IR 05000458/1987026

Insp Rept 50-458/87-26 on 871005-09.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Inservice Insps, Inservice Testing,Containment Local Leak Rate Testing,Test & Experiments Program & Corrective Action Program

ML20236M750
Person / Time
Site:	River Bend
Issue date:	11/04/1987
From:	Gilbert L, Haag R, Hunnicutt D, Mckernon T, Stewart R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20236M747	List: IR 05000458/1987026 ML20236M745
References
50-458-87-26, NUDOCS 8711130270
Download: ML20236M750 (12)

Text

s

)

,

,

, .

?

APPENDIX i U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I REGION IV a l

l NRC Inspection Report: 50-458/87-26 License: NPF-47  !

'

Docket: 50-458 Licensee: Gulf States Utilities Company (GSU) '

P. O. Box 220 St. Francisville, Louisiana 70775 i

Facility Nane: RiverBendStation(RBS)

Inspection At: River Bend Station, St. Francisville. Louisiana Inspection Conducted: October 5-9, 1987 j Inspectors: h/. b ,$ d D. M. Hunnicutt, Chief, Test Programs Section

///9'/F7 Odte /

{i Operations Branch i

)

l nNaf

> L. D. Gilbert, Reactor Inspector, MaEf rials &-

ll Vl87 Date /

l Quality Programs Section, Engineering Branch j s l'

R. C. Stewbrtf Reactor Inspector, Materials & . Date / 'i Quality Programs Section, Engineering Branch l

1 i

Accompanying'

Inspectors

/

. C, /be( // b h 7 ;

R. C. Haag, Reattor Inspector, Materials & Datt '

.;

Quality Programs Section, Engineering Branch .l

L

~'

T. O. McKern~onrReactor Inspector, Plant

_

ll/Y Dat'e

j Systems.Section, Engineering Branch j

!

ft 70 e71306 G hCK050004e pp 1 i

. V'

_ _ _ -

o , 2

7

.. - c.T 'm ,

W,

,

'

.. q k : ,

+ . >

.(, ,,'!

'

.

j L' 4 is ,

.-

<

, t ,

p ,

,. 4 , 4 , , !. . .

.

.

s;;.

' -  %

,

,y .

'

% ,.

, .

! ' i/ .--

-s- p ,

i i

q Approved: - I. wileu2b

' D. M. Hurinicutt, Chief, Test Programs Section : ;

W 8/87: '

y .

~ I7 ate / - .c -

" . W e

.

10perations Branc '

< ,j

'

-;. t 'f!' rs',

Inspection Summary'

<

i 1

' Inspection Conducted October, 5-9,:1987-(Report 50-458/87-26) ,

]

.. ,- i.7 j l, Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of inservice' inspections, 4,

'

inservice. testing, containment localsleak rate testing', the test'and

~

' ',

,

,I

.

experiments program, and'the corrective action progra '

,

tg r 1 a l' . . . .

Results

; Within the areas inspected no violations or deviations were'

.

! . l j.

L identifie , 1

>

Lj ' ' ,4

<

,

i c +

.,

.

q i

.<

"

(

.

I <

'

'

l: , ,

,

..k

,

' '

a

'

,

s; , , ,

, 1- 1j l~ '

l ,

. ;; ,

<

l- 2

, t

' '

. '

j i

m

,

, t

-

.

-

.

m

• .

.

., ,1 , ,

a .,

'_

,

.o

' 5

1' ,

t

I i i

,>

, f'

l

>

q..

.,:

} h,4 ',

,

, ,

,

,

,

z' >

<

'

Q ,

?

$ ' "

,

t 3' .

, ,

DETAILS-

. Persons' Contacted

,

.G '

'

.* H.' McQuirter, Licensing Engineer'

• A. J. Kugler. Supervisor, ProcessLSystems ' '

• R. B.-Stafford Director, Operations.QA

.E; R. Grant, Director, Nuclear LicensingH

• R. D. Ca'elyle, 1SI Coordinator <

• J. B. Blakley, ISI-Supervisor

.

