ML20128N072

Insp Rept 50-458/85-23 on 850301-0430.Violation Noted: Failure to Monitor Temp During HVAC Leak Testing,To Calibr Test Instrument in Range of Use & to Stamp Procedure for Notification of QA

ML20128N072
Person / Time
Site:	River Bend
Issue date:	05/24/1985
From:	Chamberlain D, Craig Harbuck, Jaudon J, Whittlesey K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20128N050	List: ML20128N044 ML20128N052 ML20128N072
References
50-458-85-23, NUDOCS 8506030167
Download: ML20128N072 (9)

See also: IR 05000301/2004030

Text

-'

T

,

+

-

.

" , -

.

s

h

eA PENDIX B'-

>

. . .

• i

.S.~ NUCLEAR.REGULA'ORY.C0!HISSION

~

T

. REGION IV '-

l'

1

'

} 'n ,

-

v

-

m

NRC Inspection Report: 50-458/85-23

.

Permit:

CPPR-145

'

.r

,

'

-l Docket: 50'458

/~

-

-+

.

.

-

u

,

Licensee: Gulf States' UtilitiesJCompany (GSU).

"

[,

P. O. Box-2951

..

'

g.

Beaumont,. Texas,, 77704

,

>

.

Facility Name: River Bend Staban (RBS)'

-

.

.

,

r .

..

!In'spection.At:. River Bend Station, St. Francisville, LA

!nspection.Conductedi March 1 through April 30,1 1985

I

.

.

'

/A/)

f NY dE

.'

Inspect :

.

.Cpmb

ain, SenYor Resident Inspector

Date '

.

d/n-

-

o

/w

w

.

,

.C. .{ar

c[,. Reactor Inspector

Date

n/rr

'

'

.

--

An

T

K

A.ph tle'sey, Rhactor Inspector

Dath

~ Approvedi

Lt.4/

/A

f $f

S

-

'

-.

,

J.f.J/ddon,/jectBranch1i

Chief, Project Section A

. Dat'e

ms

6eactW Pro

'

.

,

, Inspection Summary

lInspect' ion Conducted March 1'through April 30, 1985 (Report 50-458/85-23)

,

"*9 Areas Inspected: -Routine,. unannounced inspection of licensee action on

-

previous inspection findings,: site tours, quality assurance for preoperational

-

testing, quality assurance / quality control administration, preoperational test -

,,

'- ~

• witness and heating, ventilation, and air' conditioning (HVAC) testing

l allegation. The inspection involved 313 inspector-hours onsite by three NRC

inspectors.

I

.

,

G

-

,

L

-

s

'

EKg;4

.

.

, . .

.

. ,.

-

_

'

.

,

'

,'

'

<

'

'

'

'

'

-

e-

~

s

y

.

<

,-

.

+

,

.;

i

"'t

,

'

'

u

+

"

- ;'

s

_

,

1

_u.,

,

,

g,

y

v. -

c:-

-

__

$

' 't

.

.

e.

/'

,.

-

~-2--

, " . . - . . . .

.

'

,

,

.c

.

.

n.

-

,

.

'

-

.y<yny

.- . - -

Withintheareas-inspected,oneviolationwasidentified,inlihearea- .

_

-

- -

,

..

~

W .

Results: ,

rocedure:for notification of / "'

'

of preoperational test witness (failure to stamp p/were identified in .the? area r

quality. assurance, paragraph 6) and two violations

'

,

S of HVAC testing (failure to monitor temperature during HVAC. leak' testing andc

1

%.

~

' '

'

, failure'to calibrate test instrument in range'of useyparagraph7)./4

.

-

.

.,:

.4

-

f,v y

<

,

~

'

>

t-

.

4

4

1

,

.,

. 0

- ,

.

p

,'

,

,

,

,

_

e

y

IM

.M

_,

f

5

M

-

..g

5

-

3

.

y

h

6

,

'

'

i

, , ,

y.

+

w

(

-

3

,%

-

' .

,3. .

~ . .

,

,-

,

' ^*.

.1,1 :

-

r

v

. .

s

!"_.

L

"

,

e

.s

g

' O]

< >

,

'

k.

5q

,

-

3

"

-

4

J

,f

J

-

,

,

,

r

N

J 5

.I_ f

f

Y

,

.-

.A

r

E

, .*

>; '

~ ,

j..

