IR 05000382/1985024
| ML20138L374 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 10/23/1985 |
| From: | Breslau B, Constable G, Flippo T, William Jones NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138L351 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-382-85-24, IEB-83-07, IEB-83-08, IEB-83-7, IEB-83-8, IEB-84-02, IEB-84-2, NUDOCS 8510310291 | |
| Download: ML20138L374 (7) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:... _ -, - _ -. - - . -. -.. -. ... _. ~. -. - - - - - -. - .-. - - - -..... _ _ - . - ' + --{ . , , ,
. , f
a APPENDIX U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
NRC Inspection Report: 50-382/85-24 License: NPF-38 Docket: 50-382 Licensee: Louisiana Power & Light Company (LP&L) 142 Delaronde Street New Oricans, Louisiana 70174 Facility Name: Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 Inspection At: Taft, Louisiana Inspection Conducted: August 1 through September 30, 1985
- E M
/pd-9I Inspectors: .T. A. F11ppo,Illesident Inspector Date . ._ _ A Q N das lo-Y-TS' W. B. Jones, b etor Inspector Date t je - A }~ kb - . B. h. B'reslau, Reactor Inspector Date . ~ _ /d -A d - ff Approved: M C.'L. Cons 'able, Chief Date Reactor Project Section C ! i L .. 8510310291 851025 ' ' PDR ADOCM 05000382 G PDR kJ
E , , i i l . . I \\ l l-2-l Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted August l'through September 30, 1985, (Report 50-382/85-24) ' Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection of: (1) Operational Safety l Verification, (2) Monthly Surveillance Observation, (3) Monthly Maintenance Observation, and (4) IE Bulletin Followup Inspection.
The inspection-involved _ 270 inspector-hours onsite by 3 NRC inspectors.
Results: Within the areas inspected, na violations or deviations were identified.
i l* ' l l ' l l I l l l ! l l. -3-Details 1.
Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Employees R. S. Leddick, Senior Vice President, Nuclear Operations
- R. P. Barkhurst, Plant Manager, Nuclear T. F. Gerrets, Corporate QA Manager
- S. A. Alleman, Assistant Plant Manager, Plant Technical Staff'
- J. R. McGaha, Assistant Plant Manager, Operations and Maintenance
- L. M. Meyers, Operations Superintendent J. N. Woods, QC Manager
- A. S. Lockhart, Site Quality Manager R. F..Burski, Engineering and Nuclear Safety Manager K. L. Brewster, Onsite Licensing Engineer G. E. Wuller, Onsite Licensing Coordinator
- Present at exit interviews.
In addition to the above personnel, the NRC inspectors held discussions with various operations, engineering, technical support, maintenance, and administrative members of the licensee's staff.
2.
Plant Status The Waterford 3 plant entered commercial service on September 24, 1985, at 12:01 a.m.
The plant is coming out of an extended outage in which the main generator rotor retaining rings were replaced.
3.
Operational Safety Verification The NRC' inspectors reviewed licensee activities to ascertain that the ~ facility is being operated safely and in conformance with regulatory requirements and that the licensee's management control system is effectively discharging its responsibilities for continued safe operation.
The NRC inspectors observed control room operations, reviewed applicable logs, and conducted discussions with control room operators.
The inspectors verified the operability of selected emergency systems, reviewed tag out records, verified proper return to service of affected components, and insured that maintenance requests had been initiated for equipment in need of maintenance.
The inspectors, by observation and direct interview, verified that the physical security plan was being implemented in accordance with the station security plan.
The inspectors verified implementation of radiation protection controls during plant activitie P-
. -4-The NRC inspectors toured accessible areas of the unit to observe plant equipment conditions, including potential fire hazards, fluid leaks, and excessive vibration.
The inspectors also observed plant housekeeping and cleanliness conditions during the tours.
No housekeeping problems were noted during the plant tours.
The NRC inspector walked down the accessible portions of the containment spray system.
The walkdown was performed using Procedure OP-9-001 and Drawing G-163.
During the walkdown, no discrepancies were noted by the NRC inspector between the procedure, drawing, and plant as-built conditions.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Monthly Surveillance Observation The NRC inspector observed the surveillance testing required by Technical Specification on the HPSI Pump "B" and RPS Channel "C."
The NRC inspector verified that testing was performed in accordance with adequate procedures, test instrumentation was calibrated, limiting conditions for operation were met, removal and restoration of the affected components were accomplished, test results were reviewed by personnel other than the individual directing the test, and any deficiencies identified during the testing were properly reviewed and resolved by appropriate management personnel.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Monthly Maintenance Observation Plant maintenance activities for safety-related systems and components listed below were observed to ascertain that they were conducted in accordance with approved procedures, Regulatory Guides, and industry codes or standards as well as in conformance with Technical Specifications.
