ML20005E804
| ML20005E804 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 12/27/1989 |
| From: | Collins S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Dewease J LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| EA-89-212, NUDOCS 9001110087 | |
| Download: ML20005E804 (15) | |
Text
^
~
^
w p g.i DEC 27195 t
.i.
E r In Reply Refer To:.
Docket:, 50-382--
EA 89-212-
- , i
.J Louisiana. Power & Light Company ATTN::- J. G. Dewease, Senior Vice President Nuclear. Operations -
~s 317.Baronne Street-New Orleans, Louisiana 70160-
^
l
. Gentlemen:
LThis refers to the Enforcement Conference conducted at Region IV's request in the NRC Region IV office on December 11, 1989. This meeting related to 7
activities. authorized'by NRC License NPF-38 for Waterford Steam Electric; Station. Unit 3,;and was attended by those on the attached Attendance List.
The ' subjects discussed at this meeting are described in the enclosed Meeting
~
/ Summary..
n
'It is our' opinion that this meeting was beneficial and has'provided a better understanding'of-the findings documented in NRC Investigation 4-89-002.-
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2 i
- Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter will. be placed in the NRC's-Public Document Room.
- Should you have any questions concerning this matter, we will be pleased to
. discuss them with you.
1-
- Sincerely,
)
Original SI ncd By:
G Sarnuel J. Collins 5
Samuel J. Collins, Director
~ Division of Reactor Projects I
Enclosure:
Meeting Sumary w/ attachments cc w/ enclosure:
- Louisiana Power & Light Company ATTN:
R. P. Barkhurst, Vice President Nuclear Operations P.O. Box B K111ona, Louisiana 70066
-RIV:DRP/AN C:DRP/BS D
ATHowell DDChamberlain Su liins ~
g p/rp/89
.p-/J1/89 7t-MuI 89
/
i\\
KBR A88EI BshEL PDC g
..mm
rr f
ihi; d
.,n y. ;
. Louisiana Power & Light Company,,
t Louisiana Power &-Light Company.
ATTN:
J. R. McGaha,- Jr., Plant Manager P.O. Box B-
- Killona,' Louisiana _70066 Lo'uisiana Power 8-Light Company
' ATTN: _ L. W. Laughlin, Site -
Licensing Support Supervisor P.O.-. Box - B.
3
- Killona, Louisiana 70066 L
Louisiana Power & Light Company E
ATTN:
G. M. Davis, Manager, Events Analysis Reporting & Response P.O. Box B i
- Killona, Louisiana 70066 Monroe & Leman
- ATTN:
W.' Malcolm Stevenson, Esq..
J 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 3300 j
. New Orleans, Louisiana 70170-3300 j
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge ATTN:. Mr. E. Blake:
2300 IfStreet, NW i
Washington, D.C.
20037
' Middle South Services, Inc.
ATTH:. Ralph T. Lally, Manager u
of-Quality Assurance-j P.O. Box 61000
_j New Orleans, Louisiana 70161-Chairman Louisiana Public Service Comission One American Place, Suite 1630
' Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70825-1697 Louisiana Power & Light Company ATTN:
R. F. Burski, Manager, Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Affairs 317 Baronne Street' New Orleans,' Louisiana 70112 Department of Environmental Quality ATTN: William H. Spell, Administrator Nuclear Energy Division P.O. Box 14690 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70898 s
g8gn,,
qp 4
Mt v.
g; 6; Louisiana Power & Light Company. *
[
in <
. President Police Jury.
S:f St. Charles Parish s
- .Hahnville.: Louisiana 70057 d4 Mr. William A. Cross Y
Bethesda Licensing Office nm 13 Metro Center
<t"5
. Suite 610-l.
Bethesda Maryland -20814 e.
9' ',
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1
ATTN:
Resident Inspector P.O.' Box 822 Killona, Louisiana '70066.
l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consnission
' ATTN:! Regional Administrator, Region IV n..
611-Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite:1000 lN, Arlington,' Texas - 7601I 1.
p4 LbectoDMB.(IE14) l b-bec distrib. by RIV
R. D. Martin Resident Inspector -
E SectionChief(DRP/A)
-Project Engineer (DRP/A)-
Lisa Shea, RM/ALF
~ D. Wigginton, NRR Project Manager (MS:
13-D-18)
RIV File R'.
G.:Sanborni EO j
t ;' s i
i.
t
.5
. m u
7
+
g..
- N-ise Ey MEETING
SUMMARY
Licensee:.
Louisiana Power & Light Company (LP&L)
Facility:
Waterford Steam Electric' Station, Unit 3 (Waterford 3)
License No.:-
NPF-38 Docket No.:
50-382' Sbbject:
ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE CONCERNING NRC FINDINGS (NRC INVESTIGATION NO.'4-89-002) l On December 11, 1989, representatives of LP&L met with Region IV personnel in-Arlington, Texas, to discuss the findings contained in NRC Investigation 4-89-002 that was completed in-September 1989. The meeting was
. held at the request of Region IV. The attendance list and licensee j
.. presentation are attached to this summary..
i The licensee's presentation addressed NRC concerns that pertained to this investigation. LP&L stated that'it accepted the NRC's findings regarding the s
truthfulness of a-quality control (QC) inspector, however, it mainu.ined that the fire seal work that this individual was involved in was correctly performed.-
The QC inspector, who was the subject of this investigation, was removed from the. performance of all' safety-related work at Waterford 3 on December 5,1989.
