ML20151N079
| ML20151N079 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 12/11/1985 |
| From: | Bennett W, Jaudon J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151N034 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-458-85-74, NUDOCS 8601020798 | |
| Download: ML20151N079 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000458/1985074
Text
'
.
, .
,
u;
-\\
APPENDIX B
s
,
'
C
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-
REGION IV
-
,
,
NRC. Inspection Report: 50-458/85-74
License:
- -
,
' Docket: 50-458
1'
x
'
'
. Licensee:
Gulf States Utilities
_
- P.O. Box 2951
Beaumont, TX 77704
-
4
Facility Name: ' River Bend Station
,
Inspection At: River Bend Site, St. Francisville, Louisiana
Inspection Conducted: October 21-25, 1985
,.
/A///[/f
Inspectors:
W. R. Bennett, Project Engineer, Project
Date
Section A, Reactor Projects Branch
' Accompanying Personnel: Won Ky Shin KAERI
pproved:
z,#
M
/
// 8[
4
t
Chie", Project Section A -
Date'
df P./Jaudorf,jects Branch
(,Reattor P{o
Inspection Summary
Inspection Conducted October 21-25, 1985 (Report 50-458/85-74)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of TMI action items, followup
on previous inspection findings, and the potential for HPCS system relief valve
. failure. The inspection involved 37 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC
inspector.
-
<Results: Within the three areas inspected, one violation was identified
(failure to have required records, paragraph 2).
E
B601020798 851210
ADOCK 05000458
G
,
x
-
- -
.
_
,
<
l Q ..
,
m
.
g
'
,
.
'
'
,
- 2 ,s
',
'
'
.
DETAILS'
,
,
.
,
,
-
r
.
,'
1.
Persons Contacted
/
Gulf States Utilitie's '(GSU)
"
'
>
-
..
- T. L. Crouse, Manager-Quality Assurance-(QA)
_
- P. E. Freehill,. Superintendent Startup-and Test
<
.
.
- D._ R. Gipson, Assistant Plant Manager
- B. E. Hey,-Licensing Engineer
.-
F
- G. R. Kimmell, Supervisor Operations QA
-
,
- T. F. Plunkett, Plant'Manageri
- *F. L. Richter, Operations QA :
- J. E.-Spivey, QA Engineer
,
- R. B. Stafford, Director Operations QA
'*P. F. Tomlinson, Director Quality Services
- R. E. Turner, Quality Engineering
-
Stone and Webster (S&W)
,
,
- . B. R. Hall, Assistant Superintendent, Field Quality Control
-
,
L ~
The NRC inspector also contacted other site personnel l'ncluding
administrative, clerical, operations, and testing personnel >
"
r u
,
- Denotes those attending the exit interview conducted on October 25, 1985.
'
'
2.
Licensee Action on' Previous Inspection Findings
i
3
(C1'osed)Open' Item l(458/8558-02): Procedures for demon'stration of
a.
-leakage detection system operability did not meet Technical
Specification requirements end' confusion existed over independent
verification.
4
The NRC inspector reviewed River Bend Procedures STP-511-4528,
STP-511-4248, and STP-000-0001 and determined that these procedures-
-
now met Technical Specification requirements.
River Gend
Procedure ADM-0015 was also found to contain a definition of
" independent verifier," which clarifies requirements of independent
verification.
-
This' item is closed.
b.
(Closed) Open Item (458/8551-07):
A question was raised about
.
whether RHR pump runout was a concern during a system realignment
from the test modr to an injection mode.
-
,
3
k
'
. . . . ..
3
The NRC inspector reviewed a General Electric (GE) letter to the
'
licensee dated September 25, 1985. This letter stated that, if a
Loss'of Coolant Accident (LOCA) occurred with the RHR system in the
-test mode, sufficient net positive suction head would be available to
prevent cavitation and the effects of pump runout would be nil.
In
addition, the combined probability of being in the test mode, plus
LOCA, plus exceeding 10 CFR 100 limits is estimated to be less than
2 x 10 8 events / year, which is less than acceptable limits.
