IR 05000382/1989032
| ML19332C483 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 11/15/1989 |
| From: | Barnes I, Mcneill W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19332C477 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-382-89-32, NUDOCS 8911280181 | |
| Download: ML19332C483 (6) | |
Text
~.
=
~
-
-
y y
y
- ,.
,
, ;f %
-
l
! _ r. '-
.
~
'
\\
'
@
'
~ ' ~
h?
-
u s
s a
O e
y, c. -
,
,v
,
,
,
y,. 7.,
'
,
,
,
p
,
,
,
l
,
E
- APPENDIX B
)
y
'
'
'
'
.
,
$
,#.
-
- U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY! COMMISSION mJ-REGION IV-a, i
'
>
,
g w
,
j / (,NRC Inspection-Report;; 50-382/89-32 Operating License:' NPF-385
,
,
GS docket:- 550-382
>
<
ju
. Licensee: : Louisiana Power 8 iight Company (i.P&L)?
.
v.
.n i
'
-
G
'
K
/
-
'317;Baronne: Street-
.
<
~ '
.
-New 0rleans, Louisiana -70160
'
.
s
4 s
.
)
LFacility Name: Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 $W3SES)
i i
'
,
-
.;
p
.
(-
Inspection At: W3SES, Taft, Louisiana}
t
<
L x
.
'.
.
.
.
,...-
,
.-
- Inspection Conducted::
y
'
October. 16-20; 1989 J a
s
,
,
,
'
~ N
, _
"
i p g
W
_
'W. M.'McNe
, Reactor Inspec/.or,TatertaTs-~~'
~Date <
s
- and Qual Programs.Secti6n, Division ofc
- o
'
-Reactor fety
'
-
w s
2,,:
-
,
,
_
,
,
%
^4
+
L
,
.
IApproveil:
f tI/I /
'
c
.I.;Barnes, C Def, Materials an{ Quality
...
-Date /
Programs SFctioni Division of Reactor Safety
-!
l'
'
.
,
,
,
_
w
.
,
.
,
Inspection' Summary
,
,
'
}
-.
. n
.
.
~
'Inspectiori Con'Jucted October 16-20,19891(Report 50-382/89-32)
.
T reas! bspected: ' Routine,'unannouncedinspectionofinserviceinspection:(ISI)
V ',-
A
!
',. work:activitieT and~an annual quality, assurance (QA)'p'rogram review.
a q
.
L:
. # Resulthi The ISI work activities were found to be generally satisfactory p
?
~,
but the/one noncited, violation and one apparent violation that were identified ~
~
'
-(see{ paragraph ~2) suggest that weaknesses exist.in the review and approval:
"f OJL,
prodess for ISI procedures.
~
,
i wuv 'W
-
The. established QA pro i
gf
- Analysis Report (FSAR) gram was_ found to be in conformance with Final Safe comitments and appeared, based on limited inspections i g/
yf
~ during 1989, to be satisfactorily implemented.
jilV
"
8911280181 891113 PDR ADOCK 05000382 l
...
-
.*
O PDC
,
!.-
$
V-
+
'
]
'
'
. :t ;
.
.
.
..
.
.
-:
-
'"
y-g
,
ma.,
.
.
^
'
u'.
. s,,
._e.
.
- .,
,
,
.
i g,,,
sy Fs I'
- '
-2-
.
41, t
- f
.
,
'
',
,
,.
t=
+
i
]
~0.
J
_ ;
DETAILS
,
g
,
-
"^
').;
Persons' Contacted
'
Q b ^i '
..:lLP&L1 m
ya
,
- P. N. Backes, Programs Engineering Supervisor i
- D. E.iBaker, Nuclear Operations Support & Assessments Manager
%
- L.~,L. Bass, Nuclear Operations Engineering & Construction. Supervisor
.
- W. R.-Brian, Systems Engineering Supervisor
.
B.W.;Crocker, Nondestructive' Examination:(NDE)LevelIII
.
