered to be boundin . .  -. -  - .-
  .
  .
.
  ,. . .
    -9-The inspectors concluded that the licensing and design basis for both units appeared to have dismissed containment sump water leakage from associatad boundary valves as a potential leakage path. Therefore, there was no requhment for classifying the emergency core cooling system / engineered safety feature boundary valves as ASME Code, Section XI, Category A valves, for which testing and acceptance criteria would be necessar On May 19,1997, the inspectors noted that Check Valves BW-4A and BW-4B (Unit 1 Borated Water Storage Tank Outlet Check Valves) were included in the inservice test program; however, they were identified as having an open safety function only. Check Valves 2BS-1 A and 2BS-1B (Unit 2 Refueling Water Tank Outlet Check Valves) were similarly identified. These valves were the first isolation valves in paths from the emergency core cooling system / engineered safety feature that contained second isolation valves; therefore, the licensee considered this arrangement as meeting the closed system definition (i.e., dual isolation valves).
  .
  - .-
    - .. .- .
      .. __ _
 
[ Page 2 cf 6 f    NOTICE OF DEVIATION During an NRC inspection conducted on May 12 through June 5,1997, one deviation firom a commitment was identified, in accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Action," NUREG 1600, the deviation is listed below:
'
Arkansas Power & Light Co., letter ICAN048501, "HPI/ Makeup Nouje Component Cracking," dated April 22, 1985, submitted a final report titled,
  "B&W Owners Group Safe End Task Force." The letter stated that Recommendation 3 in the report had been incorporated into the Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 1 inservice inspection plan, Recommendation 3 addressed the following nouje conditions and the associated .
nondestructive examination schedule:
Unrepaired noules were to be examined by radiography and ultraso:Jes du-ing each of the next five refueling outages, then every fifth refbeling outage thereafter, NouJes with the new sleeve design were to be similarly examined during the first, third, and flAh refueling outages, then every flAh refueling outage thereafter.
 
NouJes that were re rolled were to be examined by radiogrrphy during each of the next five refueling outages, then every fifth refueling outage thereaAer.


However, the valves were not identified as having a closed safety function and I were not being tested in the closed position. The inspectors considered that closure of the valves could not be taken credit for, therefore, the configuration did not meet the definition of a closed syste The licensee responded by initiating Condition Report CR-197-0145 on May 19, 1997. The condition report noted that Valves BW-4A and BW-4B had been tested in the closed position until 1993, when that safety function was removed. The condition report recommended that closure testing be reestablished for these valves, and that other valves in the emergency core cooling system be evaluated to determine if similar conditions exist. On May 19 and 20,1997, Valves BW-4A and BW-4B were successfully tested to demonstrate their ability to close, as require Further review by licensee personnel revealed four additional check valves that were identified as not having a closed safety function, yet were considered part of a dual isolation configuration (CA-61, CA-62 sodium hydroxide tank outlet check valves, and BW-2, BW-3 - high pressure injection pump suction check valves). Licensee personnel conducted an operability assessment on these valves and determined them to be operable based on recent surveillance test information and periodic maintenancs. The inspectors reviewed and agreed with the assessmen Licensee personnel also initiated Condition Report CR-2-97-0229 on May 21,1997, to perform a similar evaluation of Unit 2 engineered safety feature system boundary valves. Since Unit 2 was in a refueling outage, completion of the Unit 2 evaluation was identified by the licensee as a startup testraint. On May 23,1997, licensee personnel performed nonintrusive testing on Valves 2BS-1 A and 2BS-18. The
Contrary to the above,12 of the 14 committed radiographic and ultrasonic examinations scheduled for the 4 nouJes between Refueling Outage 5 and Refueling Outage 9 were not performed,-
! results showed that both valves stroked full open and full closed, thus, demonstrating their ability to meet all safety functions.
ThisisaDeviation(50-313/9713 02),
    .
. . . , _ . . .. ...
  .
    .. -
      ... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' -


P ge 5 cf 6 (E,
.. . '
Response to Notice of Deviation 50 313/%13 02
.'
,
,
I
(1) Rtason for the deviation:
In response to a concern that cracking could occur in the ANO 1 high pressure injection / makeup nozzles (IIPI/MU), Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO) committed to perform augmented radiographic and ultrasonic examinations on these nozzles per Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) recommendations in 1985. The augmented examinations were included in the Inservice Inspection Program (ISI) and were scheduled for performance during five consecutive refueling outages (IRS through IR9) and then during each finh refueling outage thereafter (IR14, IR19, etc.).
The radiographic testing was to ensure no gap existed between the thermal sleeve and the safe end and to detect nozzle degradation. The ultrasonic testing was to detect cracking of the safe cred and the adjacent pipe.
 
The augmented examinations were performed during IRS (November 1982 - May 1983) and IR6 (October 1984 - January 1985) and only partially completed during IR7 (September 1986 - December 1986) due to program scheduling errors. The augmented radiographic examinations scheduled for 1R8 (October 1988 -
December 1988) were cancelled due to ALARA concerns without first evaluating the NRC commitment to perform the examinations.
 
In September 1989, ANO selfidentified the failure to perform the augmented examinations during IR7 and IR8 as previously committed to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). An evaluation was performed to determine if the augmented examinations should be performed during a mid-cycle ounge or to delay inspections until IR9 scheduled foi October 1990. The 1, valuation concluded that since the previous augmented e ,. amination results were satisfactory and since the nozzle thermal shields were visually inspected during 1R8 and found to be intact, the augmented examinations could be delayed until IR9 (October 1990 - January 1991). The examinations performed during IR9 were deemed satisfactory.
 
In respc nse to the April 21,1997, HPI nozzle leak at Oconee 2, ANO reviewed radiographs and ultrasonic examinations performed during 1R9 on the ANO-1 HPI/MU nozzles and determined that the anomaly (gap between the thermal sleeve and safe end) that caused the Oconee leak was not present in the ANO-1 nozzles.
 
