ML20132E293
| ML20132E293 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 12/13/1996 |
| From: | Gallo R NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Sellman M ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20132E298 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9612230211 | |
| Download: ML20132E293 (9) | |
See also: IR 05000382/1996202
Text
Y i d c l'
?s \\0
~
- '
/ana %
-
1
O
t
UNITED STATES
1 (~f k ( i
j
,j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{~',g
'*
WASHINGTON, D.C. 205 2 4 001
V
%
p$
December 13, 1996
Entergy Operations, Inc.
ATTN: Michael' B. Sellman
Vice President, Operations
Waterford, P.O. Box B
Killona, LA 70066
SUBJECT:
ENGINEERING INSPECTION AT WATERFORD 3 (NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO.
50-382/96-202)
Dear Mr. Sellman:
On October l'0,1996, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an
engineering inspection at
.terford 3.
The enclosed report presents the
results of that inspecti
The primary objective of tha inspection was to
conduct a safety system n.actional review of the component cooling water
system (CCWS), auxiliary component cooling water system (ACCWS), and their
support systems.
The inspection team also evaluated your safety assessment
and corrective action processes, design control programs and procedures, and
engineering support for the station. At the exit meeting on October 10, 1996,
the inspection team discussed its findings with you and members of your staff.
Subsequently, on October 15 and 21, 1996, conference calls were held between
members of the NRC staff and your staff to discuss issues associated with
tornado missile protection and emergency diesel generator surveillance
testing.
Overall, the team determined that the Waterford 3 engineering staff
demonstrated good technical competence and familiarity with plant operations.
However, the team noted deficiencies in the implementation of design control
programs and procedures, and weak technical evaluations in support of plant
operations. The technical evaluations or calculations to support the design
bases were not always available.
In some cases, the actual design values were
inconsistent with those stated in the final safety analysis report (FSAit).
The team identified weaknesses in both original design and recent engineering
work. However, none of these issues resulted in system inoperability.
Through its walkdo,m, the inspection team identified components that may not
be protected from tornado missiles. The team was concerned that your staff
had previously identified this issue but the corrective actions did not
adequately address the conditions.
This issue indicated a lack of
understanding of the design basis of the plant. We understand that your staff
performed operability evaluations for continued operation. We also understand
that you have committed to implement plant modifications to correct the
/
unprotected cables and conduit installations by December 16, 1996, and to
}9'
perform a comprehensive review of the design and licensing bases for tornado
230066
E N
4Lr COPY
\\
Pd22}ggik Mag 3 2
j
o
. _- -
.
.---_
-.
_ _ - _ - _
.-
_ . .
\\D
r.
!
,
!
M.B. Sellman
-2-
-
,
missile protection for Waterford 3 by January 31, 1997. These actions are
j
described in Entergy's correspondence (W3F1-96-0188) to the NRC dated
October 21, 1996.
.
The 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations for the plant modifications were generally
adequate.
However, the team identified examples of inadequate 10 CFR 50.59
evaluations performed in support of calculations, licensing document changes
and condition reports.
The team determined that earlier root cause and operational experience
engineering evaluations did not prevent problem recurrence. However, recent
'
evaluations were effective in identifying and correcting problems.
In some
cases, followup and corrective actions for degraded or non-conforming
conditions were not always timely or thorough in addressing the problem areas.
Many good issues were identified through the safety system self-assessments of
the ultimate heat sink and emergency feedwater (EFW). However, the self-
,
assessments did not identify many of the issues raised by the team.
'
No response to this letter is required.
The NRC Region IV Office will issue
4
any enforcement actions resulting from this inspection.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the
NRC Public Document Room.
If you have any questions about this inspection,
4
please contact the NRC Project Manager, Mr. C.P. Patel, or the inspection team
leader, Mr. R.K. Mathew. Messrs. Patel and Mathew can be reached at
(301) 415-3025 and (301) 415-2965, respectively.
Sincerely,
D
Robert M. Gallo, Chief
Special Inspection Branch
Division of Inspection and Support Programs
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Docket No.:
50-382
Enclosure:
Inspection Report No. 50-382/96-202
cc w/encls:
See page 3
.
.
..._. . . -._ .=--=
t
.
.
i
Distribution-
I
Docket File 50-382.
!
o
-
!
PSIB R/F
FPGillespie, NRR
RMGallo, NRR
I
DPNorkin, NRR
j
CERossi, AE00
i
JWRoe
'
WDBecknar
CPPatel
i
CMHawes
'
LEKe11er, SRI
'
MEPoteat
>
!
