ML20137E920: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot change)
(StriderTol Bot change)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Adams
#REDIRECT [[IR 05000382/1985027]]
| number = ML20137E920
| issue date = 01/09/1986
| title = Insp Rept 50-382/85-27 on 850930-1004.Violations Noted: Failure to Establish & Follow Procedures for Quality Related Activities.Unresolved Item Re Provision of Work Supervisor Qualification & Training Noted
| author name = Boardman J, Ireland R
| author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
| addressee name =
| addressee affiliation =
| docket = 05000382
| license number =
| contact person =
| document report number = 50-382-85-27, NUDOCS 8601170354
| package number = ML20137E897
| document type = INSPECTION REPORT, NRC-GENERATED, INSPECTION REPORT, UTILITY, TEXT-INSPECTION & AUDIT & I&E CIRCULARS
| page count = 7
}}
See also: [[see also::IR 05000930/2010004]]
 
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:*
  .
                                              APPENDIX B
                                  U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
                                                REGION IV
                                                    '
        NRC Inspection Report:      50-382/85-27              Operating License:    NPF-26
        Docket:    50-382
        Licensee:        Louisiana Power and Light Company (LP&L)
                          142 Delaronde Street
                          New Orleans, Louisiana      70174
        Facility Name: Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3
        Inspection At:    Taft, Louisiana
        Inspection Conducted:      September 30 through October 4, 1985
        Inspector:
                    jA . R.
                            [ 8. M
                          J Boardman, Reactor Inspector, Operations
                                                                                //9/gg
                                                                                Date'
                    f        Section, Reactor Safety Branch
        Approved:          [[ Ireland,
                          R. ~E.
                                  . AM//MActing Chief, Operations
                                                                                //9/d
                                                                                Dat'e
                            Section, Reactor Safety Branch
*
        Inspection Summary
        Inspection Conducted September 30 through October 4, 1985 (Report 50-382/85-27)
        Areas Inspected:      Routine, announced inspection of the licensee preventive
        maintenance program and nonlicensed staff training. The inspection involved
        42 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
        Results: Within one area inspected (preventive maintenance) two violations
        were identified (failure to establish and'to follow procedures for
        quality-related activities, paragraph 2). One new unresolved item was
        identified regarding provision of work supervisor qualification and training,
        paragraph 2.b.(3).
    .
            b
              B601170354 860109
              gDR    ADOCK 0 % p
                                                                          _  -.
 
      _.
    *
  .
                                              2
                                            DETAILS
      1.  Persons Contacted
          Principal Licensee Employees
          *R._S. Leddick, Senior Vice Pre ident, Nuclear Operations
          *K. Simister, Commercial Manager
          R. P. Barkhurst, Plant Manager
          *T. F. Gerrets, Corporate Quality Assurance (QA) Manager
        :*J. Woods, 0.C Manager-
          *L. L. Bass, Project Manager
          *K. Brewster, OnSite Licensing Engineer
          *N. L. Carns, Assistant Plant Manager, Operations and Maintenance
          *T. H. Smith, Maintenance Superintendent
          *P. V. Prasankumar, Technical Support Supervisor
          *R. V. Seidl, Project Manager, E&NS
          *F. J. Englebracht, Manager, Plant Administrative Services
          M. Hamilton, Plant Engineering
          *A. S. Lockhart, Plant Staff
          *S. Alleman, Assistant Plant Manager, Technical Services
          *J. J. Zabritski, Plant Quality
          R. T. Burski, Manager, Engineering and Nuclear Safety
          *D. Packer, Manager Training
          *W. J. Baldwin, Vendor QA
          *J. E. Adkins, Procurement
          *J. C. Lawrence, M&S
          *C.  J. Toth, Plant Training
          NRC Personnel
          T. Flippo, Resident Inspector
          * Denotes those attending the exit interview on October 4, 1985.
          The NRC inspector also interviewed other licensee and contractor
          personnel.
      2.    Preventive Maintenance
          The inspection included the review of selected preventive maintenance
          activities, including the following areas:
          a.    Preventive Maintenance Program Procedures MD-1-004, " Preventive
                Maintenance Scheduling," Revision 6, Change 2, dated August 16, 1985.
L
 
