IR 05000458/1993028

Insp Rept 50-458/93-28 on 931107-1218.Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Operational Safety Verification,Review of LERs & Surveillance Observations

ML20059G988
Person / Time
Site:	River Bend
Issue date:	01/14/1994
From:	Gagliardo J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20059G974	List: IR 05000458/1993028 ML20059G973 ML20059G998
References
50-458-93-28, NUDOCS 9401260128
Download: ML20059G988 (2)

Text

. -

l l

.

APPENDIX B j U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .I REGION IV i i

Inspection Report: 50-458/93-28  !

Operating License: NPF-47 Licensee: Gulf States Utilities i

P.O. Box 220 St. Francisville, Louisiana 70775-0220 .i Facility Name: River Bend Station l Inspection At: St. Francisville, Louisiana .

i Inspection Conducted: November 7 through December 18, 1993 Inspectors: W. F. Smith, Senior Resident Inspector C. E. Skinner, Resident Inspector in Training  ;

P. C. Wagner, Team Leader, Division of Reactor Safety ;

. L a, Reactor Engineer, Division of Reactor Safety, Region II ,

Approved: /Datel if N

'LE.pagliardo, Chief,ProjectSectionC Inspection Summary  :

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of plant status, onsite response to events, operational safety verification, maintenance and

. surveillance observations, and review of licensee event report r i

'

Results: .

!

• The overall performance of plant staff, during and subsequent to the November 7,1993, reactor . recirculation pump trip was very goo Conservatism, management oversight, and excellent teamwork on the par of supporting organizations, was evident (Section 2.1).

• The licensee demonstrated a minor weakness in substituting manual for automatic actions on the diesel generator fuel oil transfer pump pursuant to the guidance provided by Generic Letter 91-18 l (Section 2.3.1).  ;

• The licensee's actions to utilize the guidance in Generic Letter 91-18 ,

in substituting a portable radiation monitor in place of an inoperable !

installed radiation monitor may have exceeded the intent of the f guidance. An unresolved item has been identified to track further i review of this issue (Section 2.3.2). ,

!

9401260128 940120 PDR ADOCK 05000458 G PDR

- - .

. - - . -- -- - - . - - - .- - . _- . ~ - _

r

~

,

.  !

,

-2-t f

d

. The licensee's third utilization of the guidance provided by Generic  !

Letter 91-18 was very good. Substitution of manual actions to monitor j control rod drive unit accumulator leakage and pressure was appropriat Procedures were in place, personnel were trained, and proper log entries i were made (Section 2.3.3). ,

!

. A violation was identified because of a repeat occurrence where- l emergency core cooling systems were rendered inoperable, at a time  !

prohibited by Technical Specifications. Although adequate programmatic 1

'

controls appeared to be in place, corrective actions to prevent the human errors that defeated the controls did not appear to be fully l effective (Section 2.4). j

. >

+ The inspectors concluded that the licensee's training for the new l 10 CFR Part 20 was excellent. The instructor presented the necessary l information on how the regulations have changed and how these change !

affect radiation workers (Section 3.5). c

. During observation of motor-operated valve motor pinion inspections, two j examples of procedure violations were identified. One example was ,

administrative in nature, and the second example directly affected the  !

results of the inspection in a nonconservative manner (Section 4.1). j

= The inspectors concluded that poor planning of postmaintenance test -

instructions resulted in an inadvertent reactor water cleanup system i isolation. A violation was identified for failure to provide adequate  !

test procedures affecting safety-related equipment (Section 4.2). j

= Conduct of the diesel generator surveillance was initially performed i effectively, but 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> later the wrong diesel generator was selected l for the postsurveillance air roll. Operator performance was poor in ,

'

that the error was made, and the operators did not issue a condition report until challenged by management (Section 5.1). j i

'

. The calibration of the Division I hydrogen analyzer and monitor was conducted in an excellent manner, with satisfactory results

(Section 5.2).  ;

e The licensee's reviews of logic system functional tests for adequacy and

appropriateness continued to demonstrate strengths in attention to detail. Performance of this complex partial surveillance test was  ;

observed to be carefully controlled and completed without inciden ;

(Section 5.3).  ;

i Summary of Inspection Findings:  ;

i

• Unresolved Item 458/93028-1 was opened (Section 2.3.2).  ;

e Violation 458/93028-2 was opened (Section 2.4).  ;

• Violation 458/93028-3 was opened (Section 4.1). l

.

l l

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

_

.