_

,

t

>

%

e

'r

-

I

Y,

t

Y

._

i

,

j-f

g'

g -;7

O-

.t~,

,

' '

<

.,

'; b. ;

.

4

'

%

g

Y, r

- ,

(V

_

,

h

~ ;j ,

'

,.

i! '

4-

y

e

,

-R.

. 7

- p,

4

$

$

,

?

=

, ',

• . * +

.

y

,

.

c

7

.

_ ' f "l

N,

W

'

1

0

m

'

-

f

'

-

s

,

,

.

__

, r

.

,

L_

_

s

'

_

, jl

l

'

-

.

u,

.

_

3

s

,

S- i

'

'i-

_

, .

'

_S.

cy;ff ,

'

l'

-

,

_

-

3

'

>

,,

f, .

,

~

-

_D_ET_ AILS

1. ~

- '

'

'

'

-

. ,.

_

'1.

Persons Contacted

'

s;

%.

.

.,

'l'PrincipAlJLicenseeEmployees

'

'

-;~

c

..

,

.

.

.

.

.

N

'<

' '

'*W. H. -Cahill, Jr.. . Senior Vice President, River Bend Nuclear. Group

-

.

-

3

< R.s E. Bailey, Supervisor,-Quality Control '(QC)

,

-

' , , ,

-# E.: F. Christnot, Quality Assurance (QA) Engineer.

'

'

6#*TU F.'.Crouse,'QA Manager. .

_ .

,.

.

'

_. ; > ,

_ P.'J.?Dautel, Licensing Staff Assistant.:

,

Aa

=#*J."C

Deddenss.Vice President, River. Bend: Nuclear Group'

N ' '"

> D'.~ R. ,Derbonne, Supervisor, Startup'and Test'

-

ti

.

T. Fredieu, Assistant Operations Supervisor -

1. , .

,' ; #*P.E E. .Freehill, Superintendent, Startup and-Test'

N-

4

e,

,

a7, .

-

GE f

-K. Giadrosich,: Senior QA. Engineer .

'. ~

1

J~ ' sp

1. 0! R. Gipson, Assistant Plant' Manager, Operations

-

'

.

'

+'

P. 'D.: Graham," Assistant Plant- Manager, Services

-

1

r TJ.;R."Hamiltony Supervisor . Nuclear Steam Supply. Systems Projects

"

'-

. .

!'

'#*R.L Wf Helmick,. Director,' Projects

'

.

i

' !

",L#,K. Ce Hodge!i, Supervisor, Quality Systems

_

"

e

>D.sJernigan,' Engineer,'Startup and Test

'

w-

5, +

o #*G;.R.cKimmell=-Supervisor,70perations'QA'

'

?

,

h' . '

'

W.- H. Odell, Manager,~ Administration

/

.-

,

~i

. "J.

L.- Pawlik, Engineer, Startup:and Test

'

,

,.

< - 4, '

1. • T.lLFPlunkett,;PlantManager-

,'i

1. TJ; E. Spi.v.ey, QA Engineer

.

.

'

# R. B. ~ Stafford, Director, Quality Services

~

s

-

~

' # K. E.:.Suhrke, Manager Project Planning & Coordination

-

'

1. • P.. F.: Tomlinson, . Director, Operations QA

--

-

'

- D.~ White, Engineer, Startup and. Test-

.

,

Stone and Webster ,

,

_

-

i

- '

'

1. ' D.' P. Barry, Sup'erintendent of Er.girieering

,

w

1. W. I. Clifford,' Senior Construction Manager

'

<

- S. Dhingra, Senior HVAC- Enginee'r;

#.:F. W. Finger, III, Project Manager,' Preliminary Test Organization (PTO)

.

M. Fischete, Engineer, Startup and Test.

B.- R. Hall, Assistant Superintendent, Field Quality Control (FQC).

,

_

j

.

-

T.;K. Ham, Senior Field Engineer

~

'

'.'J. A. Pepperman,. Hydro Test Engineer.

-

,

'R.'L. Spence _, Superintendent, FQC

-

,

- e:

(

.

.

s

~

" *

_

e

U

,

g-

~

+

'

3

._

y:f

~ n.EM 3

.