The examiners of the HPI/MU nozzle radiographs taken during past refueling outages did not document whether or not gaps existed between the thermal sleeve and the safe end area, even though the radiographs specifically depicted the thermal sleeve / safe end area.
 
Based on the 1997 evaluation of the past HPI/MU nozzle radiographs and ultrasonic examination test results ANO determined that additional augmented examinations were unnecessary and that the examinations could be performed on '
_ ___
 
__
Page 6Cf 6 r.
 
{.
*
l* the five refue!ing outage frequency as previously committed. The augmented
'
examinations for the IIPl/MU nozzles are currently scheduled to be performed during IR14 (Spring 1998) and every fiRh refueling outage thereaRer.
 
Si,ce 1989 when this deviation occurred, the ANO procedure revision process and the ANO commitment management program has undergone several enhancements.
 
The current ANO procedure revision process requires that pending procedure changes that alter or delete exist!ng regulatory commitments be resolved per the ANO commitment mariagement program prior to implementing the change. The ANO commitment management program is currently based on the Nuclear Energy Institute's GuidelinesforManagingNRC Commitments. Commitment changes or deletions are periodically reported to the NRC based on these guidelines.
 
(2) Corrective actions taken and results nebleved:
The ANO.1 ISI Program was revised to include specific criteria for examination of the thermal sleeve to safa end area for gaps on the HPI/MU nozzles.


_ - _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ .._ _ _ - _ . . __ _ .
The ANO 1 ISI_ Program was reviewed to ensure that the required augmented examinations had been scheduled on the five refueling outage frequency.
- 4 l


.
(3) Actions taken to avoid further deviations:
    - 10-Article IWV-3000 in Section XI of the ASME Code specifies the type of tests to be performed on each category of valve, and Subarticle IWV-3412(a) states that valves are to be exercised to the position required to fulfill their function (i.e., open or ,
Actions completed to date should avoid further deviations in this area.
closed).


'
(4) Date when corrective actions will be completed:
The licensee's failure to test or exercise the above eight valves to verify their ability to fulfill all safety functions, constitutes a violation of 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) and
Corrective actions were complet:d on May 2,1997, when the evaluation of the HPI/MU nozzle radiographs taken during 1R9 determined that there were no gaps in the thermal s!: eve to safe end areas.
  'Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (50-313;-368/9713-01).


)
.
      ~
Further licensee review identified an additional seven Unit 2, ASME Code, safety-
      .
related, normally closed valves that have an open safety function, but were not in the inservice test program. The valves were identified as 2FP-31, 2FP-46, 2SW-138, 2SW 56, 2SW-57,2SW-62, and 2SW-67, all Category B valves in the service water piping which provides makeup water to the spent fuel pool. Licensee -
personnel performed an operability assessment on these valves and determined that ;
they were operable based on recently performed surveillance tests on other  ?
equipment which required opening of the seven valves.


. Article IWV-1100 c' +.he ASME Code provides the rules and requirements for
__    _- - - - - -
!  inservice testing to assess operational reaainess of certain ASME Code Class 1,2, and 3, valves which are required to perform a specific function in !
{i . AUGC-lf C ld freeAN0000i  H196644tl 1318 P.02/H Jol,-ill sniweropw thme,N.
i shutting down a reactor to the cold shutdown condition or in mitigating the l  consequences of an accident. The licensee's failure to include ASME Code, safety-related valves in the inservice test program is an additional example of a violation of 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4), and Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel l  Code (50-313:-368/9713-01).


l 111. Enaineerina E2 Engineering Support of Facilities and Equipment E2.2 ' Review of Final Safety Analysis Report Commitments
.
        ,
w/ E    1448 $A 333 flanelhao, AR 72901 Td tot 66:~6000 Austet 25,1997 OCAN089707 U, s.NudeerRepdatory corandesion Doomment conwot oak Mail 9tesion OF117 Washington, DC 2055$
A recent discovery of a licensee operating their facility in a manner contrary to the Final Safety Analysis Report desenption highlighted the need for a special focused i review that compares plant prr,ctices, procedures, and/or parameters to the Final j  Safety Analysis Report descaption. While performing the inspections discussed in
Sul(sot: Arkansas Nuclear one-Unita 1 and 2 DocketNos,50 313 and 50 368 UsenseNcs LPR 51 and NPF 4 SupplemeatalResponseTo Ingmatioa Report 50-313/97 13; 50 368/97 13 oareteman.
;  this report, the inspectom reviewed the applicable sections of the Final Safety
'
Analysis Report that related to the areas inspected.


L  During discussions with licensee personnel regarding emergency core cooling system / engineered safety feature leakage paths and potential contributing sources
On July 28,1997, Arkansas Nudear One responded to the notles of violation Identl8ed durhig the inspectka of actMeles had with the Inservice Testing Program (!$T). The violation pertained to the hilure to lackade regubed ash 4B Code valves la the IST program and a  -
'
Adlure to verify the ab8ky of other valves, which were huluded in the IST program, to Mill their elooed ensey annatia
to offsite dose limits, the inspectors were informed of the existence of Action 1
  '!he responer stated that Adi compliance was acidowed on June 2,1977, when the aftLmed valves had been suposestdly tested or proven operable with an operability assessment, However, Mowing dinoussions ydsli the region and upon Airther tuview, it has beni determined that Adl enemplianas will not be achieved until the affinsed valves are included in theist progmni,      ,
- items 25 and 26 in Condition Report C-96-0135. These action items (for Unit 1 )
To desionstress sentinued operahlthy, each velve la ededuled to be tested before the end of
;  and 2, respectively), dated January 9,1997, were initiated to address discrepancies 1 identified between the Final Safety Analysis Reports and actual plant configuration ,
        '


.     . -_
ts quarterly test interval.


