ML20133B888

Insp Rept 50-458/85-49 on 850617-21.Violation Noted:Failure to Perform Adequate Review of Preoperational Test Results for CRD Hydraulic Sys

ML20133B888
Person / Time
Site:	River Bend
Issue date:	08/01/1985
From:	Craig Harbuck, Jaudon J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20133B812	List: ML20133B808 ML20133B838 ML20133B888
References
TASK-2.K.1, TASK-TM 50-458-85-49, NUDOCS 8508060282
Download: ML20133B888 (6)

See also: IR 05000458/1985049

Text

.

9

-

s

,

-

APPENDIX B ,

I

U. S.-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,

REGION IV

o

J

NRC Inspection Report: 50-458/85-49 C'onstruction Permit: CPPR-145 ,

I Docket: 50-458

Licensee: Gulf States Utilities

P. 0. Box 2951 -

Beaumont, Texas 77704

Facility Name: River Bend Station

Inspection At: St. Francisville, Louisiana

Inspection Conducted: June 17-21, 1985

Inspector:

/ #

C. C. Harbuck, Jeactor Inspector, Project Section A Date

Reactor Project Branch 1

Approved: [ Mjj / b

J P[ Ja n, 'Chie'f, Profect Section A, Reactor Date

rbject ranch

Inspection Summary

. Inspection Conducted June 17-21, 1985 (Report 50-458/85-49)

' Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of preoperational test

results and licensee actions in regard to previous NRC inspection findings. The

inspection involved 36 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.

Results: Within the two areas inspected, one violation was identified (failure

to perform adequate review of preoperational test results, paragraph 3.b).

D h y g 458

,, PDR

v

LI \ j

E -

.

.

J

2

DETAILS

.

1. Persons Contacted

Gulf States Utilities.

• T. C. Crouse,' Manager Quality Assurance

• P. J.'Dautel, Licensing Staff Assistant

• J. C. Deddens, Vice President - River Bend Nuclear Group

.D. R. Derbonne, Preoperational Test Supervisor

• P. E. Freehill, Superintendent Startup and Test

• D..R. Gipson, Assistant Plant Manager - Operations / Chemistry /Radwaste

• G. R. Kimmell, Supervisor Operations Quality Assurance

• G. V. King, Plant Services Supervisor

• T. F. Plunkett, Plant Manager

• S. R. Radebaugh, Assistant Superintendent - Startup and Test

! *S. F. Sawa, Startup and Test Controls Supervisor

• J. E. Spivey, Operations Quality Assurance Engineer

• P. F. Tomlinson, Director Operations Quality Assurance

• A. Valenzuela, -Startup and Test Engineer

• J. Venable, Mechanical Maintenance Supervisor

Other Personnel

• P. H. Griffin, Stone and Webster, Site Advisory Manager

'J. Pawlik, General Electric, Startup and Test Engineer

The NRC inspector.also contacted other license ~e p'ersonnel including

administrative and test personnel.

• Indicates attendance at exit interview on June-21, 1985.

2. Licensee Actions Taken in Regards to Previous Inspection Findings

-

a. (0 pen) Open Item'(8520-03) " Control Building Chilled Water Compres- ,

. sors, A and B, Load Sevisnce Relay Settings." Currently, category

II relays are installeu, as a temporary system modification, instead

, of the required Category I relays, which are on order. This item

will remain open until the Category I relays have been installed, set

in accordance with the current Set Point Data Sheet,'and the Chillers

have been properly tested to demonstrate they shed and sequence ontat

'

<

the correct times.

b. (Closed) Violation (8520-05) " Performance of Time Delay Control Relay

Set Point Verification Testing." The NRC inspector reviewed the

licensee's response letter to the NRC, dated June 7, 1985, concerning

this violation, and verified that the corrective actions stated

1- __ _ -.

'

.

