Text

Forwards Summary of Enforcement Conference on 890609 Re Findings in Insp Rept 50-458/89-18
	ML20245F460
Person / Time
Site:	River Bend
Issue date:	06/22/1989
From:	Milhoan J; NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Deddens J; GULF STATES UTILITIES CO.
References
	EA-89-122, GL-88-14, NUDOCS 8906280145
	Download: ML20245F460 (11)
	v • d • e

.

_

_- -

_ _ _ _

JUN 22 SW

l

,

.,

-

In Reply Refer To:

i

Do,cket: 50-458

i

'

EA No. 89-122/89-18

I

)

'

Gulf States Utilities

i

ATTN: Mr. James C. Deddens

i

SeniorVicePresident(RBNG)

l

P.O. Box 220

)

St. Francisville, Louisiana 70775

j

Gentlemen:

This refers to the enforcement conference conducted in the Region IV office on

June 9,1989, with you and other members of your staff, Region IV, and Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation personnel. This conference involved the

findings of the NRC inspection conducted during the period of May 1-19, 1989

'(NRC Inspection Report 50-458/89-18 dated June 6, 1989).

The subjects discussed at this meeting are described in the enclosed Meeting

Summary.

In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2,

Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter will be placed in

the NRC's Public Document Room.

Should yuu have any questions concerning this matter, we will be pleased to

discuss them with you.

Sincerely,

W AT hbc

h

James L. Milhaan, Director

Division of P-

tor Projects

Enclosure:

Meeting Summary

cc w/ enclosure:

Gulf States Utilities

ATTN:

J. E. Booker, Manager-

River Bend Oversight

P.O. Box 2951

Beaumont, Texas 77704

RIV:C:DRP/C37^

E

D:DF

GLConstable;df

G afborn

JLMilh

6/h/89

6/

69

6 4 /89

4

8906280145 890622

9

gDR

ADOCK 0500

8

g

_

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

-

,

.

'

.

Gulf States ' Utilities

-2-

.

Gulf States Utilities

ATTN:

Les England, Director

Nuclear Licensing - RBNG

P.O. Box 220

St. Francisville, Louisiana 70775

Louisiana State. University,

Government Documents Department-

Louisiana Radiation Control Program Director

bec to DMB (IE45)

bcc distrib by RIV:

DRP

SRI

R..D. Martin, RA

Section Chief (DRP/C)

Lisa Shea, RM/ALF

MIS System

RPB-DRSS

RSTS Operator

Project Engineer (DRP/C)

RIV File

W. Paulson, NRR Project Manager (MS:

13-D-18)

DRS

G. F.-Sanborn, E0

!

w-_

- -.--

_.

__. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.

-

.

MEETING SUMMARY

,

Licensee:

Gulf States Utilities

Facility:

River Bend Station

l

License No.:

NPF-47

j

Docket No.:

50-458

Subject:

Enforcement Conference Concerning NRC Inspection Findings

(NRC Inspection Report 50-458/89-18)

f

On June 9, 1989, an enforcement conference was held in the Region IV office

with representatives of Gulf States Utilities and NRC staff to discuss the

j

findings documented in NRC Inspection Report 50-458/89-18 dated June 6, 1989.

The attendance list is attached.

'

The NRC discussed its concern regarding two apparent violations of NRC

requirements. The licensee discussed the sequence of events, the safety

l

significance of the issues, and corrective actions taken. Handouts prepared by

i

GSU for the meeting are attached (for NRC distribution).

Attachments:

i

'1.

Attendance List-

.

2.

GSU Presentation (NRC distribution)

!

l

}

!

l

i

!

,

_ - _ - -

.

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

.

_ _ _ .

. - -_ -

_ _

m1

_.t.h

W. . .

,

'$-

!

.,

,,

,

(

q;

g

.

w

3.,.

,;

' -

7

-

l ]{.)?,[

'

,

_

, . , . -;

+

1

':n

4

-

<

-

.

J

>

,

p

,

'

i

,'

' J t-:

'

/

y.,

,

ATTENDANCE' LIST:

.

't

.>

.