i a
Unit 1 velves BW-4A, BW-48, CA41, CA42, BW 2, and DW 3 will be tested under a work plan to rnest the quarterly testing eequency. If the special test developed under the work plan is not notishetorey completed, an -===* wis be p a-... 4 to determine conthaaed operability of the valves, The resuha of the work plan will be used to dW test procedures by Septarnber 30,1997.
,
    -11-The action items stated that Table 6-11 of the Unit.1 Final Safety Analysis Report and Table 15.1.13-5 of the Unit 2 Final Safety Analysis Report, respectively, .;
contained a listing of the components that were assumed to provide a leakage path !
to the auxiliary building during the recirculation mode following a loss-of-coolant i accident. It was identified that the accuracy of the listed boundary valves listed in each of the tables had come into question and the basis could not be found. Tables 6-11 and 15.1.13-5 showed a total of 78 and 71 boundary valves, respectively, as
      .
opposed to the actual configurations of 126 and 114 boundary valves l respectively, i Licensee personnel documented their evaluation of the differences between the Unit 2 configuration and the Final Safety Analysis Report in Engineering
,
Report 97-R-2002-01 dated April '15,1997. A 10 CFR 50.59 review was completed, reviewed, and' accepted by the Plant Safety Committee on May 12,  )
1997.. The review concluded that a change to Table 15.1.13-5 was required in i terms of identifying the correct number of boundary valves, but the new analysis i did not affect the totalleakage to the auxiliary building. No plant changes or input !
- changes to existing dose calculations were required, and the probability of an j accident previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report was not increase .
l At the same time, a licensing document change request was initiated to submit the .I Final Safety Analysis Report change to the NR ]
A si/nitar evaluation for Unit 1 was documented in Engineering Report 97-11-1002-01, dated February 21,1997. The 10 CFR 50.59 review had not been  ;
completed at the close of this inspection, as it was awaiting finalization of additional l surporting information,    j i
Tho inspectors identified review of the pending 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation as an inspection followup item (50-313/9713-03).


l V Manaaement Meetinas X1 Exit Meeting Summary The inspectar presented the inspection results to members of licensee management at the conc'usion of the onsite portion of the inspection on June 5,1997. The licensee peritonnel acknowledged the findings presented  ,
Test pmoedures br Unit 2 valves 2FP 31, 2FP-46, 2SW-56, 2SW 5'i, 2SW42, 28W 67, 28W-138,285-1A, and 2BS-lH have been 6.';.pd and the quarterly tests acheduled.
I The inspector asked the licensee personnel whether any materials examined during the inspection abould be considered proprietary. No proprietary information was identifie !
L i
      !


.
  .
  .
.O ATTACHMENT SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee G. Ashley, Licensing Supervisor -
        ,
T. Brown, Outage Manager, Unit 1 T. Chilcoat, Senior Oversight Specialist, Corporate A. Clinkingbeard, Shift Supervisor, Operations, Unit 1 i
M. Cooper, Licensing Specialist D. Denton, Director, Support R. Edington, General Manager D. Graham, Engineering Programs Supervisor R. Harris, Nuclear Engineering Supervisor J. Howell, Design Engineer
' R. Lanei Director, Design Engineering R. McWilliams, inservice Test Engineer
. S. Pyle, Licensing Specialist J.' Souto, System Engineer, Unit 1 G. Woerner, Design Engineering Supervisor MBE i
K. Kennedy, Senior Resident inspector
        ;


INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED
  . .. Aut "-If Hill fresi m 008 i  HIHHell 1118 P.H/H Job-lli l' U. E. NRC Aupet 25,1997
; IP 73753 Inservice Inspection IP 92902  Followup - Maintenance ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED Opened 50-313,-368/9713-01  VIO failure to include certain ASME Code, safety-related
*
!
OCAN009707 Peps 2 Fat :::- ;"-- : tw the nation arMW wEl be addem' 9 hspiamber 30.1997, when the test procedwes $nt eneb of the velves are developed, implement ed, and included la ti.e IST pasr=.
valves in inservice test program, and failure to appropriately test certain valves in their safety
Ver/ tndy yours, dd,U.M
!    function position (Section M8.5)
  %c.w Wrector,IJoensing M
50 313/9713-02 DEV failure to meet commitments regarding inservice ;
      .
inspection frequency with no subsequent notification l    made to NRC (Section M8.1)  l
        ,
l
<


2
5*,
'
,. AUG C -tr esitt FrosimioossI    51154408 T-sIIYM k Jab-Ils U. E, NRC
!    August 25,1997 l*    OCAN009707 Page3 l
oo: Mr. Kh W. Marschetf Regional A4ndalapsdor v.s.wuci rmaguisemyconunission RegionIV 611 Ryan PlassDrive, Suite 400 Miastoa. TX 76011.ans4 NRC seniorResidemInspmor Arkansas Nuctiv One 1448 5. R. 333 uu % At 72801 Mr. George Kakaan NRR Project Manager Ragion IV/ANO-1 & 2
        -
U. 8.NuclearRardato y Corandssion wasMais st.,13-u-s One WhitePilntNorth 11555 RookvmePike Rockville,MD 20852
,
,
  - - - - , - - - -
C D
, -
_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _
n , -
    , . , , , ..,a ,,-,-n  , e


  - _ .- _._ ._ . . _ . . - __ .. . . _ _ _ _ _ -. _ . . . _ _ . _ _ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ -
  ,
P f,
g-:--:- ENTERGY
  .
  .
, .
c r,u =,.,om x
        '
  ,
  ,
2-
_  -
,
September 30,1997  f OCAN099705 N l 4M U. S, Nuclear Regulatory Commission  l Document Control Desk  : 'i 7 J,
,
      '
j
    ""-  '
Mail Station OPI-17    -
Washington, DC 20555 Subject: Arkansas Nuclear One - Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos,50-313 and 50-368 License Nos. DPR-51 and NPF-6 Supplemental Response To Inspection Report 50 313/97-13; 50-368/97-13 Gentlemen:
On July 28, 1997, Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO) responded to the notice of violation identified during tne inspection of activities associated with the Inservice Testing (IST)
program. The violation pertained to the failure to include required ASME Code valves in the IST program and a failure to verify the ability of other check valves, which were included in the IST program, to fulfill their closed safety function.
 
