IR 05000382/1989007
| ML20247N008 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 07/21/1989 |
| From: | Milhoan J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Dewease J LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8908020262 | |
| Download: ML20247N008 (3) | |
Text
_-
.i
< =
- .
l
,.
- .
..
,
,
JUL 2 1 1 2 j
i In Reply Refer To:
Docket: 50-382/89-07
i l;
Louisiana Power & Light Company ATTN:
J. G. Dewease, Senior Vice President Nuclear Operations 317 Baronne Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70160 Gentlemen:
Thank you for your letter of May 31, 1989, in response to our letter and the attached Notice of Violation dated April 17, 1989.
1 We understand, as discussed with your Mr. T. J. Gaudet during a telephone call.
f on July 5,1989, that all prior annual reports have also been reviewed in regard to Violation 382/8907-01. We have no further questions concerning.this violation or Violation 382/8907-03 and shall review your corrective action on f
these matters during a future inspection.
With regard to Violation 382/8907-02, we need further information as discussed with your Mr. D. Packer in'a telephone conversation held July 13, 1989. Your stated position appears to be that you were in conformance with your Procedure UNT-1-004 (Revision 8), " Plant Operations Review Comittee."
Procedure UNT-1-004 allows:
a quorum to be physically present
or a quorum on a conference call
-
or the members'to be contacted sequentially.
- You deny the violation on the bases that you were in compliance with the procedure.
We note that the sequential contacting of members is at variance with the quorum requirement of the Technical Specifications and is contrary to the NRC Inspection Manual, Interpretation "STS-Sections 6.5.1.6.c and 6.5.2.7.d,"
dated January 1,1982. This interpretation states, in part:
.. the NRC does not approve of ballot review techniques and considers
"
.routing or telephone polling as unacceptable alternatives."
- RIV:RI:MQPS
- C:MQPS
- D:DRS
- NRR
- DRP
[JLMilhoan BMcNe111/cjg IBarnes LJCallan FHebdon l/81/89 j
/ /89
/ /89
/ /89
/ /89
- previously concurred 8908020262 890721 PDR ADOCK 05000382
{
i
O PDC
.__- _
l
- _ _ - -
..
,
-
,.
.
Louisiana Power & Light Company-2-We conclude that compliance with a flawed procedure is not an adequate d.*ense and that a violation did occur.
Your response further states, "At times, however, significant circumstances arise that require PORC to perform immediate reviews which cannot wait until the next scheduled PORC meeting.
In these instances, an unscheduled FORC meeting must be convened as soon as possible in the most feasibit. manner.
A gathering of PORC members at the same place may be impossible, particularly in those situations that occur during off hours."
We also conclude from this response that the very time at which you state that a face-to-face quorum may be too difficult (i.e., "... significant circumstances arise that require PORC to perform immediate reviews") are those for which a face-to-face meeting is essential. We recognize that there are many issues of lesser significance for which an immediate PORC meeting is not required but for which consultation with PORC by any means probably enhances safety. We commend this as a good practice and suggest that such consultation be confirmed at a later, scheduled PORC meeting.
In summary, we request that you provide us with a response within 30 days of the date of this letter that encompasses the issues discussed in our telephone call of July 13, 1989, and summarized herein.
If you have any questions, please do not hesita O to call us.
Sincerely m id
)
/M 9 flG James L. Milboan, Director Division of Reactor Projects cc:
Louisiana Power & Light Company ATTN:
R. P. Barkhurst, Vice President Nuclear Operations P.O. Box B K111ona, Louisiana 70066
.
Louisiana Power & Light Company ATTN:
J. R. McGaha, Jr., Plant 14anager l
P.O. Box B l
K111ona, Louisiana 70066 l
l
_
_ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
___J
___ ________,
-
g
?:
- .j
,
'
Louisiana Power & Light Company-
-3-
,
'
Louisiana. Power & Light Company ATTN:
R. F. Burski, Manager, Nuclear Safety & Regulatory Affairs 317 Baronne Street P.O. Box 60340
,
New Orleans. Louisiana - 70160 Louisiana Power & Light Company
' ATTN: 'L. W. Laughlin, Site Licensing Support Supervisor-P.O. Box B
Killona, Louisiana 70066
,
Louisiana Power & Light Company i
,
ATTN:
G. M. Davis,-Manager, Events Analysis. Reporting & Response P.O. Box B Killona, Louisiana. 70066-Middle South Services
'
ATTN: Mr. R. T..Lally l
P.O. Box.61000 New Orleans, Louisiana 70161 Louisiana Raolation' Control Program Director bec.toDMB(IE01)
,
i bec distrib. by RIV:
RRI R. D. Martin, RA Section Chief (DRP/A)
RPB-DRSS MIS System ProjectEngineer(DRP/A)
RSTS Operator i
RIV File DRS D. Wigginton, NRR Project Manager-(MS:
13-D-18)
Lisa'Shea,RM/ALF I.'Barnes
B. McNeill
I
)
l I
I I
_--
_.