This item is closed.
s
. c.
(Closed) Deviation (458/8551-02): Testing did not ensure that the
RHR system would realign ~and inject to the reactor vessel from the
test mode as committed to in the River Bend FSAR.
The NRC inspector reviewed GE design specification 22 A 3845 which
stated that the RHR system shall not be required to recover from
3
'
secondary modes of operation, such as testing, within the specified
-
LFC1 injection time, because the interval.of time the RHR system
remains in these secondary modes is so short that the effect on
overall reliability is insignificant. The licensee has prepared an
FSAR change clarifying the test objectives of the Emergency Core
Cooling System Integrated Initiatiors Curing Loss of 0ffsite Power
Preoperational Test.
'
This item is closed.
. d.
(Closed)OpenItem(458/8551-10): Data packages for reactor vessel'
-
internals were found to have some errors.
The 1icensee contacted the NSSS supplier and the required records
~
were delivered to the site. The NRC inspector reviewed these records
and' determined that they met all requirements.
The NRC inspector reviewed the quality data packages for NSSS
supplied, non reactor vessel internal, ASME code, equipment. The
package for the standby liquid control system explosive valves..
(MPL No. C41-F004; serial No. 464 and 465) contained only a product
quality certificate and a certificate holder's data report. GE
specification 21A1937 requires that material property records, heat
treatment records, and other records as applicable, be included in
the quality data packages. This is an apparent violation
(458/8574-01). No' program exists at River Bend Station to ensure
that data packages are received and reviewed from the NSSS supplier.
The NRC inspector reviewed the quality data package for the standby
liquid control system pump (Serial No. N7422610530) and found all
required documents to be included in the package and satisfactory.
No other violations or deviations were identified in this portion of
the inspection.
.
.
. . . .
4
3.
TMI Action Items
The purpose of this portion of the inspection was to determine the status
of post TMI Action Plan requirements.
Item 11I K.3.28 Verify Qualification of Accumulators on Automatic
Depressurization System (ADS) Valves - This item is to ensure that
accumulators will withstand a hostile environment and still perform their
functions for 100 days following an accident.
,
Findings - The licensee submitted the qualification of ADS accumulators to
the NRC.
This position was accepted in Supplement 3 to River Bend Safety
Evaluation Report.
This item is closed.
No violations or deviations were identified in this portion of the
inspection.
4.
Potential for High Pressure Core Spray (HPCS) System Relief Valve Failure
The purpose of this portion of the inspection was to evaluate the
potential for HPCS system relief valve failure at River Bend Station.
Region IV received a memorandum from the Office of Analysis and Evaluation
of Operational Data (AE00) dated September 16, 1985, documenting failure
of HPCS system relief valve bellows at LaSalle Units 1 and 2.
The
memorandum concluded that the failures were caused by excessive back
pressure on the discharge port of the relief valve and that River Bend had
the potential for similar failures.
It was determined that several differences exist in the HPCS relief valve
piping configurations between LaSalle and River Bend.
The most
significant difference was that the safety valve at LaSalle discharges
through a 1" x 2" reducer to the 6" minimum flow line, while the safety
valve at River Bend directly discharges to the 10" full flow test return
line.
The configuration at LaSalle could lead to a more dynamic thermal
hydraulic transient than would be experienced at River Bend.
It was also determined that the relief valve bellows at LaSalle failed at
least once during preoperational testing while performing satisfactorily
during preoperational testing at River Bend.
The NRC inspector determined that River Bend does not have the potential
for relief valve failures of the type which occurred at LaSalle.
This is
based on the significant piping differences between the two plants and the
testing at River Bend which has shown no problem with the safety valves.
No violations or deviations were identified in this portion of the
inspection.
n
c-.
-
+
= , * . .
L
5
5.
Exit Interview
An exit interview was held on October 25,-1985, with the personnel denoted
in paragraph 1 of this report.
The NRC senior resident inspector also
attended this meeting.
At this meeting, the scope of the inspection and
the findings were summarized.
.
1
I
4
p.
L
l-
!
i
.
..
i
L