'' , On August 25,1997, ANO supplemented the response and stated that check valves BW-4A, BW-4B, CA-61, CA-62, BW-2, and BW-3 would be tested pcr a temporary work plan and
  ' that permanent test procedures would be developed by September 30,1997.
 
'
'
50-313/9713-03 IFl review and assessment of 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation, including supporting documentation regarding discrepancy between Final Safety Analysis Report and plant configuration (Section E2.2)
Valves BW-4A, BW-4B, BW-2, and BW-3 were tested satisfactorily, test procedures developed, and quarterly testing scheduled.
:
 
Closed
The system configuration for check valves CA-61 and CA-62 does not allow for testing their functional capability reliably rad repeatably. Because testing in the closed direction has been determined to be unreliable and there are no acceptable test alternatives available, check valves CA-61 and CA-62 will not be tested for closure on a quarterly basis. An operability assessment determined that both check valves are operable in the present configuration.
>
 
; 50-313/9511-01 IFl monitoring and quantifying of leakage through the -
Check valves CA-61 and CA-62 are disassembled during alternate refueling outages and manually stroked to verify their stroke capability in both directions. Previously, credit has been taken in the IST program only for the full open stroke. Per the provisions of Generic Letter 89-04, Guidance On Developing Acceptable Inservice Testing Programs, the IST program 91- o 0 6"T  l
refueling cavity liner plate because of weld cracks
 
,   (Section M8.2)
0 h0
! 50-313:368/9604-01 URI possible premature or inappropriate' closure of a
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
]    condition report and certain of its action items (Section l
 
M8.3)
    .   -
!
[f .! U. S. NRC September 30,1997
'50-313:368/9604-02 URI engineered safety features system leakage surveillance procedures did not require assessment of totalleakage I to assure that Final Safety Analysis Report (allowable
.o OCAN099705 Page 2 and IST Program Bases Document have been revised to credit the periodic disassembly and inspection as verification that these valves are capable of performing both the open and closed safety functions.
        '
 
,
Very truly yours, .
i values were not exceeded (Section M8.4)
  * ONE Dwight C Mims Director, Nuclear Safety DCM/AJS cc: Mr. Ellis W. Merschoff-Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Arlington, TX 76011-8064 NRC Senior Resident Inspector.
l-       ,
, 50-313:368/9604-03 URI engineered safety feature / emergency core cooling i    system recirculation isolation valves were not being leak rate tested (Section M8.5)
>        1 l
LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED    '
l inservice Inspection Plan Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 1, Revision 31 l
Inservice Inspection Plan Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2, Revision 4  '
Procedure 1415.004, " Liquid Penetrant Examination - ASME Section XI," Revision 3 Procedure 1415.012, " Magnetic Particle Examination - ASME Section XI," Revision 5 Procedure 1415.045, " Automated Ultrasonic P-Scan Examination of Piping," Revision 1 i Procedure STD-NSS-074, " Remote Installation and Removal of ABB/ Combustion Engineering Genesis Manipulators," Revision 7    l Procedure STD NSS-078, " Setup, Checkout, and Operation of ABB/ Combustion Engineering Genesis Manipulators," Revision 7 Work Plan 2409.551, " Steam Generator Eddy Current Testing," Revision 0 l
l


q
Arkansas Nuc.' .wr One P.O. Box 310 London, AR 72847'
      '
,.. Mr. George Kalman NRR Project Manager Region IV/ANO-1 & 2 U. S. Nuclear Regulatury Commission
.
_. NRR Mail Stop 13-H-3 One White Flint North r
I
11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852
.
_ _ _ - _ _ _ - _
    -3-  !
l Procedure 1102.015, " Filling and Draining the Fuel Transfer Canal," Revision 17 Procedure 2102.015, " Filling and Draining the Fuel Transfer Canal," Revision 9 Procedure 1000.003, " Station Commitment Tracking," Revision 11 Procedure 1062.009 " Commitment Management System (CMS)," Revision 3
      !
Procedure 1000.104, " Condition Reporting and Corrective Actions," Revision 11 '
Engineering Standard HES-17, "ANO-1 IST Program Bases Document," Revision 1 l
Engineering Standard HES-18, "ANO-2 IST Program Bases Document," Revision 2 l
ANO-1 Operating License ANO 2 Operating License ANO 1 Final Safety Analysis Report ANO-2 Final Safety Analysis Report Engineering Report 97-R-1002 01, "ECCS Leakage Quantitie s to the Auxiliary Building,"
Revision O Engineering Report 97-R 0001-01, "ECCS Leakage SAR Clarification," Revision 0 Engineering Report 97-R-2002-01, "ESF Leakage Quantities to the Auxiliary Building,"
Revision 0 l
10 CFR 50.59_ Safety Evaluation, " Leakage Quantities to Au iliary Building," dated i May 12,1997 i
i
}}
}}

Revision as of 00:39, 18 December 2021

Ack Receipt of 970728,0825 & 0930 Ltrs Informing NRC of Steps Taken to Correct Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-313/97-13 & 50-368/97-13
ML20217K859
Person / Time
Site: Arkansas Nuclear  Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 10/22/1997
From: Powers D
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To: Hutchinson C
ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.
References
50-313-97-13, 50-368-97-13, GL-89-04, GL-89-4, NUDOCS 9710300053
Download: ML20217K859 (4)


Text

..

b

- j 8 " "' GN UfelTI D sT AT EE

f,, ,\ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

$ _. -

l [ H EoloN IV

'

Sit RY AN PLAZA oRIVE. SutTE 400

%,, ' #

.....

[ AH LINGToN, T E X AC 76011 8064 October 22, 1997 C. Randy Hutchinson, Vice President Operations Arkansas Nuc!oor One Entergy Operations, Inc.