_
_
_
J
-_
.
.
t TYT
.1
'
-
. -
' l h;; i.j 4
,
, !'
4, t
,
.
b
!
.
!
'
JUN - ! 1989 L
LOUISI ANA / 317BARONNESTREET P. O. BOX 60340
^
POWER & LlGHT NEW ORLEANS, LOUISlANA 70160 (504)595 3100
$0!IkhrsM May 31, 1989 W3P89-302'4 A4.05 QA U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 Subject: Waterford 3 SES Docket No. 50-382 License No. NPF-38 NRC Inspection Report 89-07 Gentlemen:
In accordance with 10 CFR Part 2.201, Louisiana Fower & Light hereby submits in Attachment 1 the responses to the Violations identified in Appendix A of the subject Inspection Report.
If you have any questions concerning these responses, please contact T.J. Caudet at (504) 464-3325.
Very truly yours,
'
.
R.F. Burski Manager Nuclear Safety & Regulatory Affairs RFB:TJG:ssf Attachment i
cc:
R.D. Martin, NRC Region ~IV'
F.J. Bebdon, NRC-NRR D.L. Wigginton, NRC-NRR NRC Resider.t Inspectors Office E.L. Blake W.M. Stevenson 0 50 O Q *[
t 202 mu saum.oaaoaTuairv -atovaa -
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _
^ ~ *
--
.
)
Attechmant to
j.'
'
.
Page 1 of 8 ATTACEMENT 1 LP&L Responses to the Violations Identified in Appendix A of Inspection Report 89-07 VIOLATION NO. 8907-01
' Failure of SRC to Review Safety Evaluations Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station (W3SES) Technical Specification (TS) 6.5.2.1.a requires that the SRC be responsible for the review of safety evaluations completed under the provisions of 10CFR50.59, to verify that an unreviewed safety question does not exist.
Contrary to the above, the NRC inspector found that the SRC had not reviewed four safety evaluations associated with Project Evaluation /
Information Request Nos. 20000, dated August 27, 1986, and 70795, dated October 8, 1986; Condition Identification / Work Authorization Nos.
255672/01017834, dated May 26, 1988; and Special Test Procedure No.
99000104-1, dated April 12, 1988.
This is a Severity Level IV violation.
RESPONSE (1) Reason For The Violation Technical Specification (TS) 6.5.1.6 requires that the Plant Operations Review Committee (PORC) maintain cognizance over and responsibility for various activities including designated procedures and changes thereto that affect nuclear safety (6.5.1.6a), proposed tests and experiments that affect nuclear safety (6.5.1.6b) and
proposed design changes or modifications to unit systems that affect nuclear safety (6.5.1.6d).
TS 6.5.1.7b requires that PORC " render determination in writing... with regard to whether or not each item considered under Specification 6.5.1.6a through e constitutes an unreviewed safety question." To ensure that formal onsite reviews are conducted by PORC for the activities described in TS 6.5.1, administrative controls are provided in Procedure UNT-1-004, " Plant Operations Revi__ Oommittee." As described in Section 5.4.7 of UNT-1-004 (Revision 8), the PORC determines for each item it reviews wheth*r the item requires SRC/NRC review prior to implementation, (Att.chment 6.4 to the procedure provides a list of those items.) As j
'
described in Section 5.4.10 of UNT-1-004 (Revision 8), the items that need to be reviewed by the SRC but not prior to implementation must be forwarded by PORC to the SRC.
(Attachment 6.5 to the procedure provides a list of these items, one of which is all 10CFR50.59 safety evaluations.)
L
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
,- - __._
{
+; >
.
.
.
.
Attachm2nt to
['!
