ML20245C728

Insp Rept 50-382/89-07 on 890227-0303 & 890313-17.Violation Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Previously Identified Findings, Licensee self-assessment Capabilities & Procurement Activities

ML20245C728
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	04/12/1989
From:	Barnes I, Gilbert L, Mcneill W, Stewart R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20245C716	List: ML20245C715 ML20245C722 ML20245C728
References
50-382-89-07, 50-382-89-7, NUDOCS 8904270360
Download: ML20245C728 (14)

See also: IR 05000382/1989007

Text

. - _ _ _ _ _ _ -

. .

. .

8

I

APPENDIX B

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION IV

NRC Inspection Report: 50-382/89-07 Operating License: NPF-38

Docket: 50-382

Licensee: Louisiana Power & Light Company (LP&L)

317 Baronne Street

'

New Orleans, Louisiana 70160

Facility Name: Waterford Steam Electric Steam Station, Unit 3 (W3SES)

Inspection At: W3SES, Taft Louisiana

Inspection Conducted: February 27 through March 3, and March 13-17, 1989

Inspectors: 8-5 M

L. D. Gilbert, Reactor Inspector, Materials and

/#42.h?

Date

Quality Programs Section, Division of Reactor

Safety

• b __

'

Y

W. M. McNeill, Reactob Inspector, Materials and Date

Quality Programs Section, Division of Reactor

Safety

bct o N trd 2./r9

R. C. Stewart, Reactor Inspector, Materials and Date

Quality Programs Section, Division of Reactor

Safety

Approved: # $bo, u./2/99

I.Barnes, Chief,Materialsann.OualRy Date

Programs Section. Division of Reactor Safety

i

4270360 890415

0 ADOCK 05000392

PNV

1

!

(

_ _ . - . - - -.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._____________j

___ _

- _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ . -

. .

< ,' '.

, ..

,

_2

J

Inspection Summary

'

Inspection Conducted February 27 through March 3, and March 13-17, 1989

~~'

(Report 50-382/89-07)

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of action on previously

identified findings, licensee self-assessment capabilities, and procurement

activities.

Results: The licensee has established programs and procedures in regard to

onsite and offsite review committees as well as an independent safety

engineering group (ISEG). The activities of the Safety Review Committee (SRC)

appeared to be well documented and followup on items was satisfactory with some

l

minor exceptions. One apparent violation was identified (paragraph 3.a) in

r

regard to the failure of SRC to review certain 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations.

Activities of the Plant Operations Review Committee (PORC) were not, in

general, well documented. In certain cases, the lack of detail regarding PORC

meeting comments was such that actions on comments could not be verified. Two

examoles of one ~ apparent violation were identified (paragraph 3.b) in regard to

the failure of PORC to satisfy the requirements of the Technical

Specifications (TS). Specifically, PORC failed to meet in a quorum for all

meetings and also failed to review two radioactive releases. ISEG was also

found to be in need of improvement in regard to control and documentation of

work activities. In general, programs for. procurement, receipt, storage, and

handling of safety-related equipment and materials, including the dedication of

commercial grade components, were found to be satisfactory. One apparent

violation was identified (paragraph 4) in regard to the absence of measures for

control of items for which vendors had made unsolicited shelf life

recommendations. Items were also observed in storage without imposed shelf

life limitations and for which current procurement practices would request

shelf life information from vendors. The licensee has committed in response to

Violation 382/8902-03 to establish an overall program for control of limited

shelf life materials, including review of items currently stocked in

warehouses.

i

_ ._ ..

. .

t

-

,

,

. .

-3-  !

!

DETAILS

1. Persons Contacted i

LP&L Personnel

• R. C. Azzaretto, Nuclear Operations Engineering & Construction (N0EC)

Manager

• P. N. Backes, Assistant Plant Manager

• D. E. Baker, N0SA Manager

B. C. Baptist, Materials Management Superintendent

• R. P. Barkhurst, Vice President

• L. L. Bass, Nuclear Operations Engineering & Construction (NOEC)