- G. ML Davis, Event Analysis' Manager
+
=C.,E. Forpohl. Inservice. Inspection (ISI)-Coordinator-
~
- J. E. Howard, Procurement / Programs Engineering Supervisor-G. F.. Koehler,- Quality Assurance (QA) Audit Supervisor
- W.-T. LaBonte, Radiation Protection Superintendent
<-
- L. W. Laughlin, Site Licensing Supervisor
-
- J. R..McGaha, Nuclear Plant.0perations Manager
,
l
- D. F.: Packer, Assistant Plant Manager Operations & Maintenance
- P. V. Prasankumar, Assistant Plant Manager Technical Services
'
- S..Ramzy, Assistant-Radiation Protection Superintendent j
- G. W. Robin, ISI Coordinator
- L. R. Simon, Radwaste Engineer
- T. H.-Smith,. Plant Engineering Superintendent
..
- J. J.:Zabritski, Operation QA Manager
-
.
,
.
1-
.
l United States Testing Company
!D. M.cMoore, NDE Level.II i
(
M.'E. Smith, ISI Coordinator Westinghouse Electric Corporation W. G. Halley, NDE Level II L7
.K. N.~ Kortderax, NDE Level II i
m
,
.
NRC La
.W. F. Smith, Senior Resident Inspector l
'
p
- T. R. Staker, Resident Inspector
- Denotes those persons that attended the exit meeting.on October 20, 1989, d
"
In' addition, the NRC inspector contacted other members of the licensee's staff.
'2.-
Inservice Inspection (ISI) - Work Activities (73753)
H
'The objective of: this inspection was to ascertain whether performance of
'
ISI examinations' was in accordance with regulatory and American Society of
'
p i
a j
,
,
<
y
,
E
_: U l
+
-
-
-
---
~
-
y my
&
-. l; l y,
,,
l !
%'
W
'
- W2 M
%.
}*
's*y
}
j.
+
,
,
..
,
g4%
.
ti M Mo u k,c d
.
,
's-3.
.
,
.
- -
I^ %
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code requirements. The inspector reviewed.
'
,.D"'
> Technical Specifications.(TS),10-year Inservice Inspection Program, and
~
.;
the following procedures:
,
a
.
,
,
II.
"'
' fJMagnetic Particle Examinations for Waterford Unit 3. WTR-ISI-70,
iRevision 0, dated September 10, 1986;
{
= Liquid Penetrant Examination, QAP-381 Ra ision 0.0, dated'
'
'~
'
,/-
September 22, 1989; Manual U1trasonic. Examination of Welds, QAP-390, Revision 0.0, dated:
i
T September 22,.1989;;and-
^
/ Calibration of Nondestructive Equipment, QAP-373, Revision 0.0, dated
- i
September,22,=1989.
.
.
The inspector witnessed the performance of the following examinations:
t Mag'netic. particle (MT)exeminationofreactorvesselnuts;
'
Liquid penetrant (PT) examination of Weld 50-056 on the suction side
'
of low pressure Safety Injection Pump B, Drawing WTR-2-4204
-
'Line 2SI-20-10B;.and
'
'
,
e
'
Ultrasonic (UT) examination of Welds-56-074 and 56-076-on the safety fy
-
injectioniline to Loop 1B. Drawing WTR-2-4212 Line 2SI-8-122LR-1B.
-
'
,
It was noted by the inspector that examination personnel appropriately
,
..
complied with'the examination,: calibration, and documentation requirements of the approved procedures with' the exception noted below. Use of the l-correct UT calibration blocks was verified by the inspector. The
,
.
inspector also checked personnel certifications to verify that the d
,
.
-examiners were appropriately qualified for the examination performed. The
^-
.,
equipment and materials used (MT yoke, MT powders, fluorescent light
meter, PT penetrant, PT developer, PT cleaner, UT search units, UT scopes and'UT gels) were found to~be. appropriately certified and;the instruments
calibrated as-required.
l L
4y hn examination on containment spray pump suction Line 2CS-14-2B, in
.
