IR 05000382/1979002
| ML19274E404 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 02/16/1979 |
| From: | Crossman W, Randy Hall, Stewart R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19274E397 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-382-79-02, 50-382-79-2, NUDOCS 7903260024 | |
| Preceding documents: |
|
| Download: ML19274E404 (9) | |
Text
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF IriSPECTION AND ErlFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Report No. 50-382/79-02 Docket flo. 50-382 Category A2 Licensee:
Louisiana Power and Light Company 142 Delarunde St.
New Orleans, Louisiana 70174 Facility Name:
Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit No. 3 Inspection at:
Waterford Site, Taft, Louisiana Inspection Conducted: January-26, 1979 I
-
//
-
-
~
-
Inspectors:
/
m M #t R. C. Stewart,' Reactor Inspector, Projects Section D' te a
(Paragraphs 1, 2, 5, 6 & 7)
O l ff. B. Beach, Reactor Inspector, Engineering Support D6te'
A
Section (Paragraph 5)
~Y,Y T/
p/hYsf
,
L.E. Martin /ReactorInspector,EngineeringSupport 4 ate Section (Paragraphs 3 & 4)
Approved:
W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section Date i
R. E. Hall, Chief, Engineering Support Section Oate 7903260024
Inspection Summary Inspection on January 23-26, 1979 (Report No. 50-382/79-02)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of construction activ-ities related to the review of electrical procedures and i:A/yc records; observation of electrical installation work activities; 'eview of safety related structural steel QA/QC records and observation of related work activities; a follow-on review of a previously identified item of non-compliance, and a status review of a previously reported construction deficiency. The inspection involved seventy-five inspector-hours by three NRC inspectors.
Results: Of the seven areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were found in five areas; one apparent item of noncompliance was found in the area of electrical work activities (failure to follow approved procedures during initial charge of safety related batteries, para-graph 4.b. - infraction) and one apparent item of noncompliance was found in the area of pipe welding surveillance activities (failure to follow visual inspection procedure TBP-26, Revision D., paragraph 2 -
in fraction).
.
-2-
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Employees
- L. V. Maurin, Station Superintendent
- A. E. Henderson, Jr., QA Manager
- T. F. Gerrets, Project QA Engineer
- B. P. Brown, QA Engineer
- C. J. Chatelain, QA Engineer
- J. Woods, QA Engineer
- C. J. Decareaux, Production Engineer
- R. E. Gautreau, Utility Engineer
- T. R. Armington, Start-up Supervisor Other Personnel
- R. Milhiser, Project Superintendent, Ebasco
- R. Hartnett, QA Site Supervisor, Ebasco
- R. Ho?lenbeck, QA Supervisor, Tompkins-Beckwith (T-B)
- E. Kohn, Assistant Project Manager, T-B
- J. Britt, Site Manager, NISCO
- J. Moskwa, QA/QC Manager, NISCO
- R. Hadly, Chief Engineer, Fischbach and Moore, Inc. (F&M)
- L. Meerman, Project Manager, F&M
- W. Lamson, Project QC Manager, Fischbach and Moore, Inc.
- M. Kenr.edy, Start-up E,ngineer, Ebasco The IE inspectors also interviewed other licensee and contractor personnel including members of the engineering and QA/QC staffs.
- denotes those attending the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (0 pen) Infraction (50-382/78-14):
Failure to Establish St veillance Inspection Program. During this inspection, the IE inspector con-ducted a follow-up review of the corrective action delineated in the licensee's letter of reply, dated January 8,1979.
The corrective action included surveillance of welding parameters taken daily on a random basis and documented on T-B Form GP-723-12.
During the records review, the IE inspector observad that daily surveillance logs were being maintained through current dates, for amperage, voltages and-3-
.
gas flow rates; however, surveillance log records for preheat and interpass temperatures were last recorded December 21, 1978, In discussing this matter with the licensee representatives, the IE inspector was informed that, due to a malfunction of the tem-perature measuring instrument, no welding parameter temperatures were taken since December 21, 1978, not-with-standing that other means for taking temperatures were available.
The licensee and contractor were informed thrt the failure to follow the require-ments specified in Revisior ' to T-B Procedure TBP-26, appears to be in noncompliance with Ci rion V of Appendix B, 10 CFR 50.
(0 pen) Construction Deficiency Report:
Electrical Penetration Support Frame, September 27, 1978.