1448 S.R. 333 Russellville, Arkansas 72801 0967 SUBJECT: NRC INSPECTION REPORT 50-313/9713; 50 368/9713 AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND NOTICE OF DEVIATION

Dear Mr. Hutchinson:

'ihank you for your letters of July 28, August 25, and September 30,1997, in response to our letter, Notice of Violation, and Notice of Deviation dated June 28,1997, and telephone call on August 21,1997.

Your letter dated September 30,1997, provided an acceptable change to your response contained in your letter dated August 25, 1997.- Specifically, your August 25,1997, letter stated that you would test Arkansas Nuclear One Check Valves BW-4A, BW 48, CA 61, CA 62, BW 2, and BW 3 under a work plan to meet the quarterly testing frequency and

_

that permanent test procedures would be developed and implemented by September 30,

-1997. Your letter dated September 30,-.1997, stated that all valves _ were tested satisfactorily, test procedures developed, and quarterly testing scheduled, except for Sodium Hydroxide Tank Outlet Check Valves CA-61 and CA 62. You determined that system :onfiguration did not allow for reliable and repeatable quarterly testing of their functional capability. Per the provisions of Generic Letter 89 04, " Guidance on Developing Acceptable inservice Testing Programs," you have chosen to disassemble, inspect, and manually stroke these valves during alternate refueling outages, and have revised your inservice test program and inservice Test Program Bases Document to reflect this change.

It is our understanding that all other valves identified in the Notice of Violation have been appropriately tested and found to be acceptable. Please inform us if our understanding is /

not correct. i

{

.

We will review the implementation of your corrective actions duiing a future inspection to determine that full compliance has been achieved and will be maintained.

Sincerely, 9710300053 97 2R " #

PDR ADOCK 0 313 Dr. Dalt A. Powers, Chief G POR Maintenance Branch Division of Reactor Safety Docket Nos.: 50 313;50-368 License Nos.: OPR-51; NPF 6 llllll '

- __

,

f.

.

[ Entergy Operations, Inc. 2-cc:

Executive Vice President

& Chief Operating Officer Entergy Operations, Inc.

P.O. Box 31995 Jackson, Mississippi 39286 1995 Vice President Operations Support Entergy Operations, Inc.

P.O. Box 31995 Jackson, Mississippi 39286 Manager, Washington Nuclear Operations ABB Combustion E' ,'~ ring Nuclear Power 12300 Twinbrook Parkway, Suite 330 Rockville, Maryland 20852 County Judge of Pope County Pope County Courthouse Russellville, Arkansas 72801 Winston & Strawn 1400 L Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005 3502 David D. Snellings, Jr., Director -

Division of Radiation Control and Emergency Management Arkansas Department of Health 4815 West Markham Street, Mail Sbt 30 Little Rock, Aikansas 72205 3867 Manager Rockville Nuclear Licensing Framatome Technologies 1700 Rockville Pike, Suite 525 Rockville, Maryland 20852

_.

-

,

l l

.

Entergy Operations, Inc. 3-Distribution w/conv of licensee's letters dated Julv 28. Auount 25. and Sootember 30.1997

~

DCD (IE01) l Regional Administrator Resident inspector DRP Director MIS System Branch Chief (DRP/C) RIV File Project Engineer (DRP/C) DRS PSB Branch Chlef (DRP\TSS) D/DRS DD/DHS LEEllershaw, DRS/MB l-l

-i

.l l

l DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ REPORTS \AN713AK. LEE Al 97 G 0076 To receive copy of document. Indicate in box:"Cae Copy without enclosures *E" * Copy with enclosures *N" * No copy RIV:MB l. f.. C:DRS/MB -

LEEllershawnfd - DAPowers)ff'

'

100//97 10/8/97 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY n

- - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

h

!

Entergy Operations, Inc. -3-DIEltibullDn.YdcDRY_011ictuitE11c11cIlduled_ July _2BJtuust 25. and statember 30m1D31; DCD (IE01)

Re0i onal Administrator Resident inspector DRP Director Mis System Branch Chief (DRP/C) RIV File Project Engineer (DRP/C) DRS PSB Branch Chief (DRP\TSS) D/DRS DD/DRS LEEllershaw, DRS/MB DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ REPORTS \AN713AK. LEE Al 97-G 0076 To receive copy of document. :ndicate in box: *C" = Copy without enclosures "E" = Copy with enclosures "N" = No copy RIV:MB l e.,. C:DRS/MB

,LEEllershawidiE- DAPowers df 100//97 10//V97 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

.

-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .._ - _ . - - . - - -

, ......a......-

u:: .s ; x '

,

Icil', ga g { * ,

10CFR2.201 i

'

.

July 28,1997

_

OCAN079709 O U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ' '

,

Document Control Desk / '

Mail Station Pl.137 Washington, DC 20555 g,,/(g eh zGio',n Subject: Arkansas Nuclear One Docket Nos. 50 313 and 50-368

'S'.! N/ /

License Nos. DPR.51 and NPF 6 Response to Inspection Report 50 313/97-13;50 36&l97 13 '

Gentlemen:

'

L Pursuant to the provisions of 10CFR2.201, attached is the response to the notice of violation identified during the inspection activities associated with the.Inse.vice Testing Program and the response to the notice of deviation identified during the inspection activities associated with conunitments to perform radlugraphic and ultrasonic examinations.

<

Should you have questions or comments, please call me at 501-858-4601.

I

,

Very truly yours, d'*" C 77/,,,1 Dwight C. Mims Director, Nuclear Safet)

.

DCM/RMC Attachments

.

97- ISM

,

- . - = . . .. .. . - - - - - .- .-

00AN079709 Page 2

-

cc;

Mr. Ellis W. Merschoff Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RegionIV j 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 *

. Arlington, TX 760118064

.