'/'
-
'Page 2 of 8
'
'
'
Contrary to Section 5.4.10 of UNT-1-004 (Revision 8), three of the
-
four above listed evaluations (none of which were assessed to involve l
an unreviewed safety question) had not been forwarded by PORC to the L
SRC for their review. The root'cause for not submitting the-evaluations to the SRC is personnel error. With' regard to the other evaluation listed (PER 20000), although a safety evaluation was performed, it was not required by TS Section 6.5.1 to be reviewed by PORC. The evaluation involved only an FSAR change as a result of the shift from a twelve month to an eighteen month fuel cycle. No I
physical modifications were needed and no changes to the plant design basis' vere required. The root cause was a failure to have a mechanism in place to ensure that 10CFR50.59 evaluations are being submitted as required to the SRC for their independent review.
It should be noted that the lack of' receiving these evaluations was a self identified concern made by the SRC Review Subcommittee during their review of the Annuel 10CFR50.59 Report for 1988.
(2) Corrective Steps That Have Been Taken And The Results Achieved The cited evaluations have been submitted to the SRC for their independent review.
The SRC has completed their review of two of the four evaluations and verified that the actions described'in the two evaluations did not constitute unreviewed safety questions.
Completion of SRC reviews of the remaining two evaluations will be consistent with the schedule provided below.
L Two Quality Notices (QN QA-89-122 and QN QA-89-123) have been generated to formally address and track corrective actions for the SRC's lack of receiving various safety evaluations to perform their independent reviews.
A discussion on the importance in following UNT-1-004 placing emphasis on the necessity of transmitting such information to the SRC as required was held with the individual currently responsible for this task.
(NOTE: The individual actually responsible for failing to submit the three noted evaluations is no longer filling that position.)
(3) Corrective Steps Which Will Be Taken To Avoid Further Violations To ensure that a violation of this type is prevented in the future, the following will be done at a minimum:
1.
Nuclear Operations Engineering Procedure N0EP-305, " Safety
/
Evaluations," and UNT-1-004 will be revised to require PORC review of detailed 10CFR50.59 evaluations; and 2.
After review by PORC, 10CTR50.59 evaluations will be included as attachments in the PORC Meeting Minutes.
Any supplemental changes necessary to support these changes would be addressed and responded to in the QNs listed above.
!
.
y,.
,
,
'.-::
m,
-
c
'.
'
,
-
p,,,
- .,1
,
- 1; ;
'--
Attachmant to
"e '.j."[1:-
'
~
.-
-.Bi W3P89-3024'
'
Page 3 of 8 Lg,
<
o,; -.
. -
.~(4).:Date.When Full Compliance'Will'Be Achieved
' ""
'...
L The above action items'will be~ completed by August 1, 1989 at which
'
'
,
time'LP&L;will be'in full: compliance.
t
/
P
$
.. q,
t j
- - _ _
. _ -
- - _ _ _ _ _ - - -
' -
-
.
.
Attachaznt to
- '
.
':
?' ~
-
.
[
Page 4 of 8 I
i VIOLATION NO. 8907 02 L
- Failure of PORC to Meet in a Quorum and Also to Review Radioactive Releases W3SES TS 6.5.1; establishes the requirements for PORC. Section 6.5.1.5 states that a quorum is necessary'for meetings and Section 6.5.1.6.m states
.that PORC shall review any accidental, unplanned or uncontrolled radioactive release including the evaluations,~ recommendations, and
- disposition of the corrective actions to prevent recurrence.
Contrary to the above:
" Walk-through" meetings, such as Nos.88-101, -103, -104, -105, -108,
.(1).
-109, -111, -113, -115, -116, -118, -121, -122, -123, -125, and -126,
.
were held in which PORC did not meet in quorum.
(2) Radioactive releases which occurred April 3 and May 23, 1988, were not reviewed by PORC at Meetings88-107 and -112 in regard to evaluations, recommendations, and disposition of the corrective actions to prevent recurrence.
This is a. Severity Level IV violation.
RESPONSE LP&L believes that a Technical Specification (TS). violation did not occur in either of the above cited instances (Items (1) 6 (2)) and therefore has chosen to deny this violation. The basis to support this position for each item is' discussed below.
ITEM (1)
Plant Administrative Procedure UNT-1-004 (Revision 8) " Plant Operations Review Committee," provides the administrative controls to ensure that
~
formal onsite reviews are conducted by the PORC for activities described in Section 6.5.1 of the Technical Specification (TS). PORC Meeting requirements are described in Section 5.2 of UNT-1-004 (Revision 8).
