IR 05000382/1990014
| ML20055G802 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 07/17/1990 |
| From: | Murphy M, Seidle W, Singh A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20055G796 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-382-90-14, NUDOCS 9007240188 | |
| Download: ML20055G802 (4) | |
Text
.
--
_.
.
. -.
-
_
..
.,
j
-
.
APPENDIX B
'
l U.S. IlVCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION lY
]
NRC Inspection Report:
50 382/90-14 Operating License: NPF-38 Docket: 50-38?
Licensee: Er.tergy Operations, Inc. (E01)
P.O. Box B l.111ona, Louisiana 70066 facility Name: WaterfordSteanElectricStation, Unit 3(WAT-3)
Inspection At: WAT-3 site, Taft, Louisiana
,
!
Inspection Conducted: June 25-29, 1990 t
Inspectors:
7/#
-
P!.1. MurphygAep,Mor Inspector, Test Programs Ust~c '
Section, Divis1on of Reactor Safety 1 D D
'
A. Singh,' Reactor Inspector, Test Programs Date Section Division of Reactor Safety l
l 7/s//10 M
Approved:
W.C.Seidfg) Chief,TestProgramsSection Date Division of Reactor Safety inspection Summary, inspection Conducted June 25-29. 1990 (Report 50-382/90-14)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of containment local leak rate testing data, the surveillance test and calibration program, and followup of previous inspection findings.
Results: The inspection resulted in one violation, failure to comply with
,
-Technical Specification requirements while performing the local leak rate test for containment penetrations. The surveillance test and calibration program were determined to be a strength in both administration and performance.
.
Review of the licensee's actions on previous inspection findings resulted in the closing of one violation and one unresolved item.
[gg72ggcibb b
,[2 o
,
- e e
,
-
.
DETAILS 1.
PERSONS CONTACTED
- D. E. Baker, Director, Operations Support Assessments R. G. Bennett, Quality Assurance (QA) Supervisor
- D. F. Boan, Health Physics Supervisor
- K. P. Boudreaux, Assistant Technical Specification Coordinator
- G. M. Davis, Event Analysis Reporting and Response Manager
- H. D. Dinh, STA Supervisor
- F. J. Englebracht. Engineering and Planning Administration Manager
- J. G. Hoffpauir, Planning and Schedulirg Manager
- J. Houghtaling. Operations Technical Manager
- L. W. Laughlin. Site Licensing Supervisor
'
- J, M. O'Hern, Operations Training Supervisor
- D. F. Packer, Operations Maintenance Manager P. V. Prasankumar, Technical Services Manager S. Ramzy, Assistant Superintendent Technical Services
- T. H. Smith, Plant Engineering Superintendent
.
L.
P,. Simon, Lead Supervisor, Radwaste
- R. S. Starkey, Operations Superintendent
- J. J. Zabritski, Assistant QA Manager NRC
- S. Butler, Resident Inspector
- N. Terc, Reactor Inspector, RlY
- R. Baer, Reactoe Inspector, RIV The inspectors also interviewed other licensee personnel during the inspection.
- Denotes those attending the exit meeting on June 29, 1990.
2.
FOLLOWUP 0F PREVIOUS It!SPECTION FINDINGS (92701.92702)-
(Closed)Unresolveditem(382/8929-01): This item was left unresolved pending completion of the retest of Containment Penetration 63 and work package correction to include the required retest.. Retest of' Penetration 63 was
-
completed on November 6, 1989, under Work Authorization 01044537. The inspectors reviewed the completed local leak rate test data sheet and determined the test data was satisfactory. The' licensee was processing the
work package revision at the time of'this inspection. This resolves the item.
This item is closed.
(Closed) Violation (382/8929-02): Failure to Provide Adequate Test Control -
The licensee failed to identify and perform a postinstallation test on a temporary penetration closure or justify the lack of a need for this test. The licensee reviewed this violation with the system engineering staff at which
!
___
.
_
_
_
l
)
.. -
.,
.
-3-J time the engineers were advised of the importance of documenting assumptions and ensuring that engineering evaluations are complete. This meeting was documented in Meeting Minutes W3E90-0001, dated December 19, 1989.
This item is closed.
)
3.
CONTAINMENT LOCAL LEAK RATE TEST 1HG (61720)
The purpose of this inspection was to verify that primary containment local leak rate tests (LLRT), as required by the Waterford-3 Technical
Specifications (TS), were performed to ensure that leakage through testable containment penetrations and isolation valves would not exceed the allowable leakage specified. This review included records, procedures, and independent calculations associated with LLRTs conducted at Waterford-3.
