ML20086N114

Final Deficiency Rept 145 Re 13 Nonconformance Repts Requiring Further Evaluation Not Reported to Nrc.Evaluation of Ebasco Documentation Indicates Condition Not Reportable Per 10CFR50.55(e)

ML20086N114
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	02/09/1984
From:	Gerrets T LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Jay Collins NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
References
145, W3K84-0292, W3K84-292, NUDOCS 8402170229
Download: ML20086N114 (2)

Text

l.s LOUISIANA / 142 ORARONDE STREET P O W E F1 & L 1 G H T/ P O box 6008

• NEW ORLEANS. LOUISIANA 70174 * (5041 366 I345

$iuYOEsYIU February 9, 1984 W3K84-0292 Q-3-A35.07 TM@M0W2 %

Mr. John T. Collins Regional Administrator, Region IV FEB l 31984 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm!ssion I

611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76012

REFERENCE:

Telecon C. Hooper (LP&L) and J. Tapia (NRC Region IV) on February 1, 1984

SUBJECT:

Waterford SES Unit No. 3 Docket No. 50-382 Potentially Reportable Deficiency No. 145 "Nonconformance Report (NCR) Reportability Evaluations" Final Report On February 1, 1984, LP&L identified that 13 of 1,100 Nonconformance P.eports (NCRs) reviewad during a QA audit appeared to be reportable to the Commission.

Further evaluation has indicated that the condition as described, is not reportable pursuant to the requirements of 10CFR50.55(e.).

EVALUATION In January 1984, a QA audit was conducted on a sampling of Ebasco NCRs (1,100 of 7,500). The intent of the audit was to verify that proper evaluations for reportability had been u.ade and that documentation properly reflected those evaluations, i.e., all NCRs were stamped and marked "YES" or "NO" as appropriate. At the completion of the review, the auditors had identified 13 NCRs (previously evaluated as non-reportable) that required further evaluation. The auditors also id+ntified six NCRs that were not stamped and/or marked. The auditors considered these NCRs as not evaluated.

A subsequent evaluation was completed by Ebasco and revealed that one NCR, W3-562/, of the 19 identified was potentially reportable. This condition was reported to your office ca February 3,1984, as PRD-146. The other 18 NCRs involved only minor hardware deficiencies and are not considered significant.

~

8402170229 840209 PDR ADCCK 05000382 i

S PDR 1 O i

1

e Mr. John T. Collins Feburary 9, 1984 W3K84-0292 Page 2 The audit also resulted in a finding that was considered programmatic in nature. The time frame between deficiency identification and reportability evaluation was, in some cases, considered to be excessive. The root cause of this problem has been determined to be implementation of an inappropriate i

procedure. The procedure (ASP-III-7, Rev. J) did not require a reportability evaluation until corrective action was defined and initiated.

Subsequent to the issuance of the finding, Ebasco revir.ed the aforementioned procedure ao significantly reduce the time frame of determining reportability.

The suitability of cortective actions for this finding will bs assessed by the audit group using in place QA procedures.

Based on the above evaluation, this PRD is considered not reportable.

Very truly yours, T. F. Cerrets Corporate Quality Assurance Manager TFG:TLH:SSTG cc: Director Office of Inspection & Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Director Office of Management Information and Program Control U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Mr. E. L. Blake Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20036 Mr. W. M. Stevenson Monroe & Lemann 1424 Whitney Building New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 i

i

,