Sub-item 5.2.7 states that a PORC meeting shall be conducted in the following manner:
b For a scheduled PORC meeting, a quorum shall be physically present at the same place; OR For an unscheduled PORC meeting, the Chairman may select one of the following methods to conduct a meetir.g:
A.
The quorum shall be physically present at the same place; OR B.
The quorum shall be in continuous communication during the meeting; OR
- -
_ _ _ _ -
_ _ _ _ _ _ -
, _ - _ - _ _.
-
'l
~
Attech :nt to
'
'
-
'
PaFe 5 of 8 C.
The members are contacted sequentially to conduct their review and vote.
If a dissenting opinion is generated by a voting PORC member, all PORC members shall be informed of such opinion before the item is forwarded to the Plant Manager --Nuclear for approval.
The approach taken by LP&L for handling PORC Meetings as described above is necessary to cover every situation that could arise. Whenever possible and in most cases, items requiring PORC review are placed on an agenda for and subsequently reviewed during a scheduled PORC Meeting. At times, however, significant cirevmi,tances arise that require PORC to perform immediate reviews which cannot wait until the next scheduled PORC Meeting.
In these instances, an unscheduled PORC Meeting must be convened as soon as possible in the most feasible manner. A gathering of PORC members at the same place (Type A) may be impossible, particularly in those situations that occur during off hours. LP&L believes that Type B (Conference Calls) and Type C Meetings (Walk-throughs) are therefore unavoidable.
LP&L has, however, acknowledged the Inspector's concern (noted on page 9 of the Inspection Report) with the lack of documentation of PORC review activities which does not allow verification of the items identified and followup on such. To address this concern, more detail concerning discussions held in the maeting and any necessary supporting documentation will be provided in or appended to the PORC Meeting Minutes. Additionally, UNT-1-004 has been revised (current revision is No. 11) to better define and describe PORC activities.
It is also noteworthy of mentioning that Type C PORC Meetings are currently being annotated as Walk-throughs on the PORC Meeting Minutes. LP&L feels that this action was necensary because not all of the sixteen meetings identified in Item (1) were Walk-throughs (Type C).
Some were actually Type A unscheduled meetings.
In addition, LP&L established a task force which was responsible for developing PORC sub-committees. As part of that responsibility, the task force re-evaluated PORC activities as they pertain to procedure review to ensure compliance with Technical Specification 6.5.1.6.a.
Based on that review, a Flow Chart was added to UNT-1-004 to ensure that procedures receive the proper level of review.
ITEM (2)
PORC review requirements for the activity described in Section 6.5.1 of the Technical Specifications (TSs) are controlled in Section 5.3 of UNT-1-004 (Revision 8).
Sub-item 5.3.1.13 states that the PORC shall be responsible for review of any accidental, unplanned or uncontrolled radioactive release including reports covering evaluation, recommendations and disposition of the corrective action to prevent recurrence and the forwarding of these reports to the Vice President, Nuclear Operations and to the Safety Review Committee.
l
!
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ - _
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _
-
-
- _ - _ _
_
_ _ _ _ _ - _. -_____-_____ -_ ___ -_- -__
-.
,
'
Attach ent to
- D
'
]L-W3P89-3024
--
Page 6 of 8
.i On July 29, 1988 during PORC Meeting No.88-107, a cognizant individual discussed in detail the report on the release of radioactivity during Integrated Leak Rate Testing (ILRT) that occurred on May 23, 1989.
Preliminary discussions of the event were held by PORC during this particular. meeting. After discussing and reviewing the pertinent
.information, PORC determined that the incident did not constitute an
" unplanned" release and that the information regarding this release should be reported and discussed in the Semi Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report as a " planned" release that occurred through an abnormal release pathway.
On August 11, 1988 during PORC Meeting No.88-112, a cognizant individual discussed the report issued on the unpla n r4 sud unmonitored release of f
radioactivity during the removal of the cc: dnwent equipment hatch that occurred on April 3, 1988. Preliminary discaceions on the incident, to include the root cause that had been established, the corrective actions to prevent recurrence that had been recommended and the analysis of the radiological consequences that had been developed, were held by PORC during this particular meeting. As a result, the PORC ogreed that the incident would be included in the Semi-Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report as an unplanned release.
f During the SRC review of the above identified radioactive release report, it was noted that there were several recommendations contained in the reports. Based on the lack of information contained in PORC Meeting Minutes for Meeting Nos.88-107 and 88-112, it was unclear to the SRC as to the status of these recommendations (Reference: LP&L Letter W3P88-0328 dated 12/19/88 from the SRC Chairman to the PORC Chairman).