'

• P. E. Free' nill, Outage Manager . ,

• L. G. Johnson, Cajun Site Representative D. W. Williamson, Supervisor, Operations

- G. D. Mahon; Welding Engine'er '.

W. J. Hermann, ASME Repair /Replaceinents .

' ' '

w

• L. A. England, Superyisor, Nuclear Licensing > - '

• J. E. Booker, Manager, Oversit *I. M. Milik; Supervisor, Quality. Systems

• J. W. Leavines,' Director, Field Engineering

• L. Croure._ Manager ' Quality Assurance' ,

.

• J. Vachon, Senior Compliance' Analyst d

• F. Suhrke, Manager, Project Management

'

• L. Weir, Director, Materials Management

• F. Plunkett, Plant Manager ..

• O. Fredien,. Assistant Supervisor, Operations-

• W. H. 0 dell, Manager, Administrative-

• A. D. Kocuolczuk, Director, Plant >0versit NRC

. .

• D. D. Chamberlain, Senior Resident Inspector

• Denotes those present at the exit meetin ,

The NRC inspectors also contacted other, plant personnel,-including '

.;

operators, technicians, and administrative personnel.-

'l

' Inservice Inspection-4 . Program

. The RBS inservice inspection (ISI) program was prepared and implemented by the licensee.. In the areas' inspected...the plan' meets- ,

the requirements of ASME Section XI.1980 edition,-including adden'da -  !

through Winter 1981. This outage is the first for'the first 10-year '

interval of the ISI progra '

o- , ,

s . . s i

o

'  !

, ,

\ t

,

. , , Procedures ,

The NRC inspector reviewed nondestructive examination procedures for ultrasonic, liquid penetrant, magnetic particle,.and visual-examinations that are required forLthe ISI Pla The procedures reviewed were:

GS-UT-W81-1, " Ultrasonic Examination of Class 1 & 2 Piping Welds M Joining Similar & Dissimilar Materials," Revision'1, Addenda l'

GS-PT-W81-1, '! Liquid Penetrant Examination," Revision 2 GS-MT-W81-1, " Magnetic Part.icle Examination of Welds -& Bolting," - -

Revision'1 .,

'

GS-VT-W81-1, " Visual Examination: VT-1," Revision 0,-Addenda 1

! The liquid penetrant and magnetic particle examin'ation procedures l 1 contain acceptance standards that require clarificatio The notes to the tables of IWB 3514 of ASME Section XI were omitted from the 5 acceptance standards specified in.the procedures. The acceptance standards were discussed with.ISI examination personnel and it was determined that the~ acceptance-standards were incorrectly interpreted l for nominal wall-thicknesses-between 0.312 and 1.0 inc >

j

'

This is considered an unresolved item pending: (1) clarification o ;;

the procedures acceptance standards, (2) retraining of examination ..

personnel qualified for liquid penetrant or magnetic particle examination, and (3) reevaluation of previously completed .

'

examinations that were accomplished using the liquid penetrant and magnetic particle examination procedures (458/8726-01). Observation of Examinations The NRC inspector witnessed four liquid penetrant examinations, two ultrasonic examinations, and one visual examination.

!

The four liquid' penetrant examinations were performed on Class 1'

welds in the residual heat removal system (RHR). The welds were identified as follows:

'

1 RHS*016A FW002 >

'

1 RHS*129A SWOO4 1 RHS*129A FW002 1 RHS*129A FW001 During the examination of Weld 1 RHS*129A SW004, an indicatio ,

was identified by the Level II examiner that he evaluated and

, ..

l_

'

..