-

e

,

9,

. f, .

3

Attendance at the' GSU/NRC enforcement conference.'onfJune 9,'1989,' at.'the NRC

3:

Region IV office:

. , .

, m

GSU-

>

t.

?

i. C./ Deddens',' Senior Vice President

'

J.'. E.l Booker, Manager - River Bend Oversight'

-

,

F

L. A. England,l Director, Nuclear Licensing .

.

>;

.T. F. Plunkett, Plant Manager..

..

M. F. Sankovich, Manager, Engineering.

,

.q '

A. J. 'Kugler, System Supervisor.:

.!

-

"

'

W. J. Fountain, Senior QA Engineer '

.

,

.

R. E.LBuell', Acting' Supervisor, B0P. Design

,

v ..

NRC '.

n.

R. Wise, Acting Enforcement Officer

.J. L.: Milhoan, Director, Division of Reactor Projects

'

.

W.' A.fPaulson, Project Manager, Project Directorate.IV, NRR

t

. '

G. . L . Constable,' Chief, Project. Section C -

W. Jones... Resident Inspector

.

m

r

..

\\

4

!

-__ __

- -

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

. _ _

_ _ _ _ _. . _ .

._.

l

M'

.;

.

,

.

,

'

.

1

JJUNE 9,.1989

~'

. ENFORCEMENT. CONFERENCE

.

IAS OPERABILITY DETERMINATION

,

OUTAGE' STATUS

J. Deddens.

,

OVERVIEW.

L. England

>

ls

REVIEW INSTRUMENT AIR SYSTEM

J. Booker

.SSFI/ Generic Letter Activities

'

,

DISCUSSION OF GSU FINDINGS,

EVALUATIONS AND ACTIONS TAKEN

M. Sankovich

Control.-Building

--

.- . Auxiliary Building

' Fuel Building

-

GSU CR PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

T.

Plunkett

(Operability Determination)

ROOT CAUSES/ CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

M. Sankovich

CLOSING' REMARKS

J. Deddens

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

p.

.. ,.

+

. ,c

-.y

y

.

p

u

.

m

f;

,

-

,, L

Control Building

l'

SSFI Results

l

'

e Concern for control room habf tability for 30 days.

~

,

o Dampers were installed according to design.

,

e Dnpers will require air to operate.

e February 1989 - scheduled testing of accumulators for RF-2,

.e

Original ' design calculations indicated two to four days air

supply available.

Design Review

e.

Impractical to have single position failed safe dampers.

,

e.- No design modification was required,

i

e Verified the air users on the Cat I subsystem.

o : Revising P&ID's.

System Test

i~

e Conducted test on accumulator capacity per Generic ' Letter

88-14.

System testing was done with an air bottle and accumulator.

e

e It

was

decided

to make the air bottle a permanent

installation because it provided:

Set-up for future tests.

-

Storage of air in Control Building.

-

,

Backup air supply to accumulator.

-

Test Results/ Modifications

e Test showed that leakage was excessive for the design.

e Presumed to be because of check valve leakage.

+

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

hh.

.%.

R

y

l

..:

-

J

.

>

,

._.

(TestResults-continued)-

.Page 2-

.

..

. .

.

..

-

e SOV's determined to be reversed.; Wrote CR 4/13 and MR 4/19.

e STP-122-3301- showed that the Division I check valve passed-

and that. Division II check. valve failed.-

s

e Operability. decision for' Division I was based on satisfactory

results of STP..

e ' SOV's were reinstalled correctly'. .Both ' check: valves ?were:

' lapped (although one had passed).

e SWEC calculations' reviewed again May 18.. SWEC considered

.;

-SOV's were the leakage boundary.instead of the check. valves-

'

assumed by GSU.

Reported Fuel Building, Control. Building and

e May 18

1

Auxiliary Building previously inoperable. .Done ;within tour

hours of discovery.

e Control Building'. system was now considered operable because

SOV's had been reversed.

e Mey 19 - Division II retested with result that air leakage:

was still high. The control valves (PDCV) now assumed to be

the problem 'of high leakage,

e Accumulators sized too small for this amount of leakage,

e 54ay 19 - Declared the Control Building and Auxiliary Building

inoperable within four hours of evaluating results.