,

3

therein had been completedias stated. It was further determined

that the preventive corrective action to avoid further. violations in

this area appeared to be adequate. . This item is therefore considered

. . closed.

c. Post TMI Action Plan Requirement- Item II.K.1.5 Assurance of Proper

~ Engineering Safety Features Functioning - This item requires the

~

licensee to have,a system for keeping track of manual valve positions

for safety-related systems and, in particular, to include all the

manual valves that are in the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS)

mandatory flow paths, to ensure that operators know the status of

ECCS system at all times.

Findings: The applicant has revised Administrative Procedure

No. 0020, " Key Control." This procedure establishes the methods for

access to and control of: Locked Valves, among other things. This

revision resulted_in the-procedure specifically stating that all

man 61 valves in the ECCS mandatory flow paths are to be included, by

valve number, on-the list of all valves that are nomally locked.

This list is maintained by.the General Operations Supervisor (G0S)

and is kept in the Shift Supervisor's office.. In addition to this

list, the_ procedure now directs the Shift Supervisor to maintain an

exceptions-list for all valves which are not in'their normal position

, as specified by the G0S's list. From this it is concluded that the

applicant has a satisfactory system for keeping track of the posi-

tions.of the manual valves in the ECCS mandatory flow paths to aid

[ the operators in assuring the proper functioning of engineered safety

features.

These findings also apply-to Confirmatory Item 62 and to the equire-

i ments of IE-Bulletin 79-08, Item 6. These three items are th(refore

considered closed.

3. . Preoperational Test Results

. < The purpose of this area of the inspection was to verify that the accep-

~ tance criteria for each procedure reviewed had been met and that the

, licensee had reviewed the procedure and resolved all test exceptions in

accordance with the Startup Manual (SUM).

'a. Preoperational Test 1-PT-309-2, Standby Diesel Generator 1EGS*EG1B

,

The NRC inspector reviewed the Official Field Copy of the pre-

operational test for standby diesel generator 1 EGS*EGIB, and veri-

fied that all test exceptions had been resolved in accordance with

the SUM and-that all acceptance criteria appeared to have been met.

The NRC inspector therefore concluded that "B" standby diesel genera-

tor appeared to have been adequately tested.

'

L:

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

'

4

,

.i '

,

4

-

, -

,

4

b'. ,Preoperational Test 1-FT-052, Control Rod Drive Hydraulic.

The NRC inspector reviewed all portions.of the Official Field Copy of

-the control; rod drive hydraulic system preoperational test, although

~

'

~

only.certain portions of.it are considered directly.related to

. safety.- Despite-the problems found with'the conduct of the test, as

s -

.noted below, the NRCrinspector concluded that'the. portions of the

'

< test having a direct. bearing on safety had apparently been. tested

satisfactorily.

.

-s

The15UM was written to assure that all testing at RBS is conducted in

a proper manner and that all; regulatory requirements are fulfilled.

. (" SUM Introduction," Revision 10, T 1.2.1.) This-is done'through the

! individual'. Test Instructions, or tis, of the SUM. TI-5, " Joint Test

. Group," defines the-responsibilities of the Joint Test Group (JTG).

.

c one of-JTG's ' responsibilities is to ensure that the preoperational-

test' program is' conducted in conformance'with the SUM (TI-5,

T'3.3.1.2). PLrt;ofl this responsibility Lis met by fulfilling another

JTG' responsibility'- the review and approval of all preoperational

4

test results'(TI-5, 1 3.3.1.6). - This, responsibility is based upon

10 CFR=Part,50, Appendix B, Criterion XI, which states, in part, that

test results shall be' documented and evaluated to assure that test

-

requirementshave'.beefsatisfied.

The NRC inspector found that.the JTG had failed to fulfill. adequately

its review and approval. responsibility _as evide'nced by the following

'

problems: i

f. '(1) Nonconformances to'TI-8, " Conduct of Testing":

! * Test Exceptions (TEs) - TE-02,.TE-0'7, TE-17, an'd TE-26 did

.

.

