ML19270G963
| ML19270G963 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 04/11/1979 |
| From: | Crossman W, Randy Hall, Stewart R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19270G955 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-382-79-04, 50-382-79-4, NUDOCS 7906220241 | |
| Download: ML19270G963 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000382/1979004
Text
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Report No. 382/79-04
Docket No. 50-382
Category A2
Licensee:
Louisiana Power and Light Company
142 Delaronde St.
New Orleans, Louisiana
70174
Facility Name: Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit No. 3
Inspection at: Waterford Site, Taft, Louisiana
Inspection Conducted:
March 20-23, 1979
Inspectors: 0^4 9). % <An c h
4////h9
fe R. C. Stewart, Reactor Inspector, Projects Section
Da'te
(Paragraphs 4, 5 & 6)
t
/
l
g
[
.llM 1)
4/ll/79
.'
A.~'B. Beach, Reactor Inspector, Engineering Support
Date '
Section (Paragraphs 1, ~2 & 3)
V///[77
Approved:
e
W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section
Date
t&
6 /19
. E. Hall, Chief, Engineering Support Section
Date
2348
.s05
7 906 220 A'//
Inspection Summary:
Inspection on March 20-23, 1979 (Report No. 50-382/79-04)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of construction activi-
ties related to the review of safety related pipe support and restraint
systems procedures; a follow-on review of reactor containment pipe
penetration QC records; and the observation of work activities and QC
records relating to safety related components. The inspection involved
fifty inspector-hours by two NRC inspectors.
Results: Of the four areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were
.found in two areas. One apparent item of noncompliance was found in
the area of maintaining protection of installed safety related equipment
(infraction - failure to follow contract procedures related to care and
maintenance of safety related components - paragraph 3) and one apparent
item of noncompliance was found in the area of housekeeping surveillance
(infraction - failure to perform required surveillances as required by
approved procedures - paragraph 3).
2348
506
-2-
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
Principal Licensee Employees
- T. Gerrets, Project QA Engineer
B. Toups, QA Engineer
- J. Woods, QA Engineer
- B. Brown, QA Engineer
- C. Chatelain,.QA Engineer
P. Jackson, Project Coordinator
- R. Gautreau, Utility Engineer
- C. DeCareaux, Production Engineer
Other Personnel
- R. Milhiser, Project Superintendent, Ebasco
- R. Hartnett, QA Site Supervisor, Ebasco
J. Moskwa, Field QA/QC Manager, NISCO
- J. Britt, Site Manager, NISCO
- D. Sarasin, Site Auditor, NISCO
- R. Ronquillo, QA Manager, Gulf Engineering
- E. Kohn, Assistant Project Manager, Tompkins-Beckwith (T-B)
- L. Richardson, QA Supervisor, T-B
L. Stinson, Manager, Site QA, Ebasco
D. Hasian, QA Engineer Mechanical, Ebasco
B. Tarrant, Mechanical Supervisor, Ebasco
- J.~ Wills, Construction Superintendent, Ebasco
,
The IE inspectors also interviewed other licensee and contractor
personnel including members of engineering and QA/QC staffs.
- denotes those attending the exit interview.
2.
Site Tour _
The IE inspectors walked through various areas of the site to observe
construction activities in progress.
No items of noncompliance or
deviations were identified.
3.
Care and Maintenance of Safety Related Components
The IE inspector observed activities and reviewed records relative
to the care and maintenance of the three coolant charging pumps
and the pressurizer.
2348
307
-3-
.
a.
Coolant Charging Pumps
During observation of activities on March 21, 1979, related to
the protection of the coolant pumps after their installation,
the IE inspector noted the following:
(1) Quantities of trash and debris were scattered about the
areas where the charging pumps are installed.
(2) Scaffolding for trades working in the areas above the
pumps had been installed on the pump foundations as well
as on the pumps themselves.
(3) Covers for the charging pumps which were installed for
their protection were removed and, in two instances,
were resting on top of the pumps themselves.
Ebasco Procedure CMI#1, " Care and Maintenance Instructions for
the CVCS Charging Pumps," requires that adequate protection
be provided to protect the pumps from physical damage and
deterioration as a result of activities in progress in the
vicinity of the charging pumps.
Since the requirements of
this procedure are not being met, this is considered to be an
item of noncompliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V.
A review of records indicated that the maintenance requirements
of Ebasco Procedure CMI#1, " Care and Maintenance Instructions
for the CVCS Charging Pumps," were being performed.
NCR 140,
NCR 141 and NCR 142, written on March 14, 1979, identified
some forty-eight parts that had been severed from each of the
pumps, including valves, piping and instrumentation; but did
not identify any of the in-place storage requirements which
were not being met.
A review of Ebasco Procedure ASP-IV-3, " General Housekeeping,"
showed that in paragraph 6.10.1, " Inspection and examination
of the work areas and the construction practices shall be
performed daily by Contractors for their work areas and weekly
by Ebasco Quality Control Material Control Supervisor to
assure adequacy of cleanliness and housekeeping practices ...."
Subsequently, it was discovered, in discussion with Ebasco
personnel, that these surveillances were not being performed
as required.
This is considered to be an item of noncompliance
with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V.
2348
508
-4-
.
b.
Pressurizer
The IE inspector observed activities relative to the protection
of the pressurizer aftet its installation.
At the time of this
inspection, the area was oburved to be free of trash and debris.
Work was progressing oa the installation of the nitrogen purge
equipment required by SWA #18b.
A review of records indicated storage and maintenance require-
ments were being performed in accordance with CMI#31, " Care
and Maintenance Instructions," for the pressurizer.
Procedures
were being taken to insure the in-placa storage requirements of
CMI#31 will be met.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Pipe Supports and Restraints
During the inspection, the IE inspector conducted a review of the
T-B work procedures that establish the controls for installation,
inspection and documentation required for safety related and seismic
Class 1 pipe supports and restraints.
Specific T-B procedures reviewed included:
TBP-24, " Hanger and Support Installation Procedure," Revision
F, dated July 26, 1978
TBP-44, " Installation and Inspection of Pipe Rupture and/or
Restraints," Revision "A", dated Janaury 12, 1979
The IE inspector cone,,cted a comparative review of the procedures
with the T-B contract document Specificttion No. W3-NY-ll; Ebasco
Procedure ASP-IV-37, Revision C, dated August 11, 1978; and ASME,
Section III, Division I, Summer 1976 Ardenda.
No items of noncomp'liance or deviationt were identi11ed.
5.
Reactor Building Pipe Penetrations
The IE inspector conducted a follow-or review of QA/0C documentation
records related to reactor building pi.3.gg penetrations selected
during a previous IE on-site inspectic t1.
IflE Inspection Report No. 50-382/79-02
-5-
..
The T-B QA/QC document records files reviewed by the IE inspector
were QMC-S1-P57-E; QMC-SI-P-32-E; QMC-SI-P-32-E; and QMC-Sl-P-37-E.
Documents reviewed and contained within each of the records files
were: weld control records; NDE records; weld repair records; NCRs;
traveler index and instructions; filler metal control records; and
ANI hold and sign-off records.
ho items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Exit Interview
The IE inspectors met with the licensee representatives (denoted in
paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on March 23, 1979.
The IE inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
2348
310
-6-