The following items were considered during this review: the limiting conditions for operation were met while components or systems were removed from service, approvals were obtained prior to initiating the work, activities were accomplished using approved procedures and were inspected as applicable, functional testing and/or calibrations were performed prior to returning components or systems to service, quality control records were maintained, activities were accomplished by ' qualified personnel, parts and materials used were properly certified, radiological controls were implemented, and fire prevention controls were implemented.
Condition Identification Work Authorization (CIWA) logs were reviewed to determine status of outstanding jobs and to ensure that priority
--
. -5-was assigned to safety-related equipment maintenance which may affect system performance.
The following maintenance activities were observed: Steam generator tube plugging Charging Pump A and AB packing replacement Generator rotor retaining ring replacement No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
IE Bulletin Followup Inspection The NRC inspectors conducted a followup inspection of applicant actions taken on selected IE Bulletins.
The objectives of this inspection were to ascertain whether the information submitted by the applicant in response to the IE Bulletin sent for action was technically adequate, satisfied the requirements established in the IE Bulletin, and represented the action taken by the applicant.
The attributes inspected included verification of the following: The written response was within the time period stated in the . bulletin The written response included the information required to be . reported The written response included adequate corrective action . commitments based on information presented in the bulletin and the applicant's response Corporate management forwarded copies of the written response to . appropriate onsite management representatives Information discussed in the applicant's written response was . accurate Corrective action taken by the applicant was as described in the . written response The following IE Bulletins requiring an applicant response were reviewed by the NRC inspectors and have met the objectives required and inspection attributes listed above.
Therefore, the following IE Bulletins are considered closed.
a.
IE Bulletin 84-02 - Failures of General Electric Type HFA Relays in use in Class 1E Safety Systems
< . , -6-Issue: Power reactor facilities were informed that several Class 1E relay failures at several nuclear power reactor plants had occurred.
The subject relays are identified as GE. type HFA 51, Series AC, using Lexan as the coil spool material.
Facilities are to identify these relays in their' safety systems and plan upgrades where applicable.
Findings: On July 13, 1984, LP&L made a final response (W3P84-1912) to Bulletin 84-02.
At Waterford 3, it has been verified that both normally energized and normally deenergized GE HFA relays in safety-related systems . contain. Century Series coil spools or equivalent (i.e.
high temperature polyglass coils).
Nylon or Lexan coil > spools are not used in any safety-related GE HFA relays.
b.
IE Bulletin 83-08 - Electrical Circuit Breakers with an > Undervoltage Trip Feature in Use in Safety-Related Applications Other Than the ' ' Reactor Trip System Issue: The purpose of this bulletin is to assure proper operation of circuit breakers with undervoltage trip attachments (UVTAs) being used in safety-related apo11 cations other than as reactor trip breakers (RTBs).
Facilities are to: (1) identify the safety-related applications of the breakers and the systems in which they are used; (2) review the adequacy of the design, testing,_and maintenance of the breakers; (3) evaluate the need to take corrective measures to ensure proper operation of the breakers.
Findings: On April 4, 1984, LP&L made a final response (W3P84-0927) to Bulletin 83-08.
A review was conducted of circuit breakers in safety-related applications at Waterford 3, other than reactor trip breakers.
The review concluded that none of the subject circuit breakers (supplied exclusively by General Electric) incorporated the use of an undervoltage trip feature as discussed in this bulletin.
c.
IE Bulletin 83-07 - Apparently Fraudulent Products Sold by Ray Miller, Inc.
Issue: Power reactor' facilities were informed that fraudulent products may have been sold to nuclear industry companies by Ray Miller, Inc.
The licensee was requested to determine where suspect material has been
. -7-installed in plants, evaluate its safety significance, and tag or dispose of the suspect material not yet installed.
. Findings: On March 21, 1984, LP&L made a final response (W3P84-0707) to Bulletin 83-07.
LP&L contacted 94 vendors who could have supplied the subject material to Waterford 3.
Of the 94 vendors contacted, 93 vendors responded that neither they nor their subvendors had supplied any Ray Miller Inc. materials to Waterford 3.
The remaining vendor, Combustion Engineering, Inc'., responded that a subvendor, Swenson (Whiting ~ Corporation), had utilized Ray Miller, Inc. products on the boric acid / waste concentrators.
,, Although the boric / waste concentrators are installed in , ' safety-related systems, the concentrators are not safety-related equipment.
The concentrator piping is ' fabricated from Type 304 stainles; steel and has a relatively low maximum allowable working pressure, i.e.
60 psig shell side of concentrator (steam), 32 psig tube side of concentrator (process liquor).
Additionally, the boron management system / waste management system interface allows for complete redundancy should any concentrator become inoperable.
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Exit Interviews The NRC inspectors met with the licensee representatives at various times during the course of the inspection.
The scope and findings of the inspection were reviewed.
, }}