'

~

~

~

~

y

,

r

g.

.

-Mygtr v

-

..

,

-

,=

.:

y .'-

i

"-

• .

~

tr-

g

, >-

, . .

Q"

^

3;m ' w

.

.

+

,

4,

-

,

,

,

Q.

i

'

~

,}p

~

"

' ,

.

,

,

_ q.

-4

-

.

e

o

.

.

<

p-

-

_

.a

,

_

,

V

The'NRC$nior: resident. inspector (SRI): also interviewed additional

.

. ,

.

>

m

~

o.."e

licensee,; Stone and Webster (S&W),;and other contractor personnel during'

' '

.,

T 7^

M the11nspection; period.

'

c

- %

-

+

.

r

e

_

.je.

'

-

<

,

y

,

i

7 ;;.: + sy -

.

~3

-

- .

g

.

-

1

% - / .* Denotes those persons that-attended the exit' interview conductelon

ii

1J

1. ? March 28,31985..

'

-

.

,_

.

x

,

s

a.

a--

,

-

,

,

["

1. Denotes"those'personsthatattended'the^exitinterviANconductedon

?

, ,

gg

n LMay 20', 1985.'

1

,

..

.

x

#,

-

<

a

z

<

,

License Netion on' Previous Inspection 1 Find'ings

I

,

c , 5 d 2 b

'"

x

S.:[ Q

. c

.. .

1

.

.

.

.

Review of' corrective action:taken <

.

'

Y .:

(Closed): 10 pen Item (458/8320-03):

~ .

m.

'

"

f

'

a.

'O.3"

.by;GSU; relative to a 'stop work order on procurement of ~ spare partsn '

..%-

3

w

-

WW

% %~E

!from' General Electric!(GE) Company.:

-A'

'

.g

.

.

.

,

(N

,%

..Alstop' work 7directiveNasiissued on November 14, 1983, becauselof

-

[

~

-

v ', ; x

< inconsistencies':with documentation for purchased spare parts from GE.

,

These inconsistencies were-noted during an internal: audit perfonned -

~

.'

e

.

h

' - t% 'by GSU QA.- EAfter formulating the . required ~ corrective ' action-plan,'

d

- ya

the!stop work directive was ;1iftedLon January l17,31984.; The internal-

, W W audit identified 16 quality l assurance; finding reports

(QAFRs)lwhich; - 's

W.

-

'

?

~

"a

m' , 4J

L a

required correctivA action.K >The required corrective action has been.

gi

e

y ;'jcompleted and all 16.QAFRs havelbeen closed by GSU QA.

u

w

. ..

~

.

n

<

+

-

NP

This item is' closed..

'

-

( @t

w.sl.*

_-

-

.

,

~

,

<1

+

'

v

-~

.

e

-

.,

u.

4.

5 a b? -(Closed).l0pensItem(458/540-01):

Issue of revised pro..cedures fore >

t

1

su

j]c

1,_ , l Q reentry control;into previously clean 7 systems.

.

s

,

e

-

vy , @m

y v% @ , M Procedures CSI41.0.13 and PTPD 5.2-'were revised;to strengthen'

y,

-

,7

., +;

/fi

,

^'

^"

hq? %; S hy

req'uirements' for reentry control-into clean-systems to~ prevent

-;$

'

g.g

7i"

' contamination or degradation. Observation-of work-practices by(the

y ' '. ,

p pc

g .

.4'

' SRI' revealed generally. good control of system and area cleanness", -

'

'

D,

i 17 '

during[' rework; activities..

"

7

~ 7 4 ;fi

~

',.

.

>

>

4

"'

i

Thi s,it'em i s _ clos'ed. -

.

v

.

3 y, p; , s -

y

.

.

g,

-

W/f

c..J(Closed).N0 pin > Item'(458/8410-02):

Ebasco completion of corrective

1. T

,

,. W@ '

,,3 action'in; response;to GSU audit of the "Ebasco Services Incorporated?

y

-

c

s

M.

9 f'. Spare Parts / Material Program."

