ML20042E727
| ML20042E727 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 04/26/1990 |
| From: | Collins S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Dewease J LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9005020071 | |
| Download: ML20042E727 (5) | |
Text
. -.
e" "' A UNITED STATES
/
NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION c,$
REGloN IV J.
D-8 611 RYAN PLAZA oRIVE. SUITE 1000 l
+9,
,8 ARLINGTON. TEXAS 76011 ApR ? 6 IP In Reply Refer To:
Docket: 50-382 Louisione Power & Light Company ATTN:
J. G. Dewease, Senior Vice president Nuclear Operations 317 Baronne Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70160 Gentlemen:
[
SUBJECT:
INVESTIGATION CASE N0. 4-88-020 ($YSTEMS CONTROL, INC.)
NRC is providing Lcuisiana Power & Light Company (LP&L) a copy of the synopsis from Report of Investigation 4-88-020 prepared by HRC's Office of.
Investigations (01).
This investigation was prompted by LP&L's 1988 audits of Systems Control, Inc. (SC) which determined that on two separate occasions SC had furnished commercial grade circuit breakers to LP&L's Waterford nuclear plant, but had represtnted them as r.uclear grace circuit breakers.
As the investigation synopsis indicates, NRC has developed :10 clear evidence that Certificates of Compliance for these circuit breakers were intentionally falsified. NRC requests that LP&L review the information in the enclosed synopsis and verify that there are no circuit breakers manufactured by Heinemann Electric Company and purchased as spares (i.e., untested) either installed or carried as spare parts for safety related applications in the Waterford nuclear plant. In addition, based on the discussion in the synopsis l
regarding LP&L's probable awareness of SC's intentions to supply commercial l
grade components, HRC requests that LP&L explain how procurement procedures in place today would preclude a similar situation frem occurring.
Please respond within 30 days of the date of this letter to this request.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," 10 CFR Part 2. a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
Sincerely, Sa irector Division of Reactor Projects cc:
(see next page) i 1 900426
+005o200{K0500g2 ADO gDR iL
T i
Louisiana Power & Light Compary
~2 l
Cc' Systems Control, Inc.
P.O. Box 788 Iron Mountain. Michigan 49801 Louisiana Power & Light Company ATTN:
R. P. Barkhurst, Vice President Nuclear Operations P.O. Box 0 s
Killona Louisiana 70066 i
Louisiana Power & Light Company ATTN:
J. R. McGaha, Jr., Plant Manager P.O. Box B Killona, Louisiana 70066 Louisiana Power & Light Company ATTH:
L. W. Laughlin, Site Licensing Support Supervisor P.O. Box B Killona, Louisiana 70066 Louisiana Power & Light Company ATTN:
G. M. Davis, Manager, Events Analysis Reporting & Response P.O. Box B K111ona, Louisiana 70066 Monroe & Leman ATTH:
W. Malcolm Stevenson, Esq.
201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 3300 New Orleans, Louisiana 70170-3300 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge ATTN: Mr. E. Blake 2300 N Street, NW Washington, D.C.
20037 Middle South Services, Inc.
ATTN: Ralph T. Lally, Manager of Quality Assurance P.O. Box 61000 New Orleans, Louisiana -70161 Chairman Louisiana Public Service Commission One American Place, Suite 1630 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70825-1697
i Louisiana Power & ught Company Louisiana Power & Light Company ATTN:
R. F. Burski, Manager, Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Affairs 317 Baronne Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 L
Department of Environmental Ouality l
ATTN: William H. Spell, Administrator l
Nuclear Energy Division P.O. Box 14690 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70898 President, Police Jury St. Charles Parish i
Hahnv111e, Louisiana 70057 Mr. William A. Cross Bethesda Licensing Office 3 Metro Center Suite 610 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission ATTH: Resident Inspector P.O. Box 822 K111ona, Louisiana 70066 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission ATTN:
Regional Administrator, Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 i
l
SYNOPSIS In March 1988, auditors from Louisiana Power and Light Company's.(LP&L)
Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station (Waterford 3), Taft Louisiana, conducted a Quality Assurance (QA) audit at Systems Control, Incorporated (SC), Iron Mountain, Michigan. The auditors concluded that on two separt.te occasions, SC had furnished commercial grade circuit breakers to Waterford 3 and represented them to be nuclear grade. On both occasions 5C furnished Certificates of Compliance (CoC) to Waterford 3 purportedly certifying the breakers to be nuclear grade, but correspondence discovered in SC files frora the subvendor, HeinemannElectricCompany(HECO)castdoubtonthevalidityofSC'sCoCs.
After experiencing what the auditors believed was resistance from SC and HECO officials in discussing the validity of the CoCs, LP&L terminated their audit and notified the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) of a potential 10 CFR, Part 21 violation. Based on this infomation, on April 15 1988, the NRC Region IV Regional Administrator requested an Office of Investigations (01) investigation to determine if SC intentionally created false CoCs and if any SC/ HEC 0 director or responsible officer failed to provide notice to the NRC as required by 10 CFR, Part 21.61.
The 0! investigation determined that between 1982 and if>88, SC supplied to Waterford 3 commercial grade circuit breakers which were certified as nuclear grade by SC without proper documentation, test evaluations, or assurances from SC's subvendor HECO. Between 1979 and 1982, SC, at the request of LP&L, tested and certified certain HEC 0 circuit breaker for nuclear use. However, since 1982, SC has not conducted any additional testing nor taken steps to verify that the HEC 0 breakers had not undergone substantial change in material or manufacturing process.
Instead, SC based its certification of the breakers to Waterford 3 on a ceaparison of HEC 0 catalog part numbers against the NEC0 part number reflected oneachLP&L'sPurthaseOrder(P0). SC officials stated they assumed that since the HEC 0 catale; part number was the same es shown on the LPE P0, then the circuit breakers Nid not undergone any major internal and/or manufacturing changes since 1982. However, SC officials admitted they had made no attempt to verify whether the breakers had been materially altered since the original tests were performed in 1979-1982.
Although the investigation established that the Cocs prepared by SC falsely represented qualifications of the breakers as meeting specifications of the LPE P0 requirements, no clear evidence was developed to support that SC management intentionally falsified the CoCs or attempted to cover up any falsification of these documents. On the contrary, it appears from a review of LPE's records and a review of $C Proposal Clarifications (PC) furnished to Waterford 3, that LPE possessed information that the SC furnished breakers were commercial grade.
In fact, on some occasions, after receiving-correspondence fetsi SC, LPE downgraded its P0 to reflect "off-the-shelf" commercial grade breakers. Addit <onally, a former HEC 0 sales manager indicated that since 1982 there may have existed a misunderstanding between SC and HEC 0 concerning the quality of the breakers. Finally, correspondence and rscords of verbal comunications between SC and LPE appears to substantiate SC's claim that LPE was aware that SC was supplying commercial grade breakers.
and that SC would not condact any additional enviremental or seismic testing.
1 Case No. 4-88-020 1
1
4R26m Louisiana Power & Light Company i
~
R. D. Martin J. Lieberman. OE D. D. Driskill 4
G. F. Sanborn Resident Inspector o
SectionChief(DRP/A)
DRP DRSS-FRPS MIS System ProjectEngineer(DRP/A)
RSTS Operator RIV File DRS D.Wigginton,NRRProjectManager(MS:
13-D-18)
Lisa Shea, RM/ALF
/
/
/'b
/(
9 r
\\RS D:DRP E
l 3 Calan SJCollins pb n;ap
/90
/90
$ ff/g90
-