During this inspection, the inspector reviewed the primary containment LLRT procedure Op-903-114 Revision 2, dated February 2,1990. The procedure was i
complete and satisfactorily stated the acceptance criteria for each penetration and containment isolation valve and for the airlock and the equipment batch.
Test procedure instructions were provided for independent verification of test results and for system restoration.
'
The inspector reviewed records of LLRTs conducted during 1986, 1988, and 1989 refueling outages.
In conducting this review, the inspector verified that corrective actions were taken on components which demonstrated excessive-leakage and that appropriate retests were conducted on containment penetrations and containment isolation valves. The cumulative data for the containment testable penetrations and isolation valves were reviewed to verify that the
,
total containment local leak rate did not exceed the acceptance criteria of 0.60La(51162.95CCM). This acceptance criterion was well within the Technical Specification limit.
During a review of the liceaee's Type R and C LLRT results for the last three l
refueling outages, the inspector no'ed that 31 penetrations were local leek rate tested utilizing an inadequate procedure.
Technical Specification 4.6.1.2.d requires that Type B and C tests shall be conducted with gas at a pressure of 44 psig, for containment penetrations. These 31 penetrations were tested using the pressure decay method which allowed test pressure to drop below 44 psig during the performance of the tests. A pressure correction was not included in the test procedures to normalize final test pressure back to 44 psig. This is anapparentviolationofTechnicalSpecification4.6.1.2.d(382/9014-01). The licensee was informed of the noncompliance with the Technical Specification.
l However, the licensee performed an engineering evaluation on the affect of
'
performing LLRTs at pressure below 44 psig. The evaluation results indicated that en additional 25 sccm be added to total containment leakage. The revised total containment leakage was within the limits of Technical S xcification 3.6.1.2.
In addition to this engineering evaluation, the licensee also las connitted to revise the procedure to include a precaution regarding test pressures less than 44 psig.
!
l
.
..,
.
.
-4 4.
SURVEILLANCE TESTING AND CAllDRATION CONTROL PROGRAM (61725)
This crea of the inspection dealt with a review of the licensee's programs for control and evaluation of Technical Specification surveillance testing.
Technical Specificetion calibration, and calibration of non-Technical Specification safety-related instrumentation.
The licensee's program was essentially contained in two administrative procedures. These are UNT-005-012, " Repetitive Task identification,"
Revision 1, dated September 30, 1988, ated UNT-007-004, Technical Specification Surveillance Control," Revision 6, dated September 18, 1989, i
The inspectors reviewed these procedures and verified that the licensee had I
master schedules for testing and calibration required by TS. The basic computer program for scheduling and tracking is called SIMS (station information management system). A review of selected SIMS printouts was conducted, and it was determined that the schedules included the perfomance i
responsibility, frequency, due date, late date, and status.
Responsibility for maintaining this program is designated by procedure.
Formal requirements have been established for the conduct of surveillance tests and calibrations in accordance with epproved procedures which include acceptance criteria. Methods and responsibilities have been defined for review ard evaluation of surveillance tests and calibration results.
Included are
..
procedures for reporting deficiencies, failures, and malfunctions identified during the test or a calibration with required verification that the limiting condition for operation requirements were satisfied. The aaministrative controls in the areas of scheduling, schedule performance, and late date tracking are considered a strength in this program. This is evidenced by the
,
fact that since the beginning of this SALP cycle in November 1989,-there have been only two missed surveillance tests. These missed tests were licensee i
identified and were documented in LERs 89-21 and 89-22. Both instances were attributed to personnel error and there was no evidence of a programmatic weakness.
Calibration requirements for components associated with safety-related systems or functions, which are nt,c specified in the Technical Specification were i
established. This was accomplished by identifying all instruments used to
!
obtain data needed for verification of Technical Specification requirements and listing these instruments for calibration in the repetitive task program. This provided the same level of scheduling and performance control as Technical i
Specification-required surveillances.
,
There were no violations or deviations identified in this area of the inspection.
'
5.
EXIT MEETING
'
An exit meeting was held June 29, 1990, with the individuals noted in paragraph 1 of this report. At this meeting, the scope of the inspection and the findings were sumarized. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the information provided to, or reviewed by, the inspectors.
_