'

'

v

. . .

a

-G"[h

NS

An. audit report was issuel on April l'7, 1984, for the;GSU.QAl audit of'

~

~

the "Ebasco Spare Parts / Material Program" conducted from March 19

,.through March 28, 1984.- Seven QAFRs were-issued as a result of this

,

'

,

audits The~ required corrective action in response to the QAFRs was L

-

,-

subsequently completed by Ebasco and all seven QAFRs have been closed -

t

>

'

,

~by GSU QA.

-

,

.

-

?-

iThis item is closed.

'

'

i

.

,

x

,

,

Eg

,. .',

.

A

+

_.

' .

I

,.

-

- C'

v

-

-

w-

_

e

E

-

g

.

--

k

b

-5-

=

N

'

=

d.

(Closed) Open Item (458/8410-03):

Licensee effort on IE Bulletins

L

to assure that required actions are being implemented for individual

-

bulletin reviews.

-

GSU plant staff and licensing'are maintaining files on all bulletins

[_

which includes documentation of. reviews conducted and action taken.

L

Bulletins received / reviewed prior to the issue of administrative

-

procedure ADM-34, "Offsite Document Review and Information

E

Assimilation," are being reviewed by plant staff to assure that

5

required actions have been identified / implemented.

E

-

g

This item is closed.

-

[a

e.

(Closed) UnresolvedItem(458/8431-01): Test Instruction (TI) 17,

-" Test Controls," Revision 5, did not require independent

--

verification for placing or removal of temporary modifications as.

E

required by Regulatory Guide 1.33.

{

FSAR Secti6n 14.'2.7, Amendment 15, commits to full implementation of'

Regulatory Guide 1.33 with initial plant'startup after fuel load and

only limited application during preoperational' testing. The limited

' application-does not include the requirement of independent

b

verification for placing'or removal of temporary modifications.-

l

TI-17 was revised to indicate that it only applies during the

i

performance of all preliminary, acceptance, and preoperational tests.

b

n

This item is closed.

It

f.

(Closed) Violation (458/8431-02): The remote shutdown system

--

'

preoperational test does not demonstrate in conjunction with any

g

other preoperational test that the three designated safety relief

[

valves can be operated from the remote shutdown panel.

=

Master punch list (MPL) No. I was added to the automatic

F

depressurization system (ADS) to cause the preoperational test for

E

ADS to' include those steps of the remote shutdown system test to

_

"

demonstrate the three designated safety relief v61ves operation from

-

the remote shutdown panel. Also, TI 3. " Changes to Test Procedures,"

E

was revised to state that when a major change request (MCR) deletes a

-y

requirement from a procedure and states that the requirement will be

t

addressed in a different procedure, the author of the MCR shall

E

ensure that the requirement is appropriately added to the affected

MPL. Additionally, all other preoperational test procedures were

y

reviewed by startup personnel to ensure that FSAR commitments were

a

properly addressed.

[

t

This item is closed.

-

,

.

-

--

... _ _.

.

s

. . . .

. . .

.

-6-

g.

(Closed) Violation (458/8431-03):

Redundant Class 1E wiring

internal to the remote shutdown panel IC61*PNLP001 does not meet the

minimum separation distance of 6 inches.

Field deviation disposition request No. LDI-2487 and engineering and

design coordination report Nos. C-52,695 and C-68,781 were issued to

provide the required electrical separation internal to the remote

shutdown panel. The rework of the panel wiring has been completed.

The inspection of GE supplied non-PGCC panels that have more than one

division wiring has been completed and no additional separation

problems were identified.

This item is closed.

h.

(Closed) Open Item (458/8434-02): Diesel generator preoperational

test procedure step was signed off as completed without verification

of the " Ready To Load" condition and without procedure 10I 302.2

available to the operator at the test location.

The " Ready To Load" condition for the diesel generator was sub-

sequently verified and a replacement copy of 101 302.2 was placed in

the control room. Training of startup and test personnel was

completed to stress the importance of strict compliance to

procedures.

This item is closed.

3.

Site Tours

The SRI toured areas of the site during the inspection period to gain

knowledge of the plant and to observe general job practices.

Site tours

conducted included special tours on separate occasions with Commissioner

Asselstine and Commissioner Zech.

No violations or deviations were identified in this area of inspection.

4.