___ _ _ _ _ a

s

5 l

i recorded as unacceptable. ..A maintenance work order, MWO 111340, was issued to repair the weld with the unacceptable indication f which measured 0.45 inch in length, i The two ultrasonic examinations were performed on Class 1 pipe welds in the TIR. system. The welds'were identified as I

1 RHS*129A SWOO4 and 1 RHS*129A FWOO J The visual examination was performed on the boltin of a Class 1 motor-operatedvalveandidentifiedas1E12MOVF0$2 '

In the areas inspected, the examinations were consistent with the ISI -i plan and performed in accordance with' approved procedures by qualified personne >

l l No' violations or. deviations were -identified.

l 3. Inservice Testing of Puws and Valves l .

l l An inspection was conducted to determine whether the inservice l testing (IST) of pumps and valves was being conducted in compliance with I the technical and quality ascurance requirements described in 10 CFR Part 50.55a and Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 1980 Edition through Winter 1981 Addend ;

i Gulf States Utilities, "Pymp and Valve Inservice Testing Plan , River Bend !

Station - First Ten Year Inspection Interval - Revision 3," and River Bend -l Station Procedure No. ENG-3-011, Revision 0, " River Bend ':andard for -)

ASME XI Inservice Testing for Pumps," were reviewed by ARC inspector j to verify compliance with the specified test requiremt *

and acceptance criteria contained in Technical Specification (TS) Set ans 3/4.6.4,- i 4.6.4.1, and 4. The following test procedures were reviewed:

STP-203-3301 HPCS Valve Operability and Pump Flow ' Testing I TCN 86-1406  ;

i l STP-256-3304 Standby Service Water.B Loop Valve and Pump 1 TCN 86-1902 Operability Test if !

l STP-602-3303 Fuel Pool Cooling Pump and Valve Operability 1 ( TCN 87-0626 Test j

STP-309-3302 Division II Diesel GeneratoriIST Pump Operability l TCN 87-0410 Test  !

l

STP-000-3606 Section XI Safety and Relief Valve Testing !

TCN 87-0681

!

i

-]

E 1

._

,

j

<

-. - ]

i 6 {

!

In addition, the following related procedures were reviewed:

PEP-0039 Lubricating 011 Analysis Program Revision 1 ,

ADM-0029 Control of Measuring and Test Equipment (M&TE)-

.

Revision 7

Calibration Data Chart / Procedures between:1985 and 1987'for_the .j following instruments: )

Hiese' Gage PTG-033A-Pressure Gage DPI-007A Vibration Meter VIB-010A The review provided assurance that the licensee's IST program met the following attributes:

l Tests were conducted per an approved schedule including increased frequency testin Results of inservice tests were recorded per approved procedure Data evaluation was within the time constraints specified in ASME code,Section XI, Subsections IWP and IW *

Review, evaluation, and justification of changes to test acceptance

-

criteri This included examination of the licensee's relief requests submitted in Revision 3 of the IST progra Inclusion of pump vibrational test data analysis and acceptance criteria justification to include reference speed *

Compliance of test instruments to 10.CFR Part 50 and ASME' code requirements to include review of the control of M&TE progra During review of GSU's " Pump and Valve Inservice Testing Plan - River Bend Station - First Ten Year Inspection Interval, Revision 3," the.NRC inspector noted that NRC correspondence dated August'31, 1987, denied relief ~ request for Pump Relief No. 2, and Valve Relief Request Nos. 24 and 35. Subsequent discussions between NRC's project manager and the licensee also restricted portions of Valve Relief No. 31. The licensee's IST program states, in part, "a relief will be-assumed to be granted until notified otherwise." The existing IST program for Pumps and Valves, Revision 3, is not in full compliance with applicable ASME Code Section XI requirement GSU is presently reviewing the program and intends to revise the program for inclusion of ASME Section XI requirements from i

- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

,

,,L *

, '

7 .i

'!

,

which relief was requested but denied. This shall remain an open item pending revision of the IST program.(458/8726-02).

