ML20032A298
| ML20032A298 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 10/09/1981 |
| From: | Constable G, Cummins J, Westerman T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20032A287 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-382-81-23, NUDOCS 8110290393 | |
| Download: ML20032A298 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000382/1981023
Text
e
.
..
.
~
. .
,
,
s
-
APPENDIX B
U.
S.- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION'
0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT-
REGION IV.
IE Inspection Report: 50-382/81-23
Licensee:
Louisiana Power and Light Company
142 Delaronde Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70174
Facility:
Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3
Inspection At: Taft, Louisiana
Inspection Conducted: August 16, 1981-September 15, 1981-
'
Principal
j
-
/
/2#-1, /99/
Inspector:
_ Mw
G. L. C 'ftaoie, 5
Resident Inspector
Dats
'
(*1f 7.
I9<rl
/
-
[J. E. CuffunTns, Resident Inspector
Date
>>
Approved By:
7I///laue '~
8t/9s NS/
T. F. Westerman, Chief, Reactor Projects
Date
Section 1
Inspection Sumary
Inspection conducted Auaust 16, 1981-September 15, 1981 (Report No. 50-382/81-23)
Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection of:
(1) Preoperational Test
Procedure;-(2) Preoperational Test Witnessing; (3) Care and Maintenance of-
l
Safety-Related Equipment; (4) Training; (5) Quality Assurance Activities;
.'
~
(6) Operating Organization; and (7) Plant Safety Committee. The inspection
involved 139 hours0.00161 days <br />0.0386 hours <br />2.29828e-4 weeks <br />5.28895e-5 months <br /> of direct inspection effort by two NRC inspectors.
Results: Two violations were identified in two of the seven areat inspected.
(Violations-Failures to follow procedures related to overfilling station
batteries, Pargraph 4, and fdilure to follow care and maintenance instructions,
Paragraph 5.)
?bkO29
k$l
-
.-
- -
-
.-
.
..
,
2
DETAILS
u
1.
Persons Contacted
- S. A. Alleman, Assistant Plant Manager
T. K. Armington, Lead Startup Engineer
L. L. Bass, QA Engineer
R. Bennett, QA Engineer
T. F. Gerrets, QA Manager
- D. B. Lester, Plant Manager
.
K. Sibley, Electrical Supervisor
- J. Woods, QC Engineer
- Present at exit interviews.
In addition to the above personnel, the inspector held discussions with
various operations, construction, engineering, technical support and
administrative members of the licensee's staff.
2.
Plant Status
Construction of the Waterford SES site is approximately 89.1% complete. The
current LP&L schedule indicates initial fuel loading during October 1982.
3.
Preoperational Test Procedure Review
The NRC inspector started a review of preoperational test procedure
SP0-59-001, " Containment Spray.'
The procedure was reviewed for technical
adequacy, compliance with regulatory requirements and compliance with
licensee coninitmenis and administrative controls.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Preoperational Test Witnessing
The NRC inspector witnessed a portion of the preoperational test on the
125 V DC System.
It was noted that the cell electrolyte levels for al'
three emergency batteries were above the high level marks. Many of the cells
had beer. filled to the top of the jar. During charging of two of the
batteries, an unknown quantity of the electrolyte had overflowed out of the
battery cells and on to the battery room floors. While follow-up action
occurred, the NRC inspector reviewed the related records and procedures and
made the following findings:
(a) Procedures. ME-4-201, " Station Battery Weekly Maintenance," and ME-4-211,
" Station Battery Quarterly Maintenance," in Paragraph 8.1.10 and 8.1.14,
respectively, require that when needed, water be added to cells to
.
'
bring them to the high level mark. The procedures also warn:
"D0 NOT
OVERFILL THE BATTERIES." All of the emergency batteries were overfilled.
This is a violation.
. .
-
.
,
,--
. .
-
.,
. .
. . . . . .
.
- -
'
-
-
-
-
.. .
.
f _
4
,
,
- 3 .. .
-
s
_
,
u
s
n
%
t
p
-
.
(b) Paragraph'4.7 in both of the above' procedure'sfrequ(re that minor
deficiencies-be corrected. Any major deficiencies noted.during
?
s
inspection shall be' identified on' a Condition Identification Work'
- Authorization (CIWA) for evaluation and repair.- The high.' electrolyte
. level condition was not corrected nor was the deficiency' reported-on
~
'
' '
'
a CIWA.for the A battery.
,
>
,
,
This is a violation.
'CIWA's were written'for the B and A/B~ batteries';;however,'they were
.
-
improperly processed asJdescribed below.-
~
(c)CIWA810775 was. issued March'19, 1981, as a result of thelhigh electrolyte-
level in Station Battery A/B.
The CIWA had been reviewed by QC; however, a determination as to whether
'
a nonconformance report should be issued was not made as required by
,j.
SAP-08 and UNT-1-007.- A nonconformance is described-(UNT-1-007, Attach-
'
ment 5.1.1)' as a deficiency that renders the quality of an item
'
unacceptable or indeterminate and describes a failure to follow inspection
,
L
.or test procedures as an example. The overfilling of the station batteries
violated maintenance and test procedures and raised questions about the
[
acceptability of the preoperational test of the batteries. Therefore,
,
!
a nonconformance should have been issued to rais- the issue for a higher
!