Regional Administrators
Regional Division Directors
Inspection Team
.
PUBLIC
.
ACRS (3)
OGC (3)
,
1S Distribution
t
!
!
!
I
I
!
i
I
,
I
"
M.B. Sellman
-2-
cissile protection for Waterford 3 by January 31, 1997. These acticns are
described in Entergy's correspondence (W3F1-96-0188) to the NRC dated
October 21, 1996.
The 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations for the plant modifications were generally
adequate. However, the team identified examples of inadequate 10 CFR 50.59
j
evaluations performed in support of calculations, licensing document changes
and condition reports.
The team determined that earlier root cause and operational experience
engineering evaluations did not prevent problem recurrence. However, recent
evaluations were effective in identifying and correcting problems.
In some
cases, followup and corrective actions for degraded or non-conforming
conditions were not always timely or thorough in addressing the problem areas.
Many good issues were identified through the safety system self-assessments of
the ultimate heat sink and emergency feedwater (ccW). However, the self-
assessments did not identify many of the issues ,41 sed by the team.
No response to this letter is required. The NRC Region IV Office will issue
any enforcement actions resulting from this inspection.
In accordance with 10
}
CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the
NRC Public Document Room.
If you have any questions about this inspection,
please contact the NRC Project Manager, Mr. C.P. Patel, or the inspection team
leader, Mr. R.K. Mathew. Messrs. Patel and Mathew can be reached at
(301) 415-3025 and (301) 415-2965, respectively.
Sincerely,
Original signed by:
Robert M. Gallo, Chief
Special Inspection Branch
Division of Inspection and Support Programs
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Docket No.:
50-382
Enclosure:
Inspection Report No. 50-382/96-202
cc w/encls: See page 3
- See previous concurrence
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\ WATER.RPT
To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without enclosures "E" =
Copy with enclosures "N" = No copy
0FFICE
PSIB: DISP
l
PSIB: DISP l
PIPB: DISP
l
PDIV-1:DPR l
RIV
l
NAME
RKMathew:sf *
MBranch *
TD' Angelo *
CPatel *
DAcker *
DATE
11/26/96
11/25/96
11/26/96
11/26/96
11/26/96
E
PSIB: DISP
PDIV-1:DPR
NAME
DPNorkin *
WDBeckner *
RMG4Wo-
DATE
12/03/96
11/26/96
12/R96
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
'
l"
M.B. Sell:an
-2-
l
'
'
cissile prote:: tion fcr Waterford 3 by January 31, 1997. These actiens are
l
,
l
described in Entergy's correspondence (W3F1-96-0188) to the NRC dated
i
October 21, 1996.
The 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations for the plant modifications were generally
'
adequate.
However, the team identified examples of inadequate 10 CFR 50.59
l
evaluations performed in support of calculations, licensing document changes
'
and condition reports.
The team determined that earlier root cause and operational expefience
engineering evaluations did not prevent problem recurrence. However, recent
evaluations were effective in identifying and correcting pr6blems.
In some
cases, followup and corrective actions for degraded or non-conforming
conditions were not always timely or thorough in addr s' sing the problem areas.
Many good issues were identified through the safety ystem self-assessments of
theultimateheatsinkandemergencyfeedwater(EJ).
However, the self-
assessments did not identify many of the issues aised by the team.
,
No response to this letter is required. Th
RC Region IV Office will issue
any enforcement actions resulting from thi
inspection.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and ) s enclosure will be placed in the
NRC Public Document Room.
If you have,4ny questions about this inspection,
please contact the NRC Project Managet, Mr. C.P. Patel, or the inspection team
leader, Mr. R.K. Mathew. Messrs. Ppfel and Mathew can be reached at
(301) 415-3025 and (301) 415-2965 respectively.
Sincerely,
Robert M. Gallo, Chief
Special Inspection Branch
Division of Inspection and Support Programs
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Docket No.:
50-38
Inspec/ tion Report No. 50-382/96-202
Enclosure:
/
cc w/encis: See page 3
/
- See previous concurrence
DOCUMENT NAME:
G:\\ WATER.RPT
To receive a copy,of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without enclosures "E"
=
Copy with~ enclosures "N" = No copy
0FFICE
PSIB: DISP
l
PSIB: DISP l
PIPB: DISP
l
PDIV-1:DPRl
RIV
l
NAME
RKMathew:sf *
MBranch *
TD'Angelo *
CPatel *
DAcker *
DATE
11/26/96
11/25/96>
. 11/26/96
11/26/96
11/26/96
0FFICE
PSIB: DISP
PDIV-1:DPR
PSIB: DISP
C
l'
NAME
DPNorkin *
WDBeckner *
RMGallo
l
DATE
12/03/96
11/26/96
12/ /96
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
t
l
- - - - - - - - -
"
~
M.B. Sellman
-2-
cissile protection for Waterford 3 by January 31, 1997. These actions are
described in Entergy's correspondence (W3F1-96 nl88) to the NRC dated
October 21, 1996.