Solution

e Operators were removed from the PDCV valves.

..

e Valves are locked into a fixed position'to control bypass

flow.

e

Installed seismically qualified air bottles, racks

and

}

piping.

Eight bottles per division provides air supply for minimum of

e

48 hours5.555556e-4 days 0.0133 hours 7.936508e-5 weeks 1.8264e-5 months .

i

)

p.,-.~

.

-

g , .;

m

.

,

.

-'

-

'

.-

. Auxiliary Building

-

.

SSFI Rccults

e Dampers installed according to design.

~

e They will require air to operate.

.

e. Driginal design calculations indicated two to four days. air

supply available,

e Wrote CR 88-0942..

Operability judged satisfactory.

-

' Dose rate calculations were acceptable,

f

-

' Accessible location for. air bottles outside the standby

-

gas room.

Adequate time is available.to install air bottles.

-

Deportability unnecessary because system operable.

Design:

e Decided'to install back draft dampers to reduce dependence.on

-

the' accumulator and provide passive system.

e Back draft dampers'not available until October 1989.

e Wrote JCO.

Planned' to' operate by having a provision to install

-

temporary bottles as needed,

Test Results

e Results from May 19 test conducted on the Control Building

consioered applicable to Auxiliary Building.

e Declared inoperable May 19.

"

e Eight bottles per division will

provide air supply for

minimum 30 hours3.472222e-4 days 0.00833 hours 4.960317e-5 weeks 1.1415e-5 months .

I;

Solution

e Installing seismically qualified air bottles, racks and

piping.

e. Back draft dampers will eliminate need for air bottle.

b

- -_

.---

-

.

a.

.

-

.

k

.

Page-4

-

Fuel Building

-

I

p

1

I

SSFI Results

e ' Dampers were installed-according to design.

L

.e

Require air to operate.

.e

CR 88-0956.

Original design calculations ~ indicated minimum of two

i

-

days air supply.

!

- Adequate time to install bottle.

Dose calculations were acceptable.

-

Accessible location for air bottle installation.

<

-

Operability judge satisfactory.

--

Design Review

Decided to change position of four dampers to fail safe and-

e

make the system' passive.

e Addition

of

air bottles would have been satisfactory -

solution. Enhanced solution was.to change four -dampers to

fail. safe position eliminating need for air.

. Testing

,

e' Not required.

)

.

Conclusion

System was considered to be operable at all times because air

i

e

I

supply was thought to be two to five days.

e Design change considered to be an enhancement

not

a

,

>

requirement.

)

!

,

9

~_____1_______.________.___1_

__._____;_._

gl O;,' l . - . . *.

..

.

,

-

"

q-

p

.

y,

-e

ll':$l,.

' ,

_

l-

.J ' -

,

Root Cause/ Corrective Action

,-

,

Root Cause

gr%

e . Failure to 411tNp CR's promptly.

'

e Failure to communicate full; extent of problem to Shift

Supervisor.

'

e Failure to take prompt action on CR when an operational

status needed. to be determined.

Corrective Action -

!

i

e Emphasize 10CFR50.72/50.73, and ADM-0019 (CR) in training'for

i

engineers.

e JCO's will be documented in greater detail with discussion of

operability and thought process involved.

e Engineering to . determine extent of

i

other systems may be similarly affected) problem (i.e. how may

'

.

s Cat I IAS accumulator testing will be done on an RF basis.

e Revise CR report form to insure that the

operability

considerations are emphasized.

1

i

'

l'

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_

. - _ . .

j

'

B/A

5

2VC

E DS

L P R

P

E

S

MKP

R

A VM

E

X HA

S

E 1

D

U

R

O

F

.

S

h

A

^

C

~

A

V

(

S@ )

E

O

-

C

S

E

KE

S

\\A

CV

EL

HA

CV

E

M '

SA

-

N

O

h

N

S

R

O

S

E

R

P

M

O

C

ML20245F460

Text

Navigation menu

Search