Semantic search
| Entered date | Event description | |
|---|---|---|
| ENS 53559 | 23 August 2018 12:11:00 | This is a non-emergency notification from Waterford 3. 10 CFR Part 21 Notification - Defect of Westinghouse 7300 Process Analog Control System circuit cards On August 14, 2018, Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy) completed an evaluation of a deviation at Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 (Waterford 3) which concluded the condition constitutes a defect pursuant to 10 CFR Part 21. The Waterford 3 Site Vice President was notified of the result of this evaluation on August 21, 2018. An interim report stating that an evaluation of this deviation was in progress was submitted to the NRC on July 5, 2018 (Entergy letter W3F1-2018-0040, ADAMS Accession Number ML18186A694). Three Westinghouse 7300 Process Analog Control System (PAC) circuit cards were identified to be failed due to failed hex inverter chips. Some of these cards were installed in applications which support the Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS) at Waterford 3. These PAC cards use Texas Instruments Part Number SN74LS04N, W113 hex inverter chips. The circuit card types of concern are Analog Comparator model number 2838A32G01, Control Board model number 2838A30G011, and Prom Logic model number 2838A33G01. Entergy concluded that this condition could have prevented the UHS from performing its safety function and thus could have created a substantial safety hazard. The NRC Resident Inspector has been notified. |
| ENS 50191 | 12 June 2014 09:31:00 | This is a non-emergency notification from Waterford 3 required under 10 CFR PART 21 concerning the deviation of a basic component from manufacturing purchase specifications. On 04/18/2014, during pneumatic actuator replacement for Emergency Feedwater (EFW) valve EFW-224A (EFW to Steam Generator #1 Primary Flow Control Valve), it was identified that the fail action of the actuator was incorrect in that it was in a fail-closed instead of fail-open configuration. The actuator model, as identified in Waterford 3 site receipt/acceptance document and the actuator's name plate data, was a Masoneilan model 47 Sigma-F, which is specified as a fail-open actuator. However, the actuator was discovered to have a fail closed action, which is indicative of a Masoneilan model 48 actuator. The fail-action of these Masoneilan Sigma-F actuators can be changed in accordance with its technical manual TDM120.0565 with no additional parts; therefore, Waterford 3 corrected the fail action of EFW-224A's replacement actuator (to fail-open) and ensured the handwheel indicator was corrected prior to entering mode 4. Two of these actuators were received and accepted as Masoneilan model 47 Sigma-F (fail-open) actuators in September of 2010, both of which were labeled as such, yet configured in the fail-closed action. One of these two actuators remains in the warehouse and has been placed on hold. The vendor, Dresser Masoneilan, has been notified in writing on May 12, 2014. On 6/9/2014 at approximately 1600 CDT, Entergy concluded that for those potential applications of this valve operator model in the EFW system, had they been installed without correcting the deviation, it could have resulted in a substantial safety hazard in that it could have prevented fulfillment of EFW safety function, and therefore reportable under 10CFR PART 21. The Waterford 3 Site VP was informed on 06/11/2014. The licensee has notified the NRC Resident Inspector. |
| ENS 49911 | 13 March 2014 14:46:00 | This is a non-emergency notification from Waterford 3 required under 10 CFR PART 21 concerning an apparent deviation from dedicated manufacturing specifications. On 10/17/2013, it was determined that there have been multiple inadvertent actuations of Engineered Safety Features Actuation Signal (ESFAS) equipment over the previous seven months. These equipment inadvertent actuations are occurring due to Allen Bradley type 700RTC relays spuriously de-energizing. The failure mode causes the relays to intermittently de-energize causing the associated equipment to perform its ESFAS function, not adversely impacting steady state plant operations. The failed relays have been sent to the qualifying vendor and two other failure analysis laboratories for testing. The results were reviewed by Waterford 3 engineers and although the failure mode could not be repeated in the laboratory, the laboratories identified less than adequate solder joints on the relay control circuit and a failed capacitor. The cause of the failed capacitor was identified as less than adequate installation practices during manufacturing. Engineering has determined that effects of these deviations, combined with installation in an application near the qualifying