IR 05000382/1981018
| ML20010C285 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 07/28/1981 |
| From: | Constable G, Cummins J, Westerman T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20010C276 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-382-81-18, NUDOCS 8108190316 | |
| Download: ML20010C285 (5) | |
Text
, _ _ _ _ _ - _ _.
-
-
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPfilSSION OFFICE-0F INSPECTION AND: ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
IE Inspection Report: 50-382/81-18 Licensee:
Louisiana Power and Light Company 142 Delaronde Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70174 Facility:
Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 Inspectior. At: Taft, Louisiana Inspection Conducted: June 16 - July;1 981 Principal Inspector:
_
-V/
dl,22, /M/
G L.CgstabTe,SeniorResidentInspector
/ Bate U :jE. Cummins, Resident Inspector
-
Y 3 2 ~ b/
.. k. u t 4 %
A-4 Date l
Approved By:
///Ma.mth,M 7 M8[
gu T. F. Westerman, Chief, Reactor Projects
' Date Section No. 1 Inspection Summary:
Inspection conducted June 16, 1981-July 15, 1981 (Report No. 50-382/81-18)
Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection of:
(1) Document Control, (2) Plant Tours including observations regarding fire protection, construction practices and tagging procedures, (3) Training and (4) Preoperational Test Program. The inspection involved 97 hours0.00112 days <br />0.0269 hours <br />1.603836e-4 weeks <br />3.69085e-5 months <br /> of direct inspection effort by two NRC inspectors.
Results: Two' items of noncompliance were identified in two of the six areas inspected.
(Violations-Failure to control the use of safety-relate.1 procedures (paragraph 3) and failure to follow temporary modification and jumper tag procedure (paragraph 4c).
8108190316 810731 PDR ADOCK 05000382 g
<
-
-
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted T. K. Armington, Lead Startup Engineer L. L. Bass, QA Engineer
- Present at exit interviews.
In addition to the above personael, the inspector held discussions with various operations, construction, engineering, technical support and administrative members of the licensee's staff.
2.
Plant Status Construction of the Waterford SES site is approximately 90% complete.
The current LP&L schedule indicates initial fuel loading during October 1982.
3.
Document Control-0perations During a review of System Release and Turnover Packages the NRC inspector noted that the packages did not contain the " Checklist for Quality Review of System Release and Turnover Packages" as required by QP-1-002, Station QC Review of System Release and Turnover Packages.
Subsequent discussion with the Quality Control Engineer revealed that QP-1-002 had been cancelled by the Flant Manager via a letter (W3Q81-0024) to Plant Operations Review Committee (PORC) members and Central Records.
The letter was dated April 3, 1981.
As of July 15, 1981, procedure QP-1-002 was still included in the Plant Operating Manual (P0M).
The NRC inspector reviewed the PORC minutes to determine whether the committee had acted on this procedure.
There was no record of committee action; however, the NRC inspector noted that item 12 of PORC committee meeting 81-14 (April 15, 1981) had identified a need to modify existing procedure UNT-1-003, Procedure Preparation, Review, Approval and Revision, to provide a method for deleting procedures.
The licensee's FSAR (17.2.6.2) and Quality Assurance Manual-Preoperational and Operations Phase (QR-6.0), require that obsolete or superceded documents shall be controlled by approved written procedures to prevent inadvertent u;e.
Procedure QP-1-002, Station QC Review of System Release and Turnover Pack-ages, was not controlled by approved written procedures in that it was still included in the POM and available for use three months after it had been deleted.
In addition, the deletion of procedure QP-1-002 was not controlled in accordance with approved procedures in that such procedures did not exist.
This is_an apparent violatio z
.
.
.,
,
During subsequent discussions of this issue the NRC inspector observed that the licensee took prompt corrective action to remove the obsolete procedure from the PCM and to upgrade procedure UNT-1-003 to provide a method for deleting procedures.
In addition, the Waterford-3 Quality Control organization has begun an
]
audit of the Plant Operating Manual and the overall control of safety-related procedures.
It should be noted that this violation does not represent an isolated instance.
The NRC inspector has frequently identified similar problems which have been brought to the attention of the licensee's staff and management.
The Central Records staf' seems to be overburdened to the extent that they may not be able to adequately handle the turnovt.r of safety system documents.
This matter has been brought to management attention and will followed up as Open Item (8118-01).
No additional violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Plant Tou.s During the course of the inspection, the NRC inspector toured the Reactor Building, Fuel Handling Building, Turbine Building and the Auxiliary Building to observe ongoing construction and testing activities.
The following items were observed by the NRC inspector during the tour:
A.
A sample of cable pulling compound io dry condition was removed from a cable tray and checked to see if it was flammable.
The sample burned when lit with a match.
The trade narca of the com-pound is Quelube Cable Pulling Lubricant manufactured by Quelcor, Inc.
LP&,. Quality Assurance was informed and is evaluating the flammability and water solubility of tne dried cable pulling compound.
Investica-tion by LP&L indicates that the compound may not meet the required specifications.
LP&L held a meeting with Quelcor on July 15, 1981 and plans to run further tests to evaluate the compound's accept-ability.
The NRC inspector will review the results of LP&L's findings.
No violations or deviations were ident "ied.
B.
Cable tray P108-NA was observed to have foreign material (C-clamp, wirr brush, box of nuts and bolts and a piece of flexible conduit)
laying on top of installed cables.
This could have resulted in cable damage.
LP&L Quality Assurance investigated this condition and observed that Quality Control records indicated that the piece of
\\
. r
..
.
,
,
,_
flexible conduit (safety-related) had been installed and accepted by the contractor's Quality Control organization, but then it was removed by unknown persons withcut documentation of the removal or notifying the installing contractor's Quality Control department of the conduit's removal.
LP&L Quality Assurance and the contractor's Quality Control are following up on this condition.
No v.olations or deviations were identified.
C.
The NRC inspector observed that two temporary modification and jumper tags were improperly filled out.
One tag was laying on a table not attached to a jumper or a component.
This tag had not been cleared from the temporary modification and jumper log.
~Startup Administrative Procedure, SAP-10, paragraph 4.4.4.1, states in part that the date the modification was performed and the name of the person making the modification and a description of the modifica-tion will be written on the temporary system modification tag.
No date or installer's initials were entered on tags for system 50A3 items 12 and 32.
In addition, the description of the modification was incomplete in that the tags did not indicate specifically where the jumper was to
be installed or which terminal the leads were lifted from.
The lead numbers were identified.
This is a violation.
Subsequent ;o these findings the licensee took prompt corrective action to serify the correct cable terminations for the involved temporary modifications.
In addition, the Lead Startup Engineer immediately called for an audit by the Waterford-3 Quality Control organizction of the licensee's overall tagging procedures.
The results of this audit will be reviewed by the NRC inspector as Open Item (8118-02).
5.
iraini_ng n
The NRC inspector attended a training session on Startup Administrative Procedure, SAP-08, Startup Maintenance.
The training session was given in order to familiarize startup group personnel with the latest revision to this procedure. The training was presented in a professional manner and adequate opportunity was provided for the attendees to ask questions.
No violations or deviations were noted, i
rn,.
--
T
L
- -
..
,
6.
Preoperational Test Program The inspector attended various meetings and discussed the details of the startup test program with engineers, operators and supervisory personnel.
No violations or deviations were noted.
7.
Exit Interviews The inspector met with the Plant Manager during the course of the inspection.
The scope of the inspection and the findings were discussed.
i