"1
- Attachments:
j 1.-
Attendance L1st
-2.
Licensee Presentation (NRC distribution only) o L
l
- l m
t-
c. 3,,,
x;
,~
j,Y 1 n~ - LJ l v..
e; 4
9
' 1
.i L
=
c s
y-3
. Ud ATTENDANCE-LIST t
g vb J
1'
-Attendance at the Enforcement. Conference between LP&L and NRC on December 11, 1989,. in the. NRC{ Region IV. office:
L a..LP&L:
u 1
[*
}J. Dewease, Senior Vice President, Nuclears
(,
R.lBurski, Manager, Nuclear Safety 8 Regulatory Affairs 1
S. Lockhart, Manager,' Nuclear: Quality Assurance m
P T. Gerrets, Manager, Nuclear Services B. (Collyer, Fire Protection Engineer' P-W. Laporte. QA Support.
Oc
- E.SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS. & TROWBRIDGE i
p>
q.
E. Blake^, Legal Counsel.
NRC' i
S. Collins, Director, Division of Reactor Projects. (DRP)
JJ.: Callan, Director, Division of Reactor Safety (DRS)
D. Chamberlain. Chief,- Reactor Project Section A, DRP G. Sanborn, Enforcement Officer A. Howell, Project Engineer. DRP j
W.' Smith, Senior ~ Resident Inspector, DRP i
'W. Brown, Regional-Counsel a
M.TMurphy, Reactor Inspector, DRS j
NRC!iOFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT l
q 1R. Perfetti, Enforcement Specialist q
l 1,,
?
1 I
I l
i l'
1 i.
i
.J
y Ji NRC CONCERNS
- THE TRUTHFULNESS OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHOSE INACCURATE STATEMENTS CONSTITUTE A POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT VIOLATION OF 10CFR50.9 THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S ACKNOWLEDGE-MENT THAT HE HAD NOT PERFORMED THE NECESSARY INSPECTIONS OFTHE FIRE SEAL WORK IMPLICATIONS OF THIS ADMISSION ON OTHER QUALITY CONTROL INSPECTIONS FOR WHICH THE INDIVIDUAL WAS-RESPONSIBLE NRC QUESTIONS WHETHER THE PRACTICE OF THIS INDIVIDUAL REFLECTS A GENERAL ATTITUDE TOWARDS l
QUALITY CONTROL WORK AMONG THOSE IN SIMllAR POSITIONS ATWATERFORD 3 l
s
- REFERENCE NRC REGION IV LETTER TO LP&L (11-2-89) 1 1
IQ
., L NRC-REQUESTS
- l t
y L
DISCUSS THE APPARENT VIOLATION OF NRC'S REQUIREMENT L
REGARDING THE ACCURACY OF INFORMATION -
DISCUSS ANY PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS THAT MAY HAVE OCCURRED DISCUSS THE IMPLICATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S ADMISSION ON ANY INSPECTION WORK FOR WHICH HE HAS BEEN RESPONSIBLE t
DISCUSS THE STATUS OF THIS INDIVIDUAL REGARDING HIS RESPONSIBILITY FOR SAFETY-RELATED ACTIVITIES AT WATERFORD l
l
- REFERENCE NRC REGION IV LE1TER TO LP&L (11-2 89) l 2
j
.e a
l d'
l LP&L REVIEW PROCESS I
f REVIEWED NRC REPORTS i
i INTERVIEWED 35 PERSONS ANCO LP&L QC t
LP&L MAINTENANCE
[
i REVIEWED DOCUMENTATION f
PROCEDURES
[
INSPECTION LOGS 4
TEST DATA b
d 3
ACCURACY OF INFORMATION LP&L ACCEPTS NRC CONCLUSION STATED IN LETTER (112 89) l REGARDING ACCURACY OF INFORMATION BY THE INDIVIDUAL i
l l
LP&L'S REVIEW INDICATES THIS INCIDENT IS AN ISOLATED l
CASE 1
1 1
1 1
4
I 1
FIRE SEAL PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS l
l l
PROCEDURE AS WRITTEN
- ltULRACTICE
- L
- 1. VERIFY FOAM DENSITY
- 1. VERIFY FOAM DENSITY l
- 2. DIG OUT 2" l
- 2. DIG OUT 2"
- 3. APPLY SEALANT
- 3. INSPECT 2"
- 4. INSPECT 2 & 3
- 4. APPLY SEALANT
- 5. INSPECT SEALANT THE FOAM DENSITY HOLD POINT WAS VIOLATED IN SOME INSTANCES WITH REGARD TO SEQUENCE THE 2" INSPECTION AND THE FINAL INSPECTION HOLD POINT WERE NOT VIOLATED PROCEDURE WAS REVISED IN APRIL,1988 TO REFLECT "IN PRACTICE" SEQUENCE l
- $1MPLIFIED l
5 l
l