'

not document:when their disposition actions were complet-

This is contrary to TI-8, 1 3.3.5, which states, in

"

, ed.

i .part,.that the~ resolution document and the date of its

approval shall be identified in the Disposition section of

,

the~ test. exception form.

.

• TE-30 was written against acceptance criteria step 10.4

Jafter that_ step had been initialed and dated complete. The

initials and the date were lined out because of the.TE.

~p

- This is contrary to TI-8, 1 3.3.9, which states, that in-

.a like situation, the original signoff need not be lined out.

~ '

• 1 Data entries on pages 7 and 8 of the attachment to TE-20

v chad'been corrected by.a single line out and initials, but

no date. -This is contrary.to TI-8, 1 3.1.2,-which requires

that the date be written by the initials when correcting an

,

s , ~ erroneous data entry.

i >J

L

a e

4

'

t' r" +-e- V,r,a c- 4 y  % 1-y s-p. g - y y, , . , _ -t'c='='* >~w*ngr<- r=' e'--* *--t *-1M---rv T t w'"'N rvw'TP -FM'~"?**'--*P---Te----*--?-"*-t-

( :

.

<a

5-

-(2) Nonconformance to TI-3, " Changes to, Test Procedures":

• Step 10.9 of the procedure acceptance criteria was added to

the procedure in accordance with Major Change Request (MCR)

No. 06. A reference to MCR-06 was not written in the right

hand margin next to this change, as required by T-3,

~

1 3.3.1.5.

s

\ (3)- Other problems noted:

• The procedure did not justify the use of constant values

'

for the minimum recirculation flow rates for the A and B.

CRD pumps during system flow testing, Section 7.3. - These ,

'

i flow rates are a function of CRD pump discharge pressure.

.

However, the variance in the discharge pressure was rela-

, tively small, so the resulting errors:were not significant -

, (a maximum of 2 to 3 gpm too'high at'the low end of dis-

}p'

'

'

charge pressure range) when compared against the total CRD

~ pump flow (a maximum of about 200 gpm per pump).

• Additional information written in the proposed disposition

and the actual disposition sections'of TE-14 was not dated

and initialed. The person who wrote the information was

not one of the two Test Engineers who had signed for each

section.

• TE-24 was dispositioned satisfactorily. However, the

initial statement of the problem, for which it was written,

was in error.-

• Steps 7.11.14, 7.11.14.1, and 7.11.14.2'of the procedure

were not initialed and dated. The NRC inspector verified

that they had been accomplished,.bgt was unable to deter-

mine when.

.

• TE-23, written against acceptance criteria step 10.8.1, was

dispositioned prior to the final JTG review of the proce-

dure test results. However, this step had not yet been

initialed and dated.

'

The above noted problems were identified as a single violation, failure to

adequately review preoperational test'results. (50-458/8549-01)

The NRC inspector also noted that two TEs,.TE-28, and TE-30, were still

open. Although they were written against two of the acceptance criteria

steps of the procedure., the NRC inspector determined that they would not

adversely affect the overall adequacy of the test results. For those

-portions of the test results which were directly related to safety, no

'-

-< y

yg: ,

,

-

,

, . ..-

-.,

i

,

JC . . . -

,

i +

^ * '

~ .

,

6- . '. .

2, ~

problems were noted. (Sections 7.9, 7.~10, 7.11,~ and 7.12.I 'he're' T

~

fore,

-

the NRC inspector concluded that.for these portions of the test the

acceptance criteria appeared to have been met, and.that all test excep-

tions had been resolved in accordance with the SUM.

,4. . Exit Meeting-

The NRC inspector conducted an exit meeting with thos'e licensee. personnel

. denoted in paragraph.1 of.this report. The NRC senior resident inspector

also. attended. During the meeting the findings of the inspection were

summarized.

.

3

-

a

3

4

F*

• 4

4

0

-t

4 -

R A

.

$

a

w-

IN .- --- * ,-

v --

y-,- , e', -

y- , y , wy -x- - y -. y --,-. -,p -