The 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations for the plant modifications were generally
adequate. However, the team identified examples of inadequate 10 CFR 50.59
_
evaluations performed in support of calculations, licensing document changes
,
and condition reports.
'
The team determined that earlier root cause and operational experience
engineering evaluations did not prevent problem recurrence. However, recent
evaluations were effective in identifying and correcting problems.
In some
i
cases, followup and corrective actions for degraded or non-conforming
conditions were not always timely or thorough in addressing the problem areas.
)
Many good issues were identified through the safety system self-assessments of
1
the ultimate heat sink and emergency feedwater (EFW). However, the self-
assessments did not identify many of the issues raised by the team.
.
i
No response to this letter is required. The NRC Region IV Office will issue
any enforcement actions resulting from this inspcetion.
In accordance with-10
CFR 2.790(a), a' copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the
4
NRC Public Document Room.
If you have any questions about this inspection,
please contact the NRC Project Manager, Mr. C.P. Patel, or the inspection team
leader, Mr. R.K. Mathew. Messrs. Patel and Mathew can be reached at
(301) 415-3025 and (301) 415-2965, respectively.
Sincerely,
,
Robert M. Gallo, Chief
'
.
Special Inspection Branch
Division of Inspection and Support Programs
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
,
Docket No.:
50-382
Enclosure:
Inspection Report No. 50-382/96-202
cc w/encls:
See page 3
,
- See previous concurrence
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\ WATER.RPT
To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without enclosures "E" =
Copy with enclosures "N" = No copy
0FFICE
PSIB: DISP
l
PSIB: DISP l
PIPB: DISP
l
PDIV-1:DPR l
RIV
l
NAME
RKMathew:sf *
MBranch *
TD' Angelo *
CPatel *
DAcker *
DATE
11/26/96
11/25/96
11/26/96
11/26/96
11/26/96
=
. --
nummmaimmmmmmmmmm muumm
samensmaus-
mumme-
ummamummmmmmmmmunmummmmum
CFFICE
PSIB: DISP
PDIV-1:DPR
PSIB: DISP
I C
NAME
DPNorkin *
WDBeckner *
RMGallo
DATE
12/03/96
11/26/96
12/ /96
,
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
!
,
o
w--
..
_
-
._
._.
-
___ -_-
-
-
, -
,
"
'
M.B. Seilman
-2-
-
>
3 y
7
,
'
,
,
. .
'
cissile protecticn for Watc%rd 3 by January 31, 8) to' the NRC dated October
1997. .These - actions,. are '
-
-(
described in Entergy's correspondence (W3F1-96-018
-
21, 1996.
'.
.
',
..
-
..
_
The 10 CFR 50.59 ' evaluations for the plant modifications were generally .
)
,
i
adequate. However, the team identified examples of inadequati 10'CFR 50 9
1
evaluations performed in support of calculations, licensing ~Jocument. c nges
and condition reports, as well as weaknesses in the original design
d recent
engineering work.
The team determined that earlier root cause and operational ex rience
engineering evaluations reviewed did not prevent problem rec rence. However,
i
recent evaluations were effective in identifying and corre ing problems.
In
some cases, followup and corrective actions for degraded r non-conforming
conditions were not always timely or thorough in addres ng the prcblem areas.
'
Many good issues were identified through the safety s tem self-assessments of
i
.
the ultimate heat sink and emergency feedwater (EFW . However, the self-
assessments did not identify many of the issues ra sed by the team.
4
No response to this letter is required. The N
Region IV Office will issue
any enforcement actions resulting from this i spection.
In accordance with 10
1
CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and its nclosure will be placed in the
NRC Pubite Document Room.
If you have any questions about this inspection,
'
please contact the NRC Project Manager,
. C.P. Patel, or the inspection team
leader, Mr. R.K. Mathew. Messrs. Patel and Mathew can be reached at
- "
(301) 415-3025 and (301) 415-2965, re ,ectively.