Supervisor

R. F. Burski, Nuclear Safety & Regulatory Affairs Manager

• N. 'S. Carnes, Plant Manage,'

li. Collyer Fire Protection Engineer

• G. M. Davis, Event Analysis Manager

S. E. Farkas, Licensing Engineer

• D. V. Gallodoro, Procurement Engineering Supervisor

• E. B. Hyatt, Nuclear Safety Review Engine (*

• J. E. Howard, NOEC Manager-

• J. H. Johnston, Operations Assessment and Information Dissemination (OA&ID)

Engineer ,

• G. F. Koehler, Quality Assurance (QA) Audit Supervisor

W. T. LaBonte, Radiation Protection Superintendent

• L. W. Laughlin, Site Licensing Supervisor

J. Lawrence, Associate Analysts

M. L. Layton, N0SA Engineer

H. C. Leason, Radiological Engineer

B. G. Morrison, Licensing Engineer

• D. F. Packer, Assistant Plant Manager, Operations & Maintenance

0. P. Pipkins, Safety Review Committee, Support Engineer

R. J. Pollock, QA Auditor i

• P. V. Prasankumar, Assistant Plant Manager, Technical Services 1

J. A. Ridgel, Assistant Radiation Protection Supervisor , I

R. D. Riser, Procurement Engineer j

C. Schmaltz, Warehouse Foreman i

• J. Sleger, Nuclear Safety Review Manager l

H. R. Sonmmers, OA&ID Engineer i

• P. E. Troy, Independent Safety Engineering Group (ISEG) Supervisor )

J. H. Wade, QA Engineer i

M. Wilson, Warehouse Foreman j

R. F. Wilson, Systems Engineer <

• J. J. Zabritski, QA Nanager J

NRC Personnel l

• T. R. Staker, Resident Inspector

• W. F. Smith, Senior Resident Inspector

_ --_ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _

-

_

f.

, . .

.

..

'i.

-4-

• Denotes those persons that attended the exit meeting on March 17, 1989.

In addition, the NRC inspectors contacted other members of the licensee's

staff.

2. Followup on Previous' Inspection Findings (92701 and 92702)

I

a. (Closed)OpenItem(382/8823-04): The Safety Issues Management

System (SIMS) had blanks in the safety-related data fields.

The NRC inspector reviewed the licensee's actions set out in

Memorandum W3M88-124 dated October 4,1988. The.SIMS data base was

searched on March 16, 1989, at the request of the NRC inspector for

any blanks in safety-related fields. Only four items were found

which had blank fields because of apparent data entry errors. This

is a significant reduction from the 1500 blanks that had been found

earlier. The processing and updating of SIMS now appears in control.

This item.is considered closed,

o

b. (Closed) Violation (382/8810-01): Failure to have documentation of

qualification for the containment cooling fan motors which use

Mobil-Temp SHC-32 grease in lieu of Chevron SRI-2.

During this inspection, the NRC inspector reviewed the applicable

correspondence relative to the compatibility of the subject greases,

including analysis conducted by Mobil Oil Corporation, letter dated

April 20, 1987, and an analysis conducted by Bolt & Associates

Consulting Services, letter dated November 29, 1988. The results of

.

those studies indicate that the two greases are compatible and that

there is no potential safety concern; however, the licensee plans to

replace the Mobil-Temp SHC-32 grease with the Chevron SRI-2 during

the next extended plant shutdown period. This item is considered

closed,

c. -(Closed) Violation (382/8811-01): Failure to follow procedures with

respect to evaluation of Quality Notices (QNs) for 10 CFR Part 21  ;

deportability. J

J

'

Durir.g this inspection, the NRC inspector reviewed the licensee's

letter of response to this violation and the referenced QAP-012 and

UNT-5-015 precedure revisions dated June 15, and July 1,1988,

respectively. In addition to the procedure revisicns, the licensee's

corrective actions included the change of responsibility for review j

and coordination of ONS for potentially reportable 10 CFR Part 21 {

items to the event analysis reporting and response group. Also, the  !

NRC inspector reviewed the licensing QN log and verified that all

velfd QNs were properly recorded as having beer reviewed for Part 21

reporteoility. This item is e,onsidered clond.

d. (Closed) Unresolved Item (382/8815-01): QN QA-87-069, relating to

valve stroke time data, remained open on the current QN status report

!

. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ -

, ..

. .

.

.

-5-

despite a completion schedule 9 months earlier and without supportive

'

justification.