~ accordance with Relief Request 151-002 and similar to previous examinations y
performed during the last outage, was planned during this outage. This
>
relief. request addresses the requirement for a sample of welds to be
'
c
,,
.
l inspected for intergranular stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC). At the time the W3SES ISI program was written, the latest state-of-the-art
' technology for' IGSCC inspection was not available.
Since the issuance of
%
.
-
<
J th'e. plan, the'NRC identified in Generic Letter 88-01 that IGSCC
'
.
inspections should be performed with procedures and by personnel qualified
.
,
W
-
to the latest' state-of-the-art technology, such as the NRC approved y
L f
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) program. As a result of the L
inspector's discussions with the licensee personnel, it was decided to
'
Y
,t
,
e
.
,
I
"
i if E
,
j
-
,
.
,
(
- .
,,
'
-
-
.
.
-
_r--
-
=w j
+
-
-
-
n
g
-
pm m
'
7
, =
-
,
m
,e i
.
..
..,
,,
r,
- f.s
,
-
,
+
,4,
x,
'
.
delay.the planned exaniinations 'u til a review coud be performed to
,
-
, evaluate the incorporation of'the latest technologyiinto the W3SES ISI:
i m
program.-
Duridg:thewitnessingofPTexaminationonWeld5b-056,theinspector-I observed that' stamping of the weld center' line at the 9 and 3 o' clock
.
.
>
- positions was no1; the.. normal stamp used-at other locationsf and questioned
,
'
_whether the stemping could constitute a stress riserc in-the pipe material.
,
~
> The licensee issued Problem Evaluation /Information Request (PIER) 10820 to
,
address this concern.
In that. stamping with other than the nomal low
-
- stress type' stamps would be a-violation of ASME Section-III Code, Subsection
<
NCA3866.6.a.(2),thisitemmisconsideredanunresolveditempendingNRC l
review of-the PIER resolution.
(382/8932-02)-
'
~
'
During the witnessing of the UT examination 'of Welds.56-074 and 56-075, the inspector found that Procedure QAp-390 failed to require a
.
'
circumferential scan for transverse reflectors. A circumferential scan is
.," 1
,
L required by ASME'Section XI Code, Appendix 111-4430. Thi procedure: failed
'
,
.
to' require a circumferential scan because of misapplication of a note:in
>
the tables of Section'XI which exempted carbon and low alloy, steels from
'g
.
this scan requirement. The. welds in question were, however. austenitic
.
stainless steel ~.7 Subsequent' to' the inspector's identification the'
_
licensee documented this problem in Quality. Notice 89-224, which addresses-
,
i
+
-
.
y the 35 applicable ISI examinations performed during this crutage. Review
"'
L Lof: records for past outages indicated that a different' ISI contractor and '
' =
procedure were used, and that welds had been properly scanned. Thei required circumferential scens will be perfomed either< during this outage or the.next outege. Procedure QAP-390 will be revised to' add the ASNE'
L, Code requirement. A Notice of Violation is not being issued because the criteria of Section V.A. of the NRC's Enforcement Policy have been-met.
'
'
During: review of the report documenting the examination of 18 reactor.
o
! vessel nuts performed during'the last outage. the inspector noted that the" threaded'inside diameters were-not MT examined ;in two directions'(i.e...
i
_-
the lines of flux from one examination are to be approximately
,
- perpendicular tofthe other). Paragraph 6.4 of' Procedure WTR-ISI-70 and
+
+ Article T-761'in Section V of the ASME Code both' require a two._ direction I
NT examination. ~1t sho'uld be noted that while the ASME Code-has, established; the examination method, it has not yet ' established acceptance
criteria. :During this inspection, the. inspector witnessed the performance
!
-
fof a two direction MT examination of a' reactor vessel nut tnat was in
.