Sinc ely,
,
Robert M. Gallo, Chief
Special Inspection Branch
,
'
Division of Inspection and Support Programs
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Docket No.:
50-382
Enclosure:
Inspect on Report No. 50-382/96-202
<
,
cc w/encls:
See age 3
- See previous / concurrence
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\ WATER.RPT
,
To receive a copy of this document, Indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without enclosures "E" =
f
Copy with enclosures "N" = No copy
~
0FFICE-
PSIB: DISP
l
PSIB: DISP l
PIPB: DISP
l
PDIV-1:DPR l
RIV
l
NAME
RKMathew:sf *
MBranch *
TD'Angelo *
CPatel *
DAcker *
DATE
11/26 96
/
11/25/_96_
g
0FFICE
PSIB:D
FDIV-1:DPR
PSIB: DISP
- C
NAME
DPNorkirW
WDBeckner *
RMGallo
DATE
12h /96
11/26/96
12/ /96
'
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
'
'
/
i
/
i
,
'
i
'
"
M.B. Sellran
-2-
cissile protecticn for Waterford 3 by January 31, 1997. These actions, are
described in Entergy's correspondence (W3F1-96-0188) to the NRC dated October
21, 1996.
,
The 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations for the plant modifications were generally
adequate. However, the team identified examples of inadequate 10 CFR 50.59
evaluations performed in support of calculations, licensing document changes
and condition reports, as well as weaknesses in the original and recent
engineering work.
Earlier root cause and operational experience engineering evaluations reviewed
did not prevent problem recurrence.
However, recent evaluations reviewed were
effective in identifying and correcting problems.
In some cases, followup and
corrective actions for degraded or non-conforming conditions were not always
timely or thorough in addressing the problem areas.
Your recent self-
assessments of the corrective action process, and engineering and technical
supports were good. Many good issues were identified for resolution through
the safety system self-assessments of the ultimate heat sink and emergency
However, the safety system selfgssessments did not identify
many of the issues raised by the team.
The de::ig,i issues identified by the
team raise concern regarding the extent of unknown problems in other systems.
.
The team determined that your safety system assessments and corrective actions
?
needed improvement.
No response to this letter is required.
The NRC Region IV Office will issue
any enforcement actions resulting from this inspection.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the
NRC Public Document Room.
If you have any questions about this inspection,
please contact the NRC Project Manager, Mr. C. Patel, or the inspection team
leader, Mr. R.K. Mathew. Messrs. Patel and Mathew can be reached at
(301) 415-3025 and (301) 415-2965, respectively.
Sincerely,
Robert M. Gallo, Chief
Special Inspection Branch
Division of Inspection and Support Programs
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Docket No.:
50-382
Enclosure:
Inspection Report No. 50-382/96-202
cc w/encls:
See page 3
- See previous concurrence
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\ WATER.RPT
To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without enclosures "E"
=
Copy with enclosures "N" = No copy
0FFICE
PSIB: DISP
l
PSIB: DISP l
PIPB: DISP
l
PDIV-1:DPRl
RIV
l
NAME
RKMathew:sf *
MBranch *
TD'Angelo *
CPatel *
DAcker *
DATE
11/26/96
11/25/96
11/26/96
11/26/96
11/26/96
0FFICE
PSIB: DISP
PDIV-1:DPR
PSIB: DISP
C
l
NAME
DPNorkin
WDBeckner *
RMGallo
DATE
11/ /96
11/26/96
11/ /96
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
"
"
M.B. Sellcan
-2-
oissile protection for Waterford 3 by January 31, 1997. These actions, are
described in Entergy's correspondence (W3F1-96-0188) to the NRC dated October
21, 1996.
The10CFR50.59evaluationsfortheplantmodificationsweregeneralJy/
~ dequate. However, the team identified examples of inadequate 10 Cfit 50.59
a
evaluations performed _ in support of calculations, licensing documerit changes
and condition reports, as well as weaknesses in the original and'recent
engineering work.
Earlier root cause and operational experience engineering evaluations reviewed
did not prevent problem recurrence. However, recent evaldations reviewed were
effective in identifying and correcting problems.
In s6me cases, followup and
corrective actions for. degraded or non-conforming co ditions were not always
timely or thorough in addressing the problem areas.
Your recent self-
assessments of the corrective action process, and ngineering and technical
supports wer2 good. Manygoodissueswereidentfiedforresolutionthrough
the safety system self-assessment:s of the ultirpa)te heat sink and emergency
,
However, the safety system elf-assessments did not identify
many of the issues raised by the team. The esign issues identified by the
team raise concern regarding the extent of nknown problems in other systems.