Subsequent to the above, on January 5, 1989 during PORC Meeting No. 89-02, PORC re'riewed the two reports (as reported in the Semi-Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report for the first half of 1988) related to the above discussed releases and approved the recommended corrective actions.
To assure that these recommendations would be implemented appropriately, individuals were assigned lead responsibilities. Then on 03/15/89 a memorandum was issued by the PORC Chairman to the SRC Chairman to inform him of the status of the recommendations. With regard to the 5/23/88 incident, the memorandum stated that a TS change and an Offsite Dose Calculation Manual change would be pursued to add the ILRT depressurization pathway. With regard to the 04/03/88 incident, it stated that a new procedure (OP-08-011) was currently being developed to maintain operation of shield building ventilation during equipment hatch removal until containment purge can be initiated.
(NOTE: This procedure was approved on 04/14/89.)
Although the above actions may be construed as not being timely (which in both cases involved outage related work where timeliness of corrective action did not have to be immediate), the required PORC actions (5.6.5.1, UNT-1-004, Sub-item 5.3.1.13) were performed.
In light of the above information, LP&L requests that this cited violation be reassessed.
- _ - _ - - _ - _ - - _ _ -
_ _ _ _
_
-
-
_ ___-_-__ - _ - - __ _
.
'
4.
-~
Attachmsnt to
'
,
C'
)
- .....
Page 7 of 8
VIOLATION NO. 8907-03 Failure to Identify and Control Materials with Limited Shelf Life Criterion VIII of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 requires that measures shall be established for identification and control of materials, parts, and components.
'The Nuclear Operations Management Manual in Section V, Chapter 8, Revision
'
3, paragraph 3.4, requires that items having limited shelf life shall be
' identified and controlled to preclude the use of items whose shelf life has expired.
Contrary to the above, formal measures were not established for control of materials and equipment for which vendors had made unsolicited shelf life recommendations. For example, the Material Management Information System specified no shelf life dates for Stockcode 152-C19300 (mass flowmeter) and l
Stockcode.101-D53873 (0-Ring). Vendor documentation received for these items specified, however, shelf lives of 3 years and 20 years, respectively.
This is a Severity Level IV violation.
RESPONSE (1) Reason For The Violation The root cause of this violation is that an overall program did not exist to ensure that shelf life controls were being applied consistently. The shelf life program had been comprised of individual group procedures, where each group had their own part of the program.
Based on a review of existing inventory that is currently being conducted, it appears as though the bulk of the items identified were received between 1981 and 1984. Contributing causes for each item found appear to vary from case to case, but in each case the data was not entered in the Waterford 3 Materials Management Information System. Some purchase orders required the shelf life data while others did not.
Furthermore, some vendors supplied the shelf life data while others did not.
(2)
Corrective Steps That Have Been Taken And The Results Achieved A quality notice (QN QA-89-071) was issued on 3/17/89 to formally address and track corrective actions for this issue. On 3/31/89, Administrative Procedure UNT-8-015, " Shelf Life Program," was approved. This program provides:
guidance for identifying limited shelf life items;
-
a method for establishing and assigning consistent and economical
-
shelf life expiration dates;
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - - - _
_
,
.
.
it
- [' '
'
+Attachm2nt to
'
'1**w U3P89-3024
-
-
Page 8 of 8 instructions,. forms and references #or evaluations to extend a
-
-
previously assigned shelf 111fe, and
.
--
instructions for dispositioning expired items-and for-receiving, storing, issuiag, reordering and specifying limited shelf life items.
.(3) Corrective Steps Which Will Be Taken To Avoid Further Violations A review of existing inventory.in stores is_being done to identify and correct limited shelf life items without shelf life controls. This review is being tracked by the Waterford 3 Commitments Management System (ID No. A16159).
It should be noted that in the interim, a review of the EPRI Guideline for establishing, maintaining, and extending the' shelf life capability of limited life items (NCIG-10, draft 5) was. conducted.
Based on the review of.this' document,' there appears to1 be'no immediate concern for items without shelf life controls because actual aging data on the items affected (which are elastomers) indicates'very long shelf lives (14 to 60 years).
(4).Date When Full' Compliance Will'Be Achieved The review of existing inventory and imposition of shelf life controls when necessary will be completed by December 31, 1989, at which time LP&L will be in full compliance.
I'
I
..
I Lt______