r    m
      +
          -;
        *
    .,
                                                        3
              . .    .
                    (1). The established procedural controls included scheduling and
                            . classification of preventive maintenance (PM) work. The-work
                            classification addressed preventive maintenance actions (task
                            cards), work programs, and quality classes. Work programs and
                            quality classes had corresponding task card colors as follows:
                            Work Programs                                  Task Card Color
                            *  Technical Specification Related                Pink
                            *  Equipment Qualification (EQ) Related            Yellow
                            Quality Classes
                            *  Safety-related                                  Blue
                            .* Other                                              Buff
                            The review of the onsite microfilmed maintenance records
                            associated with PM activities revealed that the task card colors
                            could not be directly determined on the film. The provision of
                            clear and comprehensive records of safety-related maintenance
                            activities onsite is considered an open item pending further
                            review during a subsequent inspection (382/8527-01).
                        (2) PM Scheduling for Replacement of Safety-Related Components
                            The review of the PM scheduling prograa revealed that the
                            program automatically added a 25 percent time extension to all
                            PM activities. Discussions revealed that the impact of the 25
                            percent time extension on the component safety-related function
                            had not been adequately considered.
                            Examples included the required replacement of safety-related
                            Agastat relays at 10 year intervals and of Rosemount transmitter
                            0-rings at 5 year intervals to maintain required equipment
                            quality.
  '
                            The automatic extension of the PM schedule for replacement of
                            safety-related components is an open item pending further review
                            during a subsequent inspection (382/8527-02).
                  b. Maintenance Procedure PE-2-014, " Equipment Environmental
                    Qualification," Revision 2, approved September 16, 1985.
                    (1) The procedure required the following:
                            *    the environmental qualification (EQ) related maintenance be
                                  performed under " work program 6" - Yellow PM Task Cards;
 
    '
                                                _                                                                                                                    i
          <
      .
                            ;
                : c . ,1 s - ,
                              -
                                                                                                                4
              ,
                        a
                                                                    *              * the generation of; adequate records to demonstrate
                                                                                        : maintenance'of equipment _ qualification;
                                                                    *                      the EQ coordinator. review of the completed work packages
                                                                                          'for adequacy;.and.
                                                                    *                    Ithe EQ; records be forwarded to project files by the EQ
                                                                                            coordinator.
                                            .
                                          ;(2)-1The procedure review revealed that the EQ coordinator, or-
                                                                -another qualified individual, was not required to be involved in
                                          '
                                                                  .the EQ related PM activities at the point: safety-related,
                                                                    environmentally-qualified equipment was to be opened for.                                '
                                                                    maintenance (e.g.,'Rosemount Model 1153-Transmitters - removal
                                                                    of cover plates for adjustments during PM activities).                                    The
                                                                    procedure did not require the " work program" designation to be
                    '
                                                                    changed to "EQ Related" (" YELLOW") when appropriate.                                    The
                                                                      failure to establish adequate procedures to control the
                                                                    classification of maintenance activities in accordance with the
                                                                      requirements of the Technical Specifications and the QA program                              ,
                                                                      is an' apparent violation (382/8527-03a).
                                  s
                                          ~(3) The procedure review and discussions revealed that the routine
                                                                    closure of a work package /PM task card included a review by the-
                                                                    applicable work supervisor for acceptability of maintenance of
                                                                    equipment qualification (EQ, IE, Seismic, etc). No documented
                                                                    qualification, or training, was identified during this review.
                                                                    This item is considered unresolved pending further review during
                                                                                                                                                                      '
                                                                    a subsequent inspection (382/8527-04).
                          -
  E                                    C.
                                              Review of Maintenance Activities Associated with Completed
  ~
                                              Safety-Related Preventive Maintenance (PM) Task Cards
                                          'The inspection included the review of completed PM task cards
  u
            -
                                    >    . associated with the calibration of four safety-related Rosemount
  l'                                          Model 1153 Transmitters (Reactor Coolant System (RCS) loop pressure,
            .        ,                      RCS pressurizer level, reactor containment pressure, and safety
      *
                                              injection tank level). The following quality deficiencies were
                                              identified:
                                              Deficiency Number                                                                          Description
                                L
                                                                    1                                            Failure to incorporate component
,
        '                        -
                                                                                                                  manufacturer's maintenance
                                                                                                                  requirements for maintaining
          '
                                                                                                                  component qualification.
i
                                                                                                                                                                      ,
    ,,                . .              .    .._ , _ , ~ .- - --.-- ---._ .-~ ,.-.~. _ . ,.                            _ _ , _ _ _ . .          --~- _ --_
 
.          _
              .-
        ...,.
                                                        5
    ,
                          Deficiency Number                          Description
                  #
                                                          Failure to implement the
                                                          manufacturer's requirements where
                                                          incorporated in licensee procedures as
                                                          follows: manufacturer's requirements
                                                          were not followed.
  ,
                                2(a)                      Replacement of cover 0-rings not
                                                          accomplished
                                2(b)                      Use of Dow Corning 55M lubricant
                                                          on replacement 0-ring not
      -
                                                          accomplished.
    + '    '
                                2(c)                      Torquing of cover to 200
                                                          inch pounds not accomplished
                          Task Card / Procedure and Deficiency Matrix
                          Task Card / Procedure                      Deficiency
                          (1) RC ILO 001X 01/MI-3-323,
                                  Revision 2, Change 2              2(a), 2(b)
                          (2) CCS1IP 515 X A 25/MI-5-503,          1
                                  Revision 0, Change 2
                          (3) CP IP 6702 MC 1/MI-315,              1
                                  Revision 2, Change 1
                          (4) SI IL 0321 01/MI-5-201,              1
                                  Revision 3, Change 1
                    Failure to comply with requirement 1 is an apparent violation of
                    establishing procedures for activities affecting quality as required by
                    Waterford SES Unit 3 Technical Specification, Section 6.8.1, 10 CFR
                    -Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, and FSAR Section 17.2.5.    (50-382/8527-03b)
                    . Failure to comply with requirements 2(a), 2(b), or 2(c), is an apparent
                    violation of implementation of procedures for activities affecting quality
                    as required by Waterford SES Unit 3 Technical Specification, Section 6.8.1,
                    10 CFR Part 60, Appendix B, Criterion V, and FSAR Section 17.2.5
                    (50-382/8527-05a).
._
 