Quality Assurance For Preoperational Testing

In this area of inspection, the SRI reviewed the training and

qualifications of QA personnel involved with preoperational testing

activity surveillance. The present program establishes minimum

qualification requiremer.ts for supervisory personnel, but there are no

formal minimum educational, experience, or qualification requirements for

QA engineers. However, GSU does have position descriptions for desired

qualifications of QA personnel, and they have managed to assemble an appar-

ently qualified staff of QA surveillance engineers in the operations QA

.

__

-

-- --

w,

,

_ '

,t

fMi

/

.n

m:

1 -

-

-

,

,

.

,

'

'

<

'

-

x

e

,

,.

. -

.,-7-

gm,

organization..Minimumtraining~reqdirementsforQAsurveillance. engineers

W

'

,

7

',

include QA indoctrination and: required reading of applicable procedures'or'

,,

,

, instructions required for job, performance.. A review of training records .

.,

".b-

.by,the SRI revealed that the QA surveillance engineers'have' received the

-

minime training, and most are receiving'a,significant amount'of:

.L_

additional training.7Certain individuals are being given systems

'

5 . pe

. raining, and some.are being' trained for . senior reactor operator-

~

certification.j It is-apparent;that1.there is a strong commitment to

m

_

-

-training by the QA. organization?

N

. . .

I o violations or deviation's'were, identified:in~~this area ~of inspection,

'

- ibut the-SRI encouraged the QA management to formalize specific' minimum

,

.

V

- > qualification and training requireme'nts for performance of QA surveillance

-

.

~

_

. activities.

'

+

,5.;; Quality Assurance / Quality Control Administration

l

sTh s area of inspectioniincluded a review of how GSO identifies those'

i

'

'

'

' T" ' ' , e

" structures,' systems and^componen.ts to.which the QA program applies and

.

,

/ reviews'the established mechanisms for reviewing and evaluating the QA. .

'

s

_

-l

l program.

In addition to the' quality category being noted on drawings and-

^

'

.ispecifications, GSU has. developed a Q-list which will identify those '

. f-

-

,

%

y

n4

l structures, systems and components to which the;QA program applies.:

'

'

^

However, this? list was .not:all inclusive, and' the procedures for control

,

,

M and1use of'the Q-list were not issued'at the time of the SRI review..;This

~

j, ;f '

.will'be rev.iewed further during a future inspection (0 pen-Item

..

'a

8523-01).

4

s:~% .

.

y

. .

.

y

' y u_/ q.: 4 ; Established mechanisms ~for reviewing *an'dleval'uating the'QA program ~ include-

,

,y

~'t

2 A i' W findependent' audits, trending of QA findings, and routine-review of status'~

%D

.

. $ reports. aThe QA' program is modified'to provide: increased emphasis in'

'

l fj , W ' iproblem' areas.as necessary. The formal trending' program for.QA findings:

,

PA..

was initiated in 1984Pbut the -effe'ctiveness'of that program has- not yet'

?,

Wg

] heen Edemonstrated as 'satisfactoryh

'(

'

'

m :, 4

s.,

m

'

f L o violations or, deviations were' identified in this area of inspection.-

,

.N

I'

g4

.

s

.

-

$. m7

6.

. Preoperational Test Witness-

.

.

a

7

-+

-

L; @W >

%

. g

.

.

_3

.

-

,

,, #

<

,

SThe SRI,'with assistance of two NRC Region'~IV~ inspectors, witnessed.thef

&

^ n; <

cperformance 'of zl~-PT-210, " Integrated ECCS and. Loss of.0ffsite Power," ~ and ;

'

M

- J1-SST-14, " Load Shedding and Sequence," and the SRI also witnessed a

'1

~

- portion of 1-PT-508, " Reactor Protection," during this inspection period. ~

.

(

. , -;The. iresults of the~ witness of these test. are as follows:

-

.t

.:

.

~

" Integrated ECCSLand Loss of Offsite: Power" - The primary purpose off

• 'a.-

<

,

b, -

f^'

sthis preoperationalLtest was to demonstrate the ability to: provide

.

.e.mergency core cooling during a partial or complete loss of offsite.

,

,

q

n,g

.' power (LOP)y The specific objectives of the' test included-

H

,

.

.

.

_

,

i

-p

'

3

,

'

,

,

f

!

1 , d

- 3

.

y

(

,

~

,

.

..

,

7

..

-

M - -

.. -

--

.

'.