- level'of review.
. This is a violation.
- -
'
' (d) CIWA 810990 was issued April 2, 1981, as a result of the high electrolyte
level in B battery.- The NRC inspector found that this CIWA had not
been processed in accordance with the instructions of tSe Startup
F
Administrative Procedure SAP-08,'" Condition-Identification and Corrective
!
Action." SAP-08 requires Quality Control to review, mark appropriate
block, and sign the CIWA..' Contrary to this, CIWA number 810990 was not
,
j
marked or signed by Quality Control.
1
This is a violation.
i
!
(e) The NRC inspector.noted that although the licensee's Station Battery
Weekly and Quarterly Maintenance procedure references IEEE-450-1975,
"
,
i
Recommended Practice for Maintenance, Testing, and Replacement of Large-
l
Lead Storage Batteries, they do not adhere to the standard. 'IEEE 450-1975
- i
i
requires that battery water level be recorded and that specific gravity
be corrected for battery water level. The'NRC inspector also noted that
.
FSAR Chapter 16 (Technical-Specifications),.Section 4.8.2.3, requires that'
specific gravity be corrected for water level. Further review indicated
(FSAR8.3.2.2.1.6) that' the licensee is formally cohnitted'to following'~
,
the less specific IEEE'450-1972. However, following this standard may not
i
result in full' compliance with Technical Specification requirements after
,
j
the operating license is issued. This matter will remain open (0 pen Item
8123-01) pending resolution of-this issue.
[
This item will be followed up during a. subsequent inspection.
?
1
- ,r
,wv
,,,, .,, , . ~ m , ve m
.,_,,-r.,,..mm.,3,,wc,w,.m,-vwr,,m,m.,m,.,
.,-#w.....-,c~,~,,w,,,-,,e.,
,-...,m,,,y.,,.m,,,,.r,y
.--,m
J
. ..
,
,
.
-4
5.
Care and Maintenance of Safety-Related Equipment
During the course of the inspection, the NRC inspector toured the Reactor
Building, Fuel Handling Building, Turoine Building, and the Auxiliary Building
to observe ongoing construction and testing activities on. September 3 and 4,
1981.
Installed equipment was inspected by NRC inspectors to ensure it
was being maintained and protected in accordance with Ebasco Care and
Maintenance Instructions (CMI). The following findings were made:
(a) Space heaters were not energized as required on the following pump motors:
Low Pressure Safety Injection (LPSI) A
Containment Spray Pump B
ChargingPumps(CVCS),A,BandA/B
(b) Sight glasses were broken on Charging Pumps A and B.
(c) Dust covers were missing from openings on Containment Spray Pump Motor A.
This failure.to properly maintain and protect installed safety-related
equipment is a violation.
6.
Training
,
-The following training classes were attended by various members of the NRC
resident inspector's staff.
Date
Title
Group Trained
Duration
8/28/81
Conduct of Flushing &
Startup Group
1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />
Hydrostatic Testing
9/11/81
Operational Test Phase
Startup Group.
I hour
(New people only)
9/18/81
Electrical Sufety
Electricians
hour
,
The t'aining was informative; however, it was noted that frequently the
duration of training is about one half of the allotted time. The NRC
inspector observed that the semi-monthly training schedule (9/8/81) contained
several errors. The I & C Feedwater System lecture and the STA training was
not presented (delayed). The chemistry training listed from 8:00a - 5:00p was
actually from 8:00a - 12:00m.
The Electrical Safety training listed from
5:00p - 6:00p was two seperate half-hour presentations for the day and night
shift.
No violations or deviations were identified.
,
.
. -
. .
. -
-
- . .
- .
. -
~
. -- - -
.-
.
.
- -
. -
.
- . .
.
!
..
,.s*
,.
.o
5
2
7.
Operational Quality Assur:nce/ Quality Control
,
The NRC inspector reviewed the licensee's QA audit checklist dated
July 24 1981, to verify that the scope of the planned activities
adequat 1 compensate.for.the lack of an onsite operational QA organization.
(See In')ection Report 50-382/81-192) Current plans call for auditing a
'
.
broad range of operational activities; however, it is not clear whether the-
-
QA organization has the necessary manpower aad. background to successfully
complete all phases of the audit. This issue will be reviewed during a
'
future. inspection (0 pen Item 8123-02),
t.
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Operational Organization
The NRC inspector reviewed the current status of' operational staffing.
The licensee presently has 598 personnel on site, including 197 of an
authorized 281 LP&L employees.
No violations or deviations were identified.
9.
Plant Safety Committee
The NRC inspector attended portions of Plant Operations and Review
Canmittee (PORC) meeting number 81-35. A quorum was present. Several
health physics and maintenance procedures were discussed prior to voting.1
.ik) violations or deviations were identified.
10.
Exit Interviews
The NRC inspectors met with the Plant Manager and the Assistant Plant
Manager during.the course of the inspection. The scope of the inspection
~
and the findings were discussed.
1
!
l:
.
.
J
'l
4
.
. .
-
- .
.
.