NRC Senior Resident Inspector Arkansas Nuclear One P.O. Box 310 London,AR72847 Mr. George Kalman-NRR Project Manager Region IV/ANO.1 & 2 *

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRR Mail Stop 13113 One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852

!

f i

'

b a

'

>

gw r. ,e.>- . e- ~

r--- , ,g.e --gg- -s - - , , - - - < < ns.<g ,m ,w--, - . - , , y -

p,,-n, - - , . - --- - -, ,,~.y wn,- *-o

( *

Attachment t2 I' '

OCAN079709

Page I cf 6

..

NOTICE OF VIOLATION l

During an NRC inspection conducted on May 12 through June 5,1997, one violation of NRC requhements was identified. Ia accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG 1600, the violation is listed below:

10 CFR 50.55a(f) requires inservice tests to verify the operational readiness of pumps and valves, whose function it required for safety, to comply with the requirements ret forth in Section XI of the appropriate edition and addenda of the AShiE Boiler and i'ressure Vessel Code.

Article IWV-Il00 of the ASME Code provides the rules and requirements for

'nse:vice testing to assess operational readiness of certain ASME Cooe Class 1,2,

,

aad 3, valves which are required to perform a specific function in shutting down a reactor to the cold shutdown condition or in mitigating the consequences of an accident.

Article IWV 3000 in Section XI of the ASME Code specifici, the type of tests to be peiformed on each category of valve, and Subarticle IWV-3412(a) states that valves are to be exercised to the position reauired to fulfill their fbnction (i.e., open or closed).

Contrary to the above, the following conditions were identified:

1. Seven Unit 2 ASME Code valves, which had a safety fbnetion to opa and were reqaired to be tested in accordance with Section XI of the ASME Code, were not included in the insenice test program. The normally closed Category B valves were located la the service water piping which provides makeup water to 'he spent fuel, snd were identified as 2FP-31; 2FP-46; 2SW-56; 2SW 5 ,2SW-62; 2SW 67; and 2SW-138.

2. Eight ASME Lode vah es (six in Unit I and two in Unit 2) that were in the

,

'

insenice test program, were not being tested or exercised to verify their abliity to fulfill their closed safety function. The Unit I valves were identified as: BW-4A/4B (Borated Water Storage Tank Outlet Check Valves); CA-61/62 (Sodium Hydroxide Storage Tank Outlet Check Valves), and BW-2/3 (High Pressure Injection Pump- Suction Check Valves). The Unit 2 valves were identified os: 2BS-1AliB (Refueling Water fank Outlet Check Valves).

This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement 1)(50-313;-368/9713-01).

l

. ..

.

-

.. Page 3 cf 6

.* ,

I Resnonne to Notice of Violation 50 313: Si 3/9713 01 l*

\

(1) Reason for the violation:

On May 19,1997, the inspector noted that the Unit 1 Borsted Water Storage Tank -

(BWST) Outlet Check Valves BW-4A and BW-4B were included in the inservice test (IST) program; however, they were identified as having an open safety function only. These valves are the first isolation valves, of dual isolation valves, in paths from the emergency core cooling system (ECCS). Since these valves were not identified as having a closed safety function, they were not being tested in the closed position. ANO 2 check valves 2BS 1 A and 2BS 1B, ANO-2 Refbeling Wster Tank (RWT) Outlet Check Valves were similarly identified.

In response, a condition report was initiated. The condition report noted that prior to 1993, IST testing of BW 4A and BW-4B consisted of valve disassembly and manually moving the valve disk to the open and closed position per approved relief requests. Additionally, four other ANO 1 valves were identified u not having a closed safety fbnction, yet were considered to be part of a dual isolation configuration (CA-61, CA 62 Sodium Hydroxide Tank Outlet Check Valves and BW-2, BW 3 - High Pressure Injection Pump Suction Check Valves). Another condition report action was initiated to determine if a similar condition existed on ANO 2. As a result of fbrther review, seven additional ANO-2 ASME Code, safety related, normally closed valves that have an open safety fbnction, but were not in the IST program, were identified. The identified valves were 2FP 31, 2FP-46,2SW-138,2SW-56,2SW 57,2SW-62, and 2SW-67, all Category B valves in the service water piping which provide makeup water to the spent fbel pool.

These valves, except those providing service water make.up to the spent fbel pool, were previously identified for inclusion in the IST program. In the fall of 1996, an independent review of the ' ANO-1 and ANO 2 IST basis documents was performed. One of the observatiom, made during the review was that ANO 1 valvea. BW-2, BW-3, BW-4A, BW-4B, CA-61, and CA-62, had a closed safety fbnction. A procedure improvement form was provided to ANO-1 Operations to inform them that the subject valves had a closed function and test procedures

, needed to be developed. Additionally, another observation fkom the review identified ANO 2 valves,2BS 1A and 2BS 1B as having a closed fbnction and discussions with ANO 2 Operations were ongoing.

The root cause of 2BS 1 A,2BS 1B, BW 2, BW-3, BW-4A, BW-4B, CA-61, and CA 62 not being reverse flow tested in the IST program was the failure to recognize the closed safety function'that these vah es perform, i.e., the second of two valves need to complete a closed system. The root cause of the seven ANO 2 savice water valves not being within the IST program was not recognizing that these valves had a safety function that fell within the scope of the IST program.

However, flow verification and preventive maintenance activities are performed on

.

-

. Page 4 of 6

  • ' .

'

-

the seven ANOo2 service water valves which has been considered to more adequately assess the valve's condition than manually stroking the valve quarterly.

(2) Corrective actions taken and results achieved:

Check valves SW 4A; BW-48i 2B_S-1 A, and 255 .18 tore smooseddyg to demonstrate their ability to close.

.

,

An operability assessment for valves CA-61,, CA-62, BW-2, and BW-3 was performed and the valves were determined to be operable based on recent surveillance test information and peiodic maintenance.

The ANO-2 service water valves,12FP-31l2PP 46,'2SW 138,2SW-56,2SW 57c 12SW-62,' and 25W-67/'were tested successibily prior to heat-up Eom ANO 2 refueling outage 2R12.

