ML20063C270
| ML20063C270 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 08/17/1982 |
| From: | Hart J, Mclendon G, Milhiser R, Wills J, Yaeger W LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Jay Collins NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| References | |
| 10CFR-050.55E, 10CFR-50.55E, W3K-82-0520, W3K-82-520, NUDOCS 8208270168 | |
| Download: ML20063C270 (4) | |
Text
..
LOUISIANA f 242onAnoNoESmeu POWE R & LiG HT/ p o oox 0008. NEW OALEANS LOUISIANA 70174. (504) 366 2345
'N$b srsIII) u August 17, 1982 G D. McLENDON Sen;or Vice President W3K-82-0520 Q-3-A35.07.57 Mr. John T. Collins, Regional Administrator, Region IV h U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
_ b.
a l
611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 J
E 2 0 fo T
]!' 'jl Arlington, Texas 76012 A
SUBJECT:
Waterford SES Unit No. 3
~~
Docket No. 50-382 Interim Status Report of Significant Construchion ueficienebhJly
" Inadequate Instrumentation and Control Installations and Turnover Documentation"
Reference:
Telecon - L. L. Bass (LP&L) to W. Crossman (NRC) on July 14, 1982
Dear Mr. Collins:
In accordance with the requirements of 10CFR50.55(e), we are hereby providing two copies of the Interim Status Report of Significant Construction Deficiency No. 57, " Inadequate Instrumentation and Control Installations and Turnover Documentation."
If you have any questions, please advise.
Very truly yours, h
k e
l GDMcL/LLB/grf l
Attachment cc:
- 1) Director Office of Inspection & Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 (with 15 copies of report)
- 2) Director l
Of fice of Management Information and Program Control U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
, 7'/
Washington, D. C. 20555 f6 (with 1 copy of report) k l
8208270168 820817 PDR ADOCK 05000382 S
PDR J
LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY WATERFORD SES UNIT NO. 3 Interim Status Report of Significant Construction Deficiency No. 57 INADEQUATE INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL INSTALLATIONS AND TURNOVER DOCUMENTATION Reviewed by g4 b
/ E R. J. 'hilpr"- Site Manager Date Reviewed by J.
L'. Wills - Project Superintendent
/
/Date Revieued by Add!
l f //71/
$ ~/5~ $ &
J[ Hart #PiojectJgcensingEngineer Date Reviewed by (s
A 8A W. Yaeget' - Sr. Resident Engineer Ifate Reviewed by N[//
O J.Autierrei-~Q.A..S e Supervisor Date August 12, 1982
INTERIM STATUS REPORT SIGNIFICANT CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCY No. 57 INADEQUATE INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL INSTALLATIONS AND TURNOVER DOCUMENTATION INTRODUCTION This report is submitted pursuant to 10CFR50.55(e).. It describes Instrumentation and Control (I&C) System Installations which are not in accordance with the design specifications.
Additionally, the recently prepared system "as-built" drawings do not accurately reflect the actual installed conditions. These problems are considered reportable under the requirements of 10CFR50.55(e). To the best of our knowledge, this problem has not been reported to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission pursuant to 10CFR21.
DESCRIPTION In preparation for ECCS Flow Testing and Primary System Cold Hydrostatic Testing, Mercury Company of Norwood, Inc., (Installation Contractor for Instrumentation and Control Systems), submitted their installation, inspection, and test documentation and "as-built" drawings for the following plant start-up systems:
a)
Start-Up System (SUS) No. 59 - Containment Spray b)
SUS No. 60A - High Pressure Safety Injection c)
SUS No. 60B - Low Pressure Safety Injection d)
SUS No. 60C - Safety Injection Tanks The Mercury submittal contained exceptions such that final Quality Assurance /
Quality Control certification was not provided.
Audits of the I&C System documentation in conjunction with field surveillance revealed that:
a)
The "as-built" drawings did not accurately reflect field conditions.
Problems such as (1) reverse slope of tubing runs, (2) incorrect seismic support designations, and (3) dimensional errors were identified.
b)
Physical problems existed with the actual installations such as (1) reverse slope of tubing runs, (2) supports not installed, (3) improper bolting, (4) deformed tubing, and (5) tubing touching track or bolt heads not allowing for thermal expansion.
SAFETY IMPLICATIONS Instrumentation associated with these systems included Safety Class 2 and 3 instrumentation. These instruments are required for safety system actuation
-. ~
1 t
and for plant parameter monitoring by the Reactor Operators. If left uncor-rected, these problems could result in the failure of essential safety-related l
equipment to operate when required and the failure of the instruments to provide reliable information to the Reactor Operators.
CORRECTIVE ACTION The present status of the June 23 directive given to Mercury Company of Norwood, Inc., is as follows:
i a) Crafts were reassigned off safety-related systems on June 23, 1982.
I b) Rework teams were identified June 23, 1982 and instructed to proceed with I
rework required (af ter retraining) for acceptable construction completion.
l documentation and turnover of the aforementioned systems.
c) Development of a documented retraining program was completed and approved j
by the Engineer on June 25, 1982.
~
d) Implementation of this program under the scope of the Engineer with the rework teams identified in (b) above was accomplished on June 25, 1982, e) Engineering concurrence of proper execution of the retraining program was accomplished on July 29, 1982.
f) The retraining program was extended to all Mercury personnel on July 29, 1982, consistent with the aforementioned retraining program.
g) A meeting with LP&L Ebasco and Mercury was held June 24, 1982 to discuss reorganization. The recommended organizational changes were implemented June 25, 1982.
Total corrective action is scheduled for completion September 30, 1982.
l In view of the above, a Final Report will be submitted to the USNRC October 20, 1982.
4 l
i
-e
-.y y
, w.r
.y
___.,7.,,
..,y,,
-