The team determined that your safety sys m assessments and corrective actions
needed improvement.
No response to this letter is requir
The NRC Region IV Office will issue
.
any enforcement actions resulting fyom this inspection.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the
NRC Public Document Room.
Ifyo/haveanyquestionsaboutthisinspection,
l
please contact the NRC Project Manager, Mr. C. Patel, or the inspection team
'
leader, Mr. R.K. Mathew. Mess /s. Patel and Mathew can be reached at
(301) 415-3025 and (301) 415- 965, respectively.
i
Sincerely,
Robert M. Gallo, Chief
Special Inspection Branch
Division of Inspection and Support Programs
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Docket No.:
50- 2
Enclosure:
Ins ection Report No. 50-382/96-202
/
cc w/encls:
ee page 3
- See prev us concurrence
DOCUMENT NAME: G: ATER.RPT
To receive a cop
f this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without enclosures "E"
=
Copy with enclos res "N" = No copy
0FFICE
PSIB: DISP @l * PSIB: DISP l/
PIPB: DISP fd %
PDIV-1:DPR l
RIV M h
NAME
RKMathew:sf
MBranch
ilk
TD'Angelo V ?2 # CPatel Cpf
DAck'eF
DATE
11
-/96
11/ /96
11/
96
11/2 6/96
11/zi/96
.;--
.
,,,,,
-
,,,,,
_
,,,,,
-
-m
..
,,,,,
0FFICE
PS B: DISP
PDIV-1:DPRr sp6
PSIB: DISP
C
NAME
DPNorkin
WDBeckner
RMGallo
DATE
11/ /96
II/M/96
11/ /96
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
j
'
M.B. Sellran
-2-
The 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations for the plant modifications were generally
adequate. However, the team identified examples of inadequate 10 CFR 50.59
evaluations performed in support of calculations, licensing design changes and
condition reports, as well as weaknesses in the original and recent
/
engineering work.
Followup and corrective actionc for degraded or non,-
conforming conditions were not always timely or thorough in addressfng the
problem areas. Recent root cause evaluations reviewed were effective in
identifying and correcting problems.
However, earlier root cause evaluations
reviewed did not prevent problem recurrence.
Several earlier 4perational
experience engineering evaluations of industry information ye,re weak in
addressing the issues. The engineering staff was not meetjng the established
timeliness goals for corrective action evaluation and implementation, and the
safety system self-assessment of the ultimate heat sink /and emergency
feedwater (EFW) did not identify many of the issues riised by the team.
Thedesignissuesidentifiedbytheteamraiseconc/ern regarding the extent of
unknown problems in other systems.
Ir. addition
safety system assessments and corrective actlyns/the team determined th
'
needed improvement.
/
The team recognizes that you have establishe'd a " focus plan" and implemented
recent management changes to address various issues at Waterford 3.
However,
the effectiveness of these initiatives were not evident at the time of the
inspection.
/
No response to this letter is requir'ed. The NRC Region IV Office will issue
any enforcement actions resulting,from this inspection.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this let,ter and its enclosure will be placed in the
NRC Public Document Room.
If you have any questions about this inspection,
please contact the NRC Projecy Manager, Mr. C. Patel, or the inspection team
leader, Mr. R.K. Mathew. Messrs. Patel and Mathew can be reached at
(301) 415-3025 and (301) 415-2965, respectively.
Sincerely,
Robert M. Gallo, Chief
Special Inspection Branch
Division of Inspection and Support Programs
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Docket No.:
50-382
/
Enclosure:
Inspection Report No. 50-382/96-202
cc w/encls: See page 3
/
- See
DOCUMENT NAME: / previous concurrence
G:\\ WATER.RPT
To r:ceive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without enclosures "E"
=
Copy with enclosures "N" = No copy
0FFICE
PSIB: DISP
l
PSIB:DISPnj,
PIPB: DISP
l
PDIV-1:DPR l
RIV
l
NAME
RKMathew:sf
MBranch I4!D
TD'Angelo
CPatel
DAcker
DATE
11/ /96
11/tT/96
11/ /96
11/ /96
11/ /96
OFFICE '
PSIB: DISP
PDIV-1:DPR
PSIB: DISP
C
,
NAME
DPNorkin
WDBeckner
RMGallo
DATE *
11/ /96
11/ /96
11/ /96
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
_ _ _ _ _