lMPLICATIONS ON FIRE SEAL WORK REVIEW INDICATES THAT FINAL INSPECTION OF FIRE SEALS WAS DONE AS REQUIRED BY PROCEDURE 4
FINAL INSPECTION OF FIRE SEAL PROVIDES HIGH DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE WITH REGARD TO ACCEPTABILITY OF SEAL OBVIOUS SEAL ADHESION PROBLEMS WOULD HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED i
i APRIL,1989 TESTS DEMONSTRATED EXCELLENT ADHESION OF SILICONE FOAM INSTALLED EVEN ON TOP OF UNDISTURBED SILICONE FOAM FIRE SEAL REINSPECTION PROGRAM CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1988 - NOVEMBER 1989 i-OBVIOUS SEAL ADHESION PROBLEMS WOULD HAVE BEEN lDENTIFIED SILICONE FOAM EXPANDS 1% FOR EACH 18 F OF TEMPERATURE RISE
)
SMALL GAPS WOULD NOT IMPACT SEAL FUNCTION 4
ONGOING FIRE SEAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM IS CONTINUING TO BE IMPLEMENTED 10% INSPECTED EVERY 18 MONTHS 4
FIRE SEALS ARE ACCEPTABLE 4
6
.~
m i,
lMPLICATION ON OTHER INSPECTION WORK BY INDIVIDUAL i
e LP&L INTERVIEWED 35 INDIVIDUALS e
LP&L QC INSPECTORS j
l LP&L MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL l
ANCO PERSONNEL l
NO OTHER EVIDENCE OF MISSED INSPECTIONS WAS FOUND l-REGARDING THIS INDIVIDUAL l
LP&L PREPARED FOR REINSPECTION IF NECESSARY OTHER INSPECTION WORK BY INDIVIDUAL IS ACCEPTABLE l
l r
7 I
s GENERAL ATTITUDE OF OTHER QC INSPECTORS TOWARDS QUALITY CONTROL LP&L INTERVIEWED 35 INDIVIDUALS LP&L QC INSPECTORS LP&L MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL ANCO PERSONNEL l
REVIEW INDICATES THAT VERY FEW INSPECTIONS HAVE BEEN MISSED o
LP&L PRACTICE IS TO WRITE ON'S ON MISSED i
INSPECTIONS REVIEW FOUND 13 INSPECTIONS MISSED OUT OF OVER 60,000 INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED DURING 1987 - 1989 IMPORTANCE OF COMPLYING WITH HOLD POINTS IS CLEARLY RECOGNIZED BY QC AND MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL L
QUALITY TEAM REVIEWED 128 CONCERNS 13ENTIFIED FRO'..
JANUARY 1988 TO NOVEMBER 15,1989 NO OTHER QUALITY TEAM CONCERNS RELATING TO l
INSPECTION WERE IDENTIFIED DURING THIS PERIOD (CURRENTLY REVIEWING 1989 OUTAGE RELATED l
CONCERNS) 1 8
\\
l s..
l,b
'3 MANAGEMENT DIRECTION I
REASON FOR POSITIVE ATTITUDE OF PERSONNEL IS j
l' MANAGEMENT EMPHASIS ON PROCEDURE COMPLIANCE j
PRINCIPLES FOR ENHANCING PROFESSIONALISM EVERY EMPLOYEE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DEMONSTRATING PROFESSIONALISM IN HIS OR HER JOB PERFORMANCE INTEGRlTY IS THE MOST VALUED AND ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTE OF THE NUCLEAR OPERATIONS EMPLOYEE EMPLOYEES SHOULD BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THElR l
ACTIONS l
FEEDBACK TO MANAGEMENT ON POLICIES AND PROCEDURES IS HIGHLY ENCOURAGED
)
I COMPLIANCE WITH PROCEDURES IS ESSENTIAL IF A PROCEDURE IS SUSPECTED TO BE WRONG, SEEK GUIDANCE FROM SUPERVISOR BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER PROFESSIONALISM IS EMPHASIZED IN VIDEO TAPE DURING GET TRAINING PLANT DIRECTIVE, NO.11 (PROCEDURE COMPLIANCE), IS BEING REVIEWED WITH PLANT AND QA PERSONNEL DURING ONE ON ONE COUNSELING SESSIONS WILL BE COMPLETED BY DECEMBER 31,1989 9
s STATUS OF THE INDIVIDUAL l
REMOVED FROM PERFORMING SAFETY RELATED QA i
INSPECTIONS APRIL 12,1989
\\
DURING PERIOD OF APRIL 12,1989 TO DECEMBER 5,1989 PERFORMED VALIDATIONS AND PROCEDURE REVIEWS FOR QA
~
i AFTER DECEMBER 5,1989 REMOVED FROM THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL SAFETY RELATED WORK l
l I
l l
l l
10
_