No violations or deviations were identified during this' portion of'the inspectio . Tests

~~

.a experiments Program ,

.j

'

The NRC inspectors reviewed the licensee's program for control and implementation of tests and experiments involving safety-related components, systems or structures, or modes of operation different from those-described in the FSAR. Due to the relatively early stage of plant-operating life, the licensee has not. performed any tests or experiments that correspond to the above criteri In review of Administrative Procedure ADM-0003, " Development,' Control and Use of Procedures," Revision 13, dated September 14, 1987, the NRC' i inspectors determined the licensee.has a program'for identifying andJ developing tests and experiments not described in.the FSAR. ADM-0003 establishes administrative control.for the development, revision, j approval, control, and use of procedures.. The following attributes l l concerning the tests and experiments program were verified in this review:

The responsibility to assure that all proposed safety-related' tests I and experiments are checked to determine whether they are described 1 in the FSAR is assigned to the procedure preparer with concurrence !

required by the superviso ,

During performance of a task or evaluation, the procedure must be i followed exactly unless required by an emergency or casualty I situatio I Responsibilities have been assigned for reviewing and' approving test and experimental procedure I A written safety evaluation pursuant'to 10 CFR Part 50.59 must be developed for each test or experiment not described in FSAR which f explains the basis of the licensee's determination that an unreviewed j safety question or a change in the TS does not exist. This :

evaluation is given a technical review by engineering and reviewed- q by the facility review committe {

No violations or deviations were identified during this ' portion of the inspectio . Standby Cooling Tower Performance Test Plan Review ]!n The NRC inspectors t :luded the standby cooling; tower performance t'est i plan (SCTPTP) in the-review of the tests and experiments program.- While- !

there is a brief description in the FSAR (paragraph 3.1.2.46)' concerning j periodic testing of the standby service water system, this test was ;

.

--__ .- _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . -_ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . .

g 1

1-l reviewed.because the uniqueness of .the test closely resembled the criteria of this revie The purpose of this SCTPTP was to provide an: integrated j plan to coordinate all activities required to support the test. .The j performance test provided sufficient data'to determine the thermal performance of the standby cooling tower. The performance test will: :]

verify the heat rejection performanc'e capabilities of.the standby cooling 1 tower (SCT) which.is the ultimate heat sink for'the River Bend Station's decay hea The SCT performance test will be performed using a temporary heat source consisting of three 40,000 lb/hr package water tube steam boilers and related equipment. The boilers will supply117,000 1bs/hr of steam at?

200 psig and 387 F to the two. test heat exchangers.- Each test hea .

exchanger was designed for a continuous cooling capacity of 126 million BTU /h Instrumentation' required for the.SCT Performance Test will be provided, calibrated, and installed.in accordance with applicable procedures. -The !

integrity of installed piping systems will be verif'ed by a hydrostatic l 1 test prior to system heatu !

The following procedures and criteria are referenced ,and are an integral part of the SCTPT:

ASME Performance Test Code 23, " Atmospheric Water Cooling Equipment" !

Original Design Specification, RBS-232.530, Standby Cooling Towers" j TP-87-17, " Mechanical Construction Test Procedure" (Flushing) i TP-87-18, " Mechanical Construction ~ Test Procedure" (Hydrostatic Test) i TP-87-19, " Electrical Construction Test Procedure"  !

TP-87-20, " Mechanical Equipment'Startup Procedure" (Generic)

TP-87 21, " Electrical Equipment Startup Procedure" (Generic).

TP-87-22, " Support System Operational' Procedure" TP-87-23, " Standby Cooling Tower Performance Test" Communication systems are appropriately addressed for temporary subsystem construction and startup effort and during the SCTP No violations or deviations were identified during this portion of the inspectio . Temporary Heat Source Inspection j The NRC inspectors inspected the temporary heat source complex which included the fossil fuel boilers,. heat exchangers, piping, and'other associated equipmen The complex was completed withlthe exception of the j final two tie-in connections to the standby ' service' water system. The component and piping arrangement was well organized'with' items. properly-tagged for identificatio No violations or deviations were identified during this portion of-the inspectio _ _ _-_

,

!

,- '

j i

9 { Containment-Local Leak Rate Testing

]

The NRC inspectors reviewed selected procedures for measuring the local leak rate on containment penetration boundaries, containment isolation l )

valves, and containment air leaks. This procedural review completed a portion of the total inspection required to verify that the licensee's ,

containment local leak rate test (LLRT) program was being properly l conducted. ' When the LLRT is performed, the licensee will have met the , i 24-month interval TS requirement for Type B and C test The NRC inspectors reviewed the following procedures:  !