. - n[ 7 E}[ t '

'

' '

^

'

~

.-

- - .

- +

~

tk h. .

.?

"N '. d 92 [h

ifM[;E

JD

_ +

__

i

'

1

a nywm

g -?yk

'

"

$ ' ;? ~,

'

,

E*" 4 ; c

.- ,

~?.

1

,

.

h 4, G? ?; i

,

2

k

'hi

N' '

~~

i

'

'

. % Qjs ' uv i ;v;j#

r

-'

n

-

y -

s

3

. . .

3

~ Y,' %

.f

i^

Y

<

~

y

g yp&p n .;

.

Wji _

$ p;n -

,

.

. 8-

-

,

g . w , y. ~ , ..

,

-

- -

u ce

.

m

r

-.

[3

i

-

"

,n

,

2

a

. ;m

i;sb N

.

' p;; y

f

- ' '

N

,

es '

7

..

,

i

-

s

. _

.

idemonstrating"thd" capability 7off1oad.sheddingandsequencing,

"

"

.

~

demonstrating ~the: ability of<the~emergencyfcore cooling systems

jN% v;

?(ECCS) to realign and to inject rated flow to the(vessel-within the-

M y &

Xprescribed period of time,' demonstrating:the ability offthe diesel

-

7

i

ee

generators?to. maintain ECCS loads.: demonstrating independence'of

,

yi '

J

standby busesland correct' assignment of; loads and1 demonstrating,.

P%m,

under worst case. conditions, that the' measured DC' system loads .and

Od

. battery vol.tage levels are consistent with battery sizing criteria.

yM@ Mci

ew.

_

and that the:DCJsystem loads sremain operable at the resulting voltage 1

9

-

t

'c,'y

plevels.VThe above. test objectives were accomplished by performing

'

-

'

,

m ". ^

x isix'subtests, and all six subtests'were witnessed by'the NRC

-

4

M' ':

c. inspectors? The SRI"noted:after an: unsuccessful attempt to perform'

'

,9

1

test #1 that the test procedure had_not-been stamped for notification

.

-

%, ,.

,.

'

N :of operations qualityLassurance (0QA) as required-by TI 8, " Conduct

. '

J

wi.

'ofiTesting." This' failure (to'stampithe procedure for 0

. ;.

- notification was identified by theiSRI'as a violation (QA

_ 852302).

<

-

',";yk.

Violation

,

F

The SRI did note'that,Lalthough the; procedure was'not stamped,"QC s

1

'

_

.m

,

',.

w.

witness of the test performance was provided;;The = procedure was ' .

.

'

"

'

,- -

. subsequently stamped by- the test e_ngineer and_ both.QC witness;and'QA '

- -

~

.

.

surveillance was then provided for. performance of all sections;of the

m

3

~

s

m lc

test. c During the performance'of- the six subtests,1several problems

'

,

-

V)S.

o were encountered which re, quired subsequent-retests. The problems

.

~

~

g' ~ . " . ~

- encountered ' ranged from' equipment failures to improper test alignments..

<

"-

w

, 3 : All?of the-problems =were identified,and: documented by thez licensee-

..

S

Land the required retests were performed. The SRI identified n'o~other~ %

.

.

~

W Eproblems with the conduct of this test..

,

'

f.

'

-

?

?a

'

- f, y

Nb l

g

x'

.

~ b .1

?" Load Shedding & Sequencing":- The. purpose of this test was toltest;

~

' .'

A

l functionally load shedding and Lsequencin' 'of applicable equipmentLin

4g

. fresponse' to a simulated LOP, concurrent with ~a loss; of coolant (LOCA)L

'

g

~

a

,

,

,

,w

.

n1 signal.1 This.testnincluded verificationfof the inad sequence? times

- 'm

1

"

'fa

to meet the: intent of FSAR Section.14.2.12.1.44.

The division I and

-

,

ilIste.sts were witnessed by the NRC inspectors anditheJt'est was-

%.

D

4

~

=

QM

]

s

,

.

[ con ~ductedin~accordancewithproceduralrequirements.

-

"

4

,

f!

7 No? violations 'orideviations"were identified in this area' of-

-

-

,

4 8 I T , [ , M jinspe.ction,b,

-

s

^'

V

a

.