The IE inspector discussed the status of the pemnut fastener deficiency on Conax Penetrations.
The corrective action (redesign to utilize welded pemnuts) as described in licensee's final report LPL letter 10342, December 29, 1978, and the time frame for completion were discussed.
This item will remain open until completion of corrective action.
3.
Plant Tour The IE inspectors walked through various construction and storage areas to observe construction activities in progress and to inspect the general state of cleanliness and adherence to housekeeping requirements.
During the plant tour the IE inspector observed that rigid connec-tions (cable tray and conduit) were being made to safety related switchgear and relay cabinets, and that in one instance a cable tray /HVAC hanger was making physical contact with auxiliary panel
- 4 on elev. +35, without being rigidly attached to the cabinet.
The cabinets and switchgear in question are auxiliary panels 1-SA, 2-SB, and 3-SAB on elev. +35 and 4KV switchgear 3A3-S and 3B3-S on elev. +21.
The IE inspector discussed this observation with the cognizant Ebasco representative to determine if this type of connection and contact to the equipment had been taken into account in the design of seismic mounting and qualification of the equipment.
The cable tray and conduit attached to this equipment is suspended from the flcor above.
Two questions remain from these discussions:
(1)
Have the rigid attachments to this equipment been accounted for in the seismic design of this equipment?
(2) Has the nonrigid contact with adjacent equipment or structures similar to situations with relay cabinets been taken into account.
-4-
.
.
The Ebasco representative indicated that the matter would be discussed with the responsible Ebasco design group for subse-quent clarification.
The IE inspector stated that the matter would be identified as an unresolved item pending further design information.
4.
Electrical Components anc Systems a.
Review of Procedures and Instructions The IE inspector reviewed the following to determine if appropriate and adequate procedures had been established to provide the required controls for the subject activities:
(1) Ebasco CMI-177, Revision 5, November 8, 1978, " Care and Maintenance Instructions for Class IE Storage Batteries."
(2) Fischbach and Moore CP-311, Revision 0, September 14, 1978, " Construction Procedure for Connecting and Main-taining Safety Related and Non-Safety Related Batteries."
The IE inspector identified a discrepancy between CMI-177, Revision 5, paragraph C.6., and CP-311, Revision 0, paragraph 6.7.4., concerning the time duration between battery charges after initial charge.
The licensee representative advised the IE inspector that CP-311 was now undergoing revision and this change was being incorporated into the revision.
No items of noncompliance or deviaticns were identified.
b.
Review of Records The IE inspector reviewed the records for the initial charges performed on batteries 3A-S, 3B-S, and 3AB-S. These records were log sheets (F&M Form 831) covering the period of Septem-ber 20, 1978, through September 25, 1978, for all three batteries.
The IE inspector's review of the initial ( 9rge records indicated areas where it appeared that procedures ant, instructions estab-lished for this activity had not been follc.ed.
(1) The log sheets for all three batteries failed to indicate the starting time for each battery charge and the time at-5-
.
which the charging current stabilized.
The log sheets indicated that the charge duration was forty-four hours; however, a licensee representative advised the IE in-spector that all three battery charges comenced at 11:00 a.m. on September 20, 1978, and all three were completed at 7:00 a.m. on September 23, 1970. This means that the batteries were on charge for a total of sixty-eight hours.
The IE inspector determined that based on 041-177, Revision 5, and Gould Instruction Book for Industrial Batteries, Docket No. 5817-889-R0,Section VIII, para-graph 8.1 and Table B, the charge duration should have been a minimum of seventy hours if the charging current stabilized immediately.
The licensee stated that the charging current stabilized within the first 15 minutes of charge.
The above seventy hour duration for the charge is based on paragraph 8.1 which states, "When the charging current has tapered and stabilized (No further reduction for three hours), charge for the hours shown in the appropriate table." Table B shows that this type of battery using a 2.39 cell voltage and a 1.215 specific gravity requires sixty-seven hours of additional charge.
These batteries were apparently charged for sixty-eight hours instead of the required seventy hours.
(2) The IE inspector questioned the licensee's representative (Ebasco) about the electrolyte levels in all three batteries.
The IE inspector had observed a significant electrolyte var-iation during the site tour.