            -
                                                                              . __              .  ,          ,
L
      . - .
    ,
                                                          6
,-
''
                d.  Failure to Perform a Spare Parts Equivalency Evaluation Request
                  -(SPEER)
                    A review of CIWA 15517, ROS.098960, dated February 14, 1985,
                    revealed the following:
                  ~ Material supplied (0-ring) on C1WA 15517, ROS 098960, P0 No.
                    L-A78479-P, P/N 01151-0033-0002, for Rosemount Transmitter
                    Model 1153 (RC IP 0110) failed to have a SPEER performed prior to
                    use.
                    The 0-ring required part number'was P/N 01153-0011-001.                            Licensee
                    personnel told to the NRC inspector that, prior to issue and use, a Spere
                  -Parts Equivalency Evaluation Request (SPEER) was not processed as
                    required by Procedure UNT-8-042 Revision 1, or UNT-7-021,
                    Revision 0, " Spare Parts Equivalency Evaluation."
                    The failure to perform a SPEER as required by procedure in
                    accordance with the Technical Specifications and the licensee's QA
  ,
                  -program requirements is an apparent violation (382/8527-05b).
                e. .Use'of Preventive Maintenance Task Cards to Perform Corrective Maintenance
                    The inspection revealed that PM tasks having a periodicity of 3 or
                    5 years had been accomplished at least twice. Examples
                    included task cards for the following PM tasks in 1985:
                    *    CC EBKR 3AB4S
L                  *    SI FOL 313 A7CS
                    The multiple accomplishment of the PM activities in excess of the
                    normal scheduled activities indicated the possible use of the PM
                    tasks to accomplish corrective maintenance.
                    This matter will remain an open item pending further review during a
                    subsequent inspection (382/8527-06).
                f.  Design' Life of Safety-Related Capacitors
                    A review of the vendor documentation provided with licensee purchase
                    order L-08423-D stated that the power supplies provided were of
                    limited life due to electrolytic capacitors.
                                                                                                                                        .
                                    S
              -                            _ _ , . , - -  .----._,-,-._.y .      _.,_____._.-m
                                                                                                  -
                                                                                                          --,  .v ,. - , - . . , , , ,-
 
                                                                                            --
    -          -
                                          ,
                                4:
                                  p"  ae
                                      '      -
          ;, .-
                                                ,      .-.
                                                                7
                                            ,
        .
,    _
          _,
'
                      +
                            ' The = installed Elgar Inverters (safety-related, environmentally
                              -
                          '
                              ! qualified)have45capacitorswith9yearlife,requiringreplacement
                                to~ maintain component qualification.
                                Discussions with a capacitor manufacturer's aluminum electrolytic
                                capacitor manufacturing group revealed that aluminum electrolytic
                                capacitors have design life periods of 1000 hours to 15 years,
                              ' depending upon the grade of the capacitor.(e.g. special, standard,
                                premium, computer or military specification).
                '
            -
                                The-licensee had no' program identifying capacitors installed in
                                safety-related circuits where failure could be nonconservative.  This
                                will remain an open item pending further review during a subsequent
                                inspectir;n (382/8527-07).
                -3.    Training of Nonlicensed' Staff
                        .The NRC inspector began review of the licensee's training program for
                        nonlicensed staff; however, the' requirements of the inspection plan were
                                                  ~
                        not completed. The licensee has a documented, time phased, program to
                        obtain INPO accreditation of nonlicensed staff training. Completion of
                        review of nonlicensed staff training will be completed during a subsequent
                        inspection.
  '
                        No violations or deviations were identified.
                  4.    Unresolved Items-
                        Unresolved items are matters about which more'information is required in
                        order to' ascertain whether they are acceptable items, violations, or
                        deviations. One unresolved item disclosed during the inspection is
                        discussed in paragraph 2.b.(3).
                  5.    Exit Interview
                        The NRC inspector met with th'e licensee representatives (denoted in
                        paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on October 4, 1985.      The
                        -NRC inspector summarized the purpose, scope and findings of the
                        inspection.
}}

Revision as of 23:34, 24 August 2020

Redirect to:

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20137E920&oldid=2935993"