,,g

, . , . _

.

c. #"hactor Protection" - The SRI witnessid= the: performance of'the

~

'

--

.

.

~

'

F

$%/F

'

, $Woltagefand frequency trip checks-'of;the electrical 1 protection : ,

M

HWQ:CW H ~ assembliesS(EPAs)~which provide AC power to .the reactor protection

Of

,

gg@Mg

, J requirements we'resimplemented..

My

.

system.; Thes'elhecks were' performed satisfactorily.and procedural

. q; - 6

nw y,7

7/,a

M

y,

3

-

w.

m

,

,

~ '

'

n

/s;g M D w eNo Siolations or deviations were'identifie'd in this2 area of;

. ,

(d

wg1n7,1

^ ? inspection. N

'

"

e

,

y' 3

j

'-

3

,.

'

} ]IU; ,$j,

k.

p

_

k1

'

'h

5b j

' [

'

g

.

,

,.

> 'y f qo . t

,

c

/ -

• -

'

.,

,

h ' W'

& ,]

F.

Q

4-

,.

3). L

,1

,

j;

y

'3,

"

'

24

-

t

.

- ,A

g

% q.

-

+

c

JQi.

f:$

lq

'~p'

>

,

.,

,

s~

'"

'

.-

(

• N',

N'/

N}

-

'

'

m '.i

i

-#

.

+

'

s;m.:s

-

.s

I; k-[ N[,4 4 -._

9

.S

,

V

aM

,

. - . . , , - - -, .

.

--

.- - - ~~ - - - .- +

~

,- ~ ,,-,,,

-- -. . .

.

,

<

' -

, , ,

n

y

'

-e

,

\\-

p

,:&

.

-

-

h

2

'

'

><

- %

"

-9-

, -,,

l

~

L

-

7.

HVAC Testing-

1This' area of' inspection:resulted from anonymous allegations received-by

4

NRC Region IV regarding the conduct of duct pressure _and leak testing for

HVACLsystems:at River Bend. An NRC consultant reviewed the HVAC testing

farea conformance with applicable regulations from January 28 through

? February 1,1985, and the SRI continued the review of the allegation items

_

-during this inspection period. Two violations were identified by.the-SRI-

'

during this review. These violations were a' failure to monitor

' temperature during)HVAC leak -testing as required by' ANSI N-510-1980

(Violation 8523-03 and a failure to calibrate the Singer Company -

u

-

Model DMT-325, Control No.12789, gas meter at the. flow rates used during

leak test. performance as required by Criterion XII of Appendix-B to

'

10 CFR Part 50 (Violation 8523-04). \\Since the HVAC duct testing was being.

- performed by 'S&W and the. allegation items appeared to have ~ merit as

J evidenced by the violations noted, the SRI conducted a pecial NRC exit

,

meeting on~ March 28, 1985, with GSU management to present the findings of-

,

the review' of HVAC testing activities.and to request GSU to conduct their

.own review of HVAC_ testing activities.

GSU immediately took action to assemble a special audit team-to conduct an

-in depth audit of HVAC testing activities. The GSU audit began at the S&W

Cherry Hill _' design office'on April 1,1985, and continued later at the

River: Bend site.

m

All of the allegation-areas were addressed by the GSU audit and in

addition -to the violations identified by the SRI, ten QAFRs were

identified as a result of the audit.

Because of the problems identified with conduct of duct pressure and leak-

testing, the licensee made a decision to conduct a 100. percent retest of

4

the HVAC. systems at River Bend. 'In duct exhaust areas, such as the stack,

the licensee- conducted an analysis to demonstrate the'effect of worst case

leakage. This analysis concluded that stack pressure / leak was not

required to meet the ANSI:509' requirements. The SRI' concluded that proper.

action' has been taken by GSU in response to the NRC request and that all .

4

of the allegation concerns will be addressed by the subsequent retests of

.HVAC duct ' systems. - The allegation items are considered closed with only

,

followdp by the SRI required to monitor retest and close out of open

.

findings identified (0 pen Item 8523-05).

,

'

~8..- l Exit Interviews-

'

Exit interviews were conducted March 28 and May 20, 1985, with licensee-

representatives (identified in paragraph'1). During this interview, the

~

' SRI rev_tewed the scope and findings of the inspection.

,

r

R -