During this inspection, the NRC inspector observed that this QN was

also identified in Violation 382/8811-01 noted above. Based on the

licensee's corrective actions, which incorporates this is:ue, this

item is closed.

3. Licensee Self-Assessment Capabilities (40500)

The objective of this inspection was to evaluate the effectiveness of the

licensee's self-assessment programs. In this regard, the NRC inspector

reviewed the activities of the SRC, the PORC, and the ISEG. The thrust of l

this inspection was to measure how effective these groups were in l

identifying of concerns and following them to resolution.- '

a. SRC

The activities of the SRC were governed by a manual which contained

the charters of the SRC and its two subcommittees. The current SRC

manual is under review and revision by the licensee to incorporate

such changes as a new subcommittee on corrective action. The SRC

currently meets every other mcnth with a quorum of nine: the Vice

President-Nuclear, and managers of Nuclear QA, Nuclear Safety and

Regulatory Affairs, Nuclear Operations Engineering and Construction,

Nuclear Plant Operations, Nuclear Operations Support and

Assessment (NOSA), and also three consultants. The meetings

addressed agenda items such as:

Plant operating status (trips, outages, team inspections, etc.)

Outstanding action items

3,.

Reviews by Operations Assessment and Information

Dissemination (OA&ID) of Institute of Nuclear Power

Operations' (INP0s) Significant Operating Experience

Reports -($0ERs), and Significant Event Reports (SERs), and

Combustion Engineerit,g

as well as, Licensee (CE) Availability)

Event Reports (LERs andData

EOSAProgram Reports,

Surveillance

and Assessments

NRC issued violations  ;

Reports of design deficiencies

OA audits and findings

Licensee amendments and Technical Specification (TS) changes

Standing committee reports (audit subcommittee and review ,

subcommittee) I

u__

- . _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

. .

! , .

. .

-6-

<

The NRC inspector reviewed the last three meeting minutes in detail

which were numbered 89-01, 88-19, and 88-16. It was noted that prior

to the above point in time. a different format for SRC meeting was

[ used. There were additional meetings of SRC which were called

"special" in which TS change requests were addressed. The NRC

L -inspector attended the 89-02 meeting.

,

Some observations by the NRC inspector were the following:

Agenda Item III-B in the 69-01 meeting discussed Potential

Reportable Event (PRE)88-054 which dealt with the installation

in Station Modification No.138 of a refueling level indication

system with an excess length of tygon tubing. The root cause

analysis by the licensee concluded that the shift supervisor

! >

should not have accepted the station modification in a. partial

status, namely, without an implementation procedure for'the

operation of the refueling level indication system. It appeared

that the SRC did not question the historical and generic impact.

In other words, were there other station modifications without

an implementation procedure for the system or equipment

modification.

Agenda Item III-C addressed two recommendations of a Quality

Effectiveness Assessment Report received by LP&L which was

performed at W3SES by Middle South Utilities. It was not clear

to the NRC inspector if all,'or at least the significant

recommendations, would be discussed by SRC in future meetings.

The Quality Effectiveness Assessment had 26 recommendations and

six dealt with the SRC. The NRC inspector then asked how such

items as INP0 evaluations were dealt with by SRC. The NRC

inspector found that the most recent evaluation had been

addressed in Meetings 88-01 and -02 before the INP0 report had

been issued to LP&L. The discussions were.only of the tentative

or possible findings, and not of the final report's findings and

the corrective actions associated with such. It appeared that

the final reports of external assessments such as INP0

evaluations of W3SES were not subject to a review of SRC.

Agenda item IV-B of 89-01 addressed follow up on the revision of

Procedure N0P-014 on design change control. The subject was

c'losed although it was not clear that the specific question

raised in the 88-19 meeting on the controls to be in the

procedure, in regard tu partial closed verus partial turr.over,

was addresud. There appeared to be only a general discussion

of the design change process. The tracking of the question from

one meeting to the next appeared to have been lost in this case.

Agende Item X-A addressed QA audits and states that no

significant QNs were issued. The NRC inspector noted that the

attachment summarized that there had been three QNs on the

subject of bypassing and other controls of " hold points" and the ,

Quality Effectiveness Assessment had observed the same problem  !

!

__ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _

- _ - -

l' e *

.