The licensee's representative told the IE inspector that due to excessive gasing during the initial charge that electrolyte had been removed from numerous cells in all three batteries, to prevent electro-lyte overflow.
F&M Procedure CP-311, Revision 0, paragraph 6.4.6 and the Gould I.B. Docket No. 5817-889-R0 state that even though electrolyte level may go above the high level mark during an initial charge, electrolyte is not to be removed.
(3) The IE inspector's review of the charging records indicated that the charge was completed at 7:00 a.m. on September 23, 1978, and the batteries were placed on open circuit.
The final set of readings was taken on September 25, 1978, with the battery on open circuit.
-6-
.
Ebasco Instruction CMI-177, Revision 5, paragraph 4, and Gould I.B. Docket tio. 5817-889-R0, paragraph 14.A require that upon completion of the initial battery charge and with the battery on normal float charge for one week, that individual cell voltages, specific gravities (corr.
to 77 F), ambient temperature, and cell temperatures be recorded and that electrolyte levels be recorded for 10%
of the cells.
The final readings for all three batteries were taken with the batteries open circuit instead of normal float charge.
Electrolyte levels were not recorded for any of the cells in all three batteries.
Only two cell temperatures were recorded for batteries 3A-S and 38-5, and only four cell temperatures for battery 3AB-S.
(4)
F&M Procedure CP-311, Revision 0, paragraph 6.4.8 and Ebasco CMI-177, Revision 5, paragraph D.5, require that an evaluation be made at the end of the initial charge to dettemine if an equalizing charge is required.
The Gould I. B. Docket flo. Section 10.1 requires an equalizing charge if corrected specific gravity for any cell is more than ten points below full charge value of 1.215.
The IE inspector's review of the final corrected specific gravity readings taken on September 25, 1978, for battery 3AS-S indicated that cells 4 and 12 had specific gravities of 1.203 which is two points below the 1.205 minimum re-quirement for an equalizing charge.
An equalizing charge was not performed on battery 3AB-S, and neither was this discrepancy noted or the exception documented.
The above are examples of failure to follow instructions and procedures related to activities affecting quality.
This is ta apparent item of noncompliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, Criterion V.
5.
Structural Steel - Pressurized Support Structure The IE inspectors observed activities related to the installation of the pressurizer support structure.
During observation of these activities, it was noted that weld repairs were being made under authority of flonconformance Report (f1CR) W3-1160.
A review of the nonconformance report revealed the identification of twenty-nine-7-
weld deficiencies that were found during the receipt inspection process at the site.
Further review indicated that the evaluation to the nonconformance report was not specific as to what degree a weld could be repaired before negating the postweld heat treatment requirements; specifically the weld repair for the weld piece PW to piece PC, whici.ppears to contain penetrating defects.
Subsequent to the observation of these activities, the IE inspectors reviewed documentation records including material heat treatment re-cords, mill test reports, postweld heat treatment records, UT reports and NDE records.
During the records review, the IE inspectors noted that weld for piece PW to piece PC had been previously repaired by the supplier.
UT records, dated November 10, 1978, indicated that a 5" crack wes identified during the initial UT examination.
A subse-quent UT examination performed after weld repair indicates the weld to be acceptable.
However, the weld now appears to require extensive repair, identified by the receiving inspection report, NCR W3-1160.
In discussions with the licensee representatives, the IE inspectors identified the following unresolved areas:
a.
That twenty-nine weld deficiencies were found during the on-site receipt inspection process after the pressurizer support structure had passed the QA/QC requirements of the supplier.
b.
That the UT report of the supplier indicated the weld for piece PW to piece PC as acceptable, whereas it is apparent that the same weld may require extensive repairs.
c.
The extent of weld repair, specifically, the repair of weld of piece PW to piece PC, will not negate the postweld heat treatment previously applied.
The licensee representatives stated that they would be performing UT examinations to determine the extent of additional repairs required.
In addition, the licensee will review the overall findings to determine whether or not this item would be reportable under 10 CFR 50.55(e).
This matter is considered unresolved.
6.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of no w 3pliance or deviations.
One item relating to electrical seismic re.:sfication is identified in paragraph 3 and one item relating to 9"'ng defects found in shop welds on the pressurizer support structure fentified in paragraph 5.
"
-8-
.
.
.
7.
Exit Interview The IE inspectors met with the licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on January 26, 1979.
The inspectors sumarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
-
_g_