'
progress. Review of the procedure revealed that while the two direction
-
p ~
m
,
examination was required, specificity regarding method'of accomplishment
.
,
' appeared to be lacking. This may have lent itself to the failure to
~
.. perform the complete examination during the. previous outage. Discussion:
Y with licensee, personnel indicated that a revision of the procedure would
.
'
be' performed in'orderito assure that all necessary information was
included. The failure to perform the required two direction MT
'
,
$6 examination during the previous' outage is an apparent violation.
y"
~(382/8932-01) '
,.
k
.
. - -. ---
-
-. - - - -
.. -. - -
.
-.
.
- -. - - - - -,
,
.
x
,
'
.
Ad"
pll *)
"a t
,; [
'
.<.
-5--
,
a-
-
~ Summary
,
'
^
?The ISI activities were found to be' generally satisfactory, but the one,
d
.F-nor. cited violation and one apparent violation that were identified
- _
suggest that weaknesses exist in the review and approval process for ISI
,
'
procedures.c
-
d:(
.
.
.
,
) '
n, 3.
-Quality Assurance Program Annual Review (35701).
p Y
<
f
'
'The objectives'of this. inspection were to ensure that the licensee is
- c
&'~
1mplementing a' QA program that is in conformance with the TS, regulatory
>
<
F
' -
- requirements,'and licensee commitments.
,
,
P gh
.
m --
, Program
,.
-
,
g
~
.
s~
This inspection,was.the second onsite review of the operations;QA program
'l
-
for~W3SES. The~1nspector reviewed the TS, the current' revision of the QA
-
program description, Chapter 17.2 of the Final Safety-Analysis
-
Report (FSAR), and the following:
~
-
Nuclear Operations Management Manual (NOMM),.Section 5;
<
s
, : Nuclear Operations Procedure"(N0P) Manual; and
~
"
.
Qu'ality Assurance Procedure (QAP) Manual.
.
Theinspectormadethelfollowingobservations:
,
'
-
Since the'last inspection (see NRC Inspection Report 50-382/87-01) there have been personnel changes.to the-plant organization'and to the QA
+
organization:such as a new plant manager and a new QA manager. The basic structure of' the plant organization has ~ remained the same since last inspected., 'It appears that the QA structure has been reorganized into a.
'
y'
.more functional and streamlined' organization.
~
-The qualifications of the new QA manager were reviewed by the -inspector and.found-to be satisfactory.
,.
Interviews with personnel responsible for the QA program description in the FSAR, established that the next FSAR update in December 1989, will
. include some minor QA program description changes in Chapter 17.2.
l The QA program as described in the NOMM, NOPs, and QAPs appeared to be consistent with the commitments in the QA program descriotion in
!
Chapter 17.2 of the FSAR..
Implementation i
The implementation of the QA program has been previously addressed in the
,
l-areas of procurement; receipt, storage, and handling of equipment and materials (see NRC Inspection Reports 50-382/89-02; 50-382/89-07),
-
,
b
+
v
-
-
%
,,---c
-
. _
_
-
.
- -
x_
,
v
p*:*
t
,a
-
,
.i
'
.
'
-6
'
[e-.
'
,
self-assessment (see NRC Inspection Report 50-382/89-07), and the audit
!
program and offsite support staff (see NRC Inspection
, e Report 50-382/89-11).
t
'
No violations or deviations were identified in this area of the
- .'
inspection, y'.
,
~
. Summary L
'I"
The established QA program was found to be in conformance with FSAR
-
based on the limited inspections discussed
.connitments and appeared, t.
s
.
ir above, to'be satisfactorily implemented.
4.
Exit Meeting An. exit meeting.was held on October 20. 1989, with those individuals denoted in Section 1 of this report. At this meeting the.senpe of the inspection and 'the findings were summarized. The licensee did not identify'as proprietary any of the information provided to, or reviewed by the inspector, i
.
4 F
w
'
r
,
,
.g 1-
)
m
._
,
j