vendor's maximum specified environmental conditions, relevant to elevated voltage and ambient temperatures, has resulted in accelerated aging effects on the sub-components of the relays. The failures have been observed on relays that have been in-service greater than three years. Entergy concluded that for the applications for which the failure mode has been observed, and for other applications where these relays have been installed for more than 3 years, the failures did not result in a substantial safety hazard. However, on 3/12/2014, Entergy completed an evaluation concluding that, had this relay type been installed in other safety related normally energized applications for greater than 3 years, it could have resulted in a substantial safety hazard. Compensatory measures to preclude the malfunction of these relays, until long-term corrective actions are completed, have been implemented. As an interim measure the installed time for these relays is limited to 3 years or less, The Waterford 3 Site VP was informed the same day, 3/12/2014. Waterford 3 has determined that the only other Entergy nuclear facility utilizing these Allen Bradley relay types, possibly in a safety related application, is at James A. Fitzpatrick, to which this condition has been communicated. The licensee has notified the NRC Resident Inspector. |
| ENS 45526 | 29 November 2009 05:08:00 | 10CFR50 Appendix J Local Leak Rate Testing determined the total 'as-found' containment minimum pathway leak rate exceeded the maximum allowable containment leak rate per the Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program. This was primarily due to three penetrations that could not be pressurized to full test pressure. The maximum allowable leakage was assigned to both valves in each penetration since the valves can not be tested individually. This condition is reportable as a condition of the nuclear power plant, including its principal safety barriers, being seriously degraded per 10CFR50.72(b)(3)(ii)(A). The condition was discovered with the plant in Mode 5. Corrective actions have already been completed and all penetrations, as well as total containment leakage, is well within limits established by the Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program. The licensee has notified the NRC Resident Inspector. * * * RETRACTION FROM JIM POLLOCK TO PETE SNYDER AT 1711 EST ON 12/2/09 * * * On November 29, 2009, Waterford 3 reported that the total as-found containment minimum pathway leak rate exceeded the maximum allowable containment leak rate per the Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program. This was primarily due to three penetrations that could not be pressurized to full test pressure. The maximum allowable leakage was assigned to both valves in each penetration since the valves could not be tested individually. This condition was determined to be reportable as a condition of the nuclear power plant, including its principle safety barriers, being seriously degraded per 10CFR72(b)(3)(ii). Subsequently, Waterford 3 has evaluated the leak rates for all three penetrations and determined that as-found leakage rates assigned to the penetrations should not have been recorded at 630,000 sccm each, but should have been recorded at lower values. After one valve was re-worked in Penetration number 48, a Local Leak Rate Test (LLRT) was completed. With the new information from the second LLRT, a revised as-found leak rate of 97 sccm was assigned to the un-worked valve. For Penetration number 10, an Engineering evaluation of the test results was completed. The evaluation determined that the as-found leakage from this penetration was 191,000 sccm. This was based on calculating the maximum air flow capacity that could be obtained from the Leak Rate Monitor test equipment and using the first LLRT's penetration only reaching a test pressure of 43 psig instead of the 44 psig full test pressure. For Penetration number 11, troubleshooting activities determined that one of the valves had no detectable leakage; however, a leak rate of 9,100 sccm was assigned based on its previous as-left leakage value. With the lower leakage rates, the total as-found containment minimum pathway leak rate is calculated to be 230,682 sccm, which is within the limit of 630,000 SCCM. Since Waterford 3 had not exceeded the maximum allowable containment leak rate, EN #45526 is being retracted. The licensee notified the NRC Resident Inspector. Notified R4DO (Deese). |
| ENS 45476 | 3 November 2009 23:32:00 | An employee had a confirmed positive for alcohol during a random fitness-for-duty test. The employee's unescorted access to the plant has been suspended. Contact the Headquarters Operations Officer for additional details. The licensee has notified the NRC Resident Inspector. |