ML20070F247
| ML20070F247 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 11/16/1982 |
| From: | Maurin L LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Madsen G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20070F219 | List: |
| References | |
| W3I82-0106, W3I82-106, NUDOCS 8212200129 | |
| Download: ML20070F247 (2) | |
Text
__ _____ ______________________
)lll
~
~
Lou nsiama
,42 ou.mo~oE s1eur POWER & LlGHT P O BOX 6008
- NEW ORLEANS. LOUIStANA 70174
- 1504) 366 2345 wewana November 16, 1982 t.vMAumn i
Voce l'resnient Nuclear Opera:cns l
W3182-0106 l
Mr. G. L. Madsen SALP Board Chairman Reactor Projects Branch Region IV U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Arlington, Texas 76012
SUBJECT:
Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) Board Report
REFERENCE:
LP6L Letter W3I82-0096 Dated November 8, 1982, L. V. Maurin to C. L. Madsen
Dear Sir:
On November 8, 1982 Louisiana Power & Light Company provided comments to the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) Board Report.
Our comment to Item g. in the Functional Area Analysis (Construction) was as follows:
g.
Instrumentation ana Controls Systens Potentially Reportable Deficioney (PRD) 80 pertains to an instrumentation and controls installation problem which was identified by LP&L on May 25, 1982.
This was reclassified as Significant Construction Deficiency (SCD) 57 and a final report is scheduled to be submitted to the NRC.
Corrective action has been taken to correct identified problems and to prevent their An extensive training / retraining effort was implemented by recurrence.
the contractor, Mercury Company, for their records review personnel, QC inspectors, and craft personnel. Joint system walkdowns with Mercury and Ebasco engineering and QA personnel have been implemented since June 1982 for purposes of problem identification and resolution prior to system turnover. Additionally, LP&L and Ebasco QA Groups have increased installation surveillances.
Ebasco's QA documentation review has been improved by an increase in supervision, staff, and training / retraining of the reviewers.
When the specific design was contrary to manufacturer's generic recommend-ations, it was only after a design verification of the adequacy of the specific installation.
Some such designs included the need to fill and vent lines and the Maintenance Department is preparing a generic procedure m
('-' () )
8212200129 821203 f
PDR ADOCK 05000382
/
G PDR
Mr. G. L. Madsen W3182-0106 Page 2 for filling and venting of such instrument lines.
In addition, I&C Maintenance procedures individually direct special precautions when calibrating affected instruments.
I&C technicians are reviewing the installations for problems during the installation checks and instru-ment calibrations.
As written, the last paragraph does not clearly state LP&L's position on this matter, the actions that have been taken, nor the measures that will be implemented to improve performance in this area.
This paragraph should read as follows:
The categories of instrumentation which could have questionable install-ations include the instruments which measure flow and liquid level.
These instruments have been id.'ntified and are presently being reviewed by LP&L personnel for acceptability of installation and ability to per-form their intended function. Appropriate corrective measures will be implemented for any instruments which are determined to be deficient.
Corrective action may include the need to fill and vent lines and the Maintenance Department is preparing a generic procedure for filling and venting of such instrument lines.
In addition, I&C Maintenance procedures individually direct special precautions when calibrating affected instruments.
I6C technicians are reviewing the installations for problems during the installation checks and instrument calibrations.
Very truly yours, 07 G L. V. Maurin LVM/WAC:keh i
i