STP-057-3800, " Local Leak Rate Test,". Revision.2 - This' procedure provided general information and instruction for performing LLRT Various leak rate methods and the associated monitoring equipment such as volumetrics lebk rate monitor and ratameters leak. rate monitor are detailed in this procedur TSP-0022, " Performance Monitoring and Trend Analysis Program,"-

Revision 0, dated October 23, 198 This procedure established the program for monitoring plant, system, or component performance and trending data, as necessary, to identify losses of MWe output, optimize plant performance and neet various performance monitoring and trending commitment PEP-0003, " Vibration Program," Revision 1, dated December 5, 198 The purpose of this procedure was to specify which plant equipment will be included in the vibration monitoring program and how the a vibration data will be taken and reviewed, i d

STP-115-3808, "RPCCW Valve Leak Rate Test," Revision 2, dated September 28, 1987. The purpose of this procedure was to test the leak rate of reactor plant component cooling j water (RPCCW)/ containment isolation valves when the volume is ;

pressurized to 7.6 psig. Testing under this procedure meets the TS j requirements stated in 4.6.1.3.d and 4.0.5'for. leak rate testin {

This procedure also verified that containment penetration check valve j disc (s) will seat against reverse flow. Testing under this procedure q meets the TS requirements stated in 4.0.5 for valve operabilit ADM-0051, "Important to Reliability Program," Revision 0, dated .

j November 28, 1984. The purpose of this procedure was to enhance the j reliability and availability of the program. The program provided ;

for selected use of maintenance and operational practices to improve j the operational performance of nonsafety-related equipment important j to reliable station operation. Emphasis was placed on meaningful l quality measures (e.g., inspections, evaluations, and control l methods) with a minimum of documentatio Long-range purposes were

]

!

!

i

,

- - . _ _ - - - _ _ _ _.- - - _ _ _ _ _ b

,.

i

l

)

{

!

to minimize transients that could damage equipment or challenge safety systems and to improve plant availabilit i No violations or deviations were identified in this portion of the inspectio i 8. Corrective Action '

The objective of this inspection area was to determine whether GSU has developed a comprehensive corrective action program to identify, follow, !

and correct safety-related problem The NRC inspector reviewed the licensees policy statements and commitments .

expressed in the GSU FSAR, Section 17.2; Technical Specifications, 1 Section 6; and the following applicable administrative procedures: j

ADM-0001, " Station Staff Organization, Responsibilities, and Authorities," Revision 2, dated May 3, 1985 j

ADM-0002, " Charter of the Facility Review Committees," Revision 7, dated August 11, 1987 {

l ADM-0012, " Corrective Action Program," Revision 3, dated July 7, 1987 1 ADM-0013 " Management Feedback System," Revision 2, dated June 12, '

1987 r

ADM-0019, " Initiation and Processing of Condition Reports (CRs),"

Revision 6, dated April 21, 1987 I i

ADM-0035, " Preparation and Processing License Event, Special & Safety 1 Unit Violation Reports," Revision 1,. dated June'30, 1985 l l

ASP-0004, " Reporting Operating Information," Revision 2, dated 1 July 2, 1987 During the review and discussions held with the cognizant licensee personnel, it was apparent that the principal vehicle for identifying problems / conditions affecting safety-related components, etc., is the

"CRs." All River Bend personnel are responsible for initiating "CRs" for those conditions that they discover. GSU Procedure ADM-0019. " Initiation and Processing of Condition Reports," extensively prescribes the requirements and responsibilities of all River Bend personnel and their prospective department managers / supervisors. In addition, the CR is use to quickly identify problems / conditions.to the shift supervisor in order to determine affect on operations. In verifying the management controls established for initiating, resolving, and tracking " Condition Reports," ,

" '

>

, to

, ,

,. -

,

the NRC inspector' selected 12 CRs and their related documents, for review j and examinatio The selection was based on' reviewing the subject areas of:

Significant Operating Events (SOERs,'SERs, and LERs).