(3) Corrective steos that will be taken to prevent recurrence:

,

Test procedures will be developed by September 30,1997, to test the identified ANO l&2 valves in accordance with the IST program.

A review of engineering standards IES-17, ANO-1 IST Program Bases Document, and HES 18, ANO-2 ISTProgram Bases Document, will be performed by December 1,1997. >

An assessment of the IST program for both units will be completed by December 1,1997.

The IST program will be evaluated to determine the need for additional reviews by other departments of changes to the IST program. This action is scheduled to be completed by December 31,1997 (4) Date when full compliance will be achieved:

Full compliance was achieved on June 2,1997, when the affected valves had been successfully tested or proven operable with an operability assessment.

-)

. . . . .

.

,. . .

.

- .-

- .. .- .

.. __ _

[ Page 2 cf 6 f NOTICE OF DEVIATION During an NRC inspection conducted on May 12 through June 5,1997, one deviation firom a commitment was identified, in accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Action," NUREG 1600, the deviation is listed below:

'

Arkansas Power & Light Co., letter ICAN048501, "HPI/ Makeup Nouje Component Cracking," dated April 22, 1985, submitted a final report titled,

"B&W Owners Group Safe End Task Force." The letter stated that Recommendation 3 in the report had been incorporated into the Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 1 inservice inspection plan, Recommendation 3 addressed the following nouje conditions and the associated .

nondestructive examination schedule:

Unrepaired noules were to be examined by radiography and ultraso:Jes du-ing each of the next five refueling outages, then every fifth refbeling outage thereafter, NouJes with the new sleeve design were to be similarly examined during the first, third, and flAh refueling outages, then every flAh refueling outage thereafter.

NouJes that were re rolled were to be examined by radiogrrphy during each of the next five refueling outages, then every fifth refueling outage thereaAer.

Contrary to the above,12 of the 14 committed radiographic and ultrasonic examinations scheduled for the 4 nouJes between Refueling Outage 5 and Refueling Outage 9 were not performed,-

ThisisaDeviation(50-313/9713 02),

.

. . . , _ . . .. ...

.

.. -

... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' -

P ge 5 cf 6 (E,

.. . '

Response to Notice of Deviation 50 313/%13 02

.'

,

(1) Rtason for the deviation:

In response to a concern that cracking could occur in the ANO 1 high pressure injection / makeup nozzles (IIPI/MU), Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO) committed to perform augmented radiographic and ultrasonic examinations on these nozzles per Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) recommendations in 1985. The augmented examinations were included in the Inservice Inspection Program (ISI) and were scheduled for performance during five consecutive refueling outages (IRS through IR9) and then during each finh refueling outage thereafter (IR14, IR19, etc.).

The radiographic testing was to ensure no gap existed between the thermal sleeve and the safe end and to detect nozzle degradation. The ultrasonic testing was to detect cracking of the safe cred and the adjacent pipe.

The augmented examinations were performed during IRS (November 1982 - May 1983) and IR6 (October 1984 - January 1985) and only partially completed during IR7 (September 1986 - December 1986) due to program scheduling errors. The augmented radiographic examinations scheduled for 1R8 (October 1988 -

December 1988) were cancelled due to ALARA concerns without first evaluating the NRC commitment to perform the examinations.

In September 1989, ANO selfidentified the failure to perform the augmented examinations during IR7 and IR8 as previously committed to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). An evaluation was performed to determine if the augmented examinations should be performed during a mid-cycle ounge or to delay inspections until IR9 scheduled foi October 1990. The 1, valuation concluded that since the previous augmented e ,. amination results were satisfactory and since the nozzle thermal shields were visually inspected during 1R8 and found to be intact, the augmented examinations could be delayed until IR9 (October 1990 - January 1991). The examinations performed during IR9 were deemed satisfactory.

In respc nse to the April 21,1997, HPI nozzle leak at Oconee 2, ANO reviewed radiographs and ultrasonic examinations performed during 1R9 on the ANO-1 HPI/MU nozzles and determined that the anomaly (gap between the thermal sleeve and safe end) that caused the Oconee leak was not present in the ANO-1 nozzles.

The examiners of the HPI/MU nozzle radiographs taken during past refueling outages did not document whether or not gaps existed between the thermal sleeve and the safe end area, even though the radiographs specifically depicted the thermal sleeve / safe end area.

Based on the 1997 evaluation of the past HPI/MU nozzle radiographs and ultrasonic examination test results ANO determined that additional augmented examinations were unnecessary and that the examinations could be performed on '

_ ___

__

Page 6Cf 6 r.

{.

l* the five refue!ing outage frequency as previously committed. The augmented

'

examinations for the IIPl/MU nozzles are currently scheduled to be performed during IR14 (Spring 1998) and every fiRh refueling outage thereaRer.

Si,ce 1989 when this deviation occurred, the ANO procedure revision process and the ANO commitment management program has undergone several enhancements.

The current ANO procedure revision process requires that pending procedure changes that alter or delete exist!ng regulatory commitments be resolved per the ANO commitment mariagement program prior to implementing the change. The ANO commitment management program is currently based on the Nuclear Energy Institute's GuidelinesforManagingNRC Commitments. Commitment changes or deletions are periodically reported to the NRC based on these guidelines.

(2) Corrective actions taken and results nebleved:

The ANO.1 ISI Program was revised to include specific criteria for examination of the thermal sleeve to safa end area for gaps on the HPI/MU nozzles.

The ANO 1 ISI_ Program was reviewed to ensure that the required augmented examinations had been scheduled on the five refueling outage frequency.

(3) Actions taken to avoid further deviations:

Actions completed to date should avoid further deviations in this area.

(4) Date when corrective actions will be completed:

Corrective actions were complet:d on May 2,1997, when the evaluation of the HPI/MU nozzle radiographs taken during 1R9 determined that there were no gaps in the thermal s!: eve to safe end areas.

.