Internally Identified Problems Nonconformances Special Reports by Internal Organizations or Other Organizations QA Surveillance The 12 CRs'were as follows:

CR No. 86-1304 (Nonconformance)

CR No. 87-0056 (Nonconformance) ,

i

'

CR No. 86-1861 (Nonconformance) I CR No. 86-1449J(Nonconformance)

CR No. 86-1361 (LER)

CR No. 87-0028 (LER)' ,

CR No. 87-0421 (LER)

CR No. 87-0692 (LER)

CR No. 87-0049 (QA Surveillance)

.

CR.No. 87-1153 (Modification Request)

CR No. 86-1594 (Modification Request)  ;

CR No.87-441 -(Modification Request)-

CR No. 87060 (Maintenance Work Order)

CR No. 870749 (Maintenance Work Order)

CR No. 861622 (Maintenance Work Order) q During the review, the NRC inspector examined the docufuents-utilizing eight attributes as the review criteria in determining the. effectiveness of the licensee's management controls. Attributes considered included the following:

Prioritizing problems'hy safety significanc Problems were reported to appropriate levels of management and to-NRC, if require Established actions and responsibilities ~to resolve problem Method established to follow corrective action to completio Considerations of' generic concern and " Root" causes.

,

Completed actions are adequately closed out and documentle Timeliness of corrective. actio ,

Responsiveness to backlog condition ,

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

.-

, , ,

']] ; -

' '

>

r  : .' ' s

'O ,

'

_

?

b '1 , z

I '

, -f ,  :

. .

'

w. . ,.

'

. . ,

'

.

'

.

-

M

,

, E, 12 - y q

, .: :)

. .

. . . .. -, , , . , . _ , _

,._

-

T W .j .

, .

. It was observed l by .thei NRC 'inspectorf that.' the ilicensee has) established . '<

'

procedures / policies / instructions for a' common' plant-wide corrective"actionf system that provides-the: mechanism',for promptlyl identifying conditions ,y

adverse to quality, such as . failures,t malfunctions,; deficiencies,1 .,l operational events.jetc '

'

, , . ?. ~1 >

,

Inreviewingthel12 sele.ctedconditionreportsland; I

!

corresponding 1 m

"-

.. ,

documentsf assigned responsibilities' appeared to;be-acknowledged an'dL

' '

lcompletionschedules.werecommensurate;with(theassignedpr.i,oritiesiinai

- timely fashion.- , H -

,

E ,

i

'

.j

.

n, ,

..

'

.

_

1, + ,

'

a

'

'No violations or deviations were: identifie , ,'

'

< '

,

g

' ~Unre' solved Item a' ' .",

L q

. Anunresolveditem'isoneabout.which.additionaNinformat' ion lisrequired" '

,j in order to' determine whether or not"the; item 1is acceptable,Jafviolation,- <

'

,

p ' or a. deviation. .One unresolved item was' identified.during,.this- ,j j inspectio _j y .

y ,

q

!- Item N Paragraph- 'Subje$t~ ' "

l

.

,

.

. . .  ;. '\

. - ,

t i

~'

,

458/8726-01 2. b 'C1arification(ofis'ome p.rocedures; Retraining ~ofl examination .'..

.perso'nel;-an n -

i Reevaluation 'of ~ some previously 7l completed examinations- l

.;

'

1 Exit Interview The NRC inspectors met with the licensee personnel' denoted in paragraph I d

-

and the senior resident inspector on October 961987, and. summarized'the scope and findings of' the inspection. The licensee acknowledged'the-inspector's comment ,

-

,,

'9

'

I n

f- s

'

.9 l ,

d

! '

.l

.]

l

'

'

,

,

a

'

'

. [ 1, ,>.,

. . .

-

- _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _m_.m . _ _ . _ _ . _