__ _- - - - - -

{i . AUGC-lf C ld freeAN0000i H196644tl 1318 P.02/H Jol,-ill sniweropw thme,N.

.

w/ E 1448 $A 333 flanelhao, AR 72901 Td tot 66:~6000 Austet 25,1997 OCAN089707 U, s.NudeerRepdatory corandesion Doomment conwot oak Mail 9tesion OF117 Washington, DC 2055$

Sul(sot: Arkansas Nuclear one-Unita 1 and 2 DocketNos,50 313 and 50 368 UsenseNcs LPR 51 and NPF 4 SupplemeatalResponseTo Ingmatioa Report 50-313/97 13; 50 368/97 13 oareteman.

On July 28,1997, Arkansas Nudear One responded to the notles of violation Identl8ed durhig the inspectka of actMeles had with the Inservice Testing Program (!$T). The violation pertained to the hilure to lackade regubed ash 4B Code valves la the IST program and a -

Adlure to verify the ab8ky of other valves, which were huluded in the IST program, to Mill their elooed ensey annatia

'!he responer stated that Adi compliance was acidowed on June 2,1977, when the aftLmed valves had been suposestdly tested or proven operable with an operability assessment, However, Mowing dinoussions ydsli the region and upon Airther tuview, it has beni determined that Adl enemplianas will not be achieved until the affinsed valves are included in theist progmni, ,

To desionstress sentinued operahlthy, each velve la ededuled to be tested before the end of

ts quarterly test interval.

Unit 1 velves BW-4A, BW-48, CA41, CA42, BW 2, and DW 3 will be tested under a work plan to rnest the quarterly testing eequency. If the special test developed under the work plan is not notishetorey completed, an -===* wis be p a-... 4 to determine conthaaed operability of the valves, The resuha of the work plan will be used to dW test procedures by Septarnber 30,1997.

Test pmoedures br Unit 2 valves 2FP 31, 2FP-46, 2SW-56, 2SW 5'i, 2SW42, 28W 67, 28W-138,285-1A, and 2BS-lH have been 6.';.pd and the quarterly tests acheduled.

.

.

,

. .. Aut "-If Hill fresi m 008 i HIHHell 1118 P.H/H Job-lli l' U. E. NRC Aupet 25,1997

OCAN009707 Peps 2 Fat :::- ;"-- : tw the nation arMW wEl be addem' 9 hspiamber 30.1997, when the test procedwes $nt eneb of the velves are developed, implement ed, and included la ti.e IST pasr=.

Ver/ tndy yours, dd,U.M

%c.w Wrector,IJoensing M

.

5*,

'

,. AUG C -tr esitt FrosimioossI 51154408 T-sIIYM k Jab-Ils U. E, NRC

! August 25,1997 l* OCAN009707 Page3 l

oo: Mr. Kh W. Marschetf Regional A4ndalapsdor v.s.wuci rmaguisemyconunission RegionIV 611 Ryan PlassDrive, Suite 400 Miastoa. TX 76011.ans4 NRC seniorResidemInspmor Arkansas Nuctiv One 1448 5. R. 333 uu % At 72801 Mr. George Kakaan NRR Project Manager Ragion IV/ANO-1 & 2

-

U. 8.NuclearRardato y Corandssion wasMais st.,13-u-s One WhitePilntNorth 11555 RookvmePike Rockville,MD 20852

,

C D

_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _

,

P f,

g-:--:- ENTERGY

.

c r,u =,.,om x

'

,

_ -

September 30,1997 f OCAN099705 N l 4M U. S, Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Document Control Desk  : 'i 7 J,

'

j

""- '

Mail Station OPI-17 -

Washington, DC 20555 Subject: Arkansas Nuclear One - Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos,50-313 and 50-368 License Nos. DPR-51 and NPF-6 Supplemental Response To Inspection Report 50 313/97-13; 50-368/97-13 Gentlemen:

On July 28, 1997, Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO) responded to the notice of violation identified during tne inspection of activities associated with the Inservice Testing (IST)

program. The violation pertained to the failure to include required ASME Code valves in the IST program and a failure to verify the ability of other check valves, which were included in the IST program, to fulfill their closed safety function.

, On August 25,1997, ANO supplemented the response and stated that check valves BW-4A, BW-4B, CA-61, CA-62, BW-2, and BW-3 would be tested pcr a temporary work plan and

' that permanent test procedures would be developed by September 30,1997.

'

Valves BW-4A, BW-4B, BW-2, and BW-3 were tested satisfactorily, test procedures developed, and quarterly testing scheduled.

The system configuration for check valves CA-61 and CA-62 does not allow for testing their functional capability reliably rad repeatably. Because testing in the closed direction has been determined to be unreliable and there are no acceptable test alternatives available, check valves CA-61 and CA-62 will not be tested for closure on a quarterly basis. An operability assessment determined that both check valves are operable in the present configuration.

Check valves CA-61 and CA-62 are disassembled during alternate refueling outages and manually stroked to verify their stroke capability in both directions. Previously, credit has been taken in the IST program only for the full open stroke. Per the provisions of Generic Letter 89-04, Guidance On Developing Acceptable Inservice Testing Programs, the IST program 91- o 0 6"T l

0 h0

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

. -

[f .! U. S. NRC September 30,1997

.o OCAN099705 Page 2 and IST Program Bases Document have been revised to credit the periodic disassembly and inspection as verification that these valves are capable of performing both the open and closed safety functions.

Very truly yours, .

  • ONE Dwight C Mims Director, Nuclear Safety DCM/AJS cc: Mr. Ellis W. Merschoff-Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Arlington, TX 76011-8064 NRC Senior Resident Inspector.

Arkansas Nuc.' .wr One P.O. Box 310 London, AR 72847'

,.. Mr. George Kalman NRR Project Manager Region IV/ANO-1 & 2 U. S. Nuclear Regulatury Commission

_. NRR Mail Stop 13-H-3 One White Flint North r

11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852

_ _ _ - _ _ _ - _