.

4 8

-7-

, . -

.and found it significant enough to issue a recommendation. It

would appear that what is significant for SRC, discussion has not

been clearly defined.

'

Agenda Item X-B addressed the SRC review subcommittee

activities. The attachment to the minutes, which was the' review

subcommittee report', stated that the 1988 annual

10 CFR 50.59 report contained 39 evaluations of which 14 had not

been received by the subcommittee. At the request of the NRC

inspector, the licensee followed up further_ on this subject. As

a result, it was established that 32 of the 65 safety

evaluations in the report t<ere not received by SRC until after

the annual 10 CFR 50.59 report. It was identified that the

following four 10 CFR S0.59 evaluations had not been submitted

to SRC:

(1) Project Evaluation /Information Request (PEIR) No. 20000,

" Spent Fuel Pool Heat Load Calculation," with an August 27,

1986, 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation and no apparent PORC review.

(2) PEIR No. 70795 "Use of the Refueling Water Storage Pool

Cross. Connect Line," with a October 8, 1986, 10 CFR 50.59

evaluation and October 14, 1986, PORC review.

-(3) Condition Identification (CI)/ Work Authorization (WA)

Nos. 255672/01017834, "In-Core Instrument Thimble Failure,"

with a May 26, 1988, 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation and May 27,

1988, PORC review.

(4) Special Test Procedure No. 99000104-1, " Seal Oil System

Post Mod Operation," with an April 12, 1988,

10 CFR 50.59 evaluation and May 17, 1988, PORC review.

The failure to perform SRC reviews of these 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations

was identified as an apparent violatica of TS (382/8907-01).

In the above review effort, it was noted that Station Modification

Packages (SMPs) 0097, 0441, 0502, 0804, 1215, 1427, and 1494 were

revised after SRC. review. Inst.f ficient time was availatle during the

4 inspection to ascertain whether a;1ditional 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations

were performed and which were reviewed by the SRC. This is an NRC

inspector followup item (382/8907-04),

• Tne 89-02 neeting was attended by e QA representative, who had

also attended a PORC meeting where some of the same agenda items

were revieved;;e.g.,'iS Change Ivo, 88-21. Attendance at both

meetings appears to have occurred because of a recent change in

the organization. The individual in question did not excuse

himself from the discussion, and he mentioned the PORC review

comments. This situation would appear to be inconsistent with

TS requirements for independent review of PORC by SRC.

l

_ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ -

_.

. .

. .

. .

-8-

Summary

. The SRC meetings appeared to be well documented and followup on items

appeared to be satisfactory with the exceptions noted above. It

should be noted that the above review was possible because of the

excellent level of detail and documentation in the SRC meeting

minutes. Also it should be noted the apparent violation on

10 CFR 50.59 reviews reflects more on the' failure of PORC to input

into the SRC.

b. .PORC

The activities of the PORC were governed by Administrative Procedure

No. UNT-1-003 and some associated procedures. The current procedures

were under review by the licensee in order to simplify and clarify

the process of PORC review. The PORC currently meets every week with

a quorum of seven: Assistant Plant Managers of Operations,

Maintenance, and Technical Services; Manager of Operations QA; and

Superintendents of Plant Engineering, Operations, Maintenance, and

Radiation Protection. The meetings addressed such agenda items as:

Procedure changes and revisions

LERs and PRES

TS changes

SMPs and Design Changes

CIs and WAs

• Justification for Continued Operations

The NRC inspector reviewed the meeting minutes numbered 88-100

through -127. The NRC inspector attended PORC Meeting 89-24.

Some observations by the NRC inspector were the following:

A significant fraction of the PORC meeting minutes were

characterized as " walk-thrcugh" meetings where PORC did not meet

es a quorum meeting with all members present. It appeared that

only one or two items were addressed in each of these  :

" walk-through" meeting minutes. The " walk-through" process was

a serial ballot review technique in which the members

sequentially reviewed an agenda item. This was described in the

implementing procedure in Step 5.2.7.2. It should be noted t. hat

American National Standard Institute (ANSI) N18.7-1976, a

comm1trent of W3SES, states in 4.3.2.3 for a meeting to be he16,

a cuorum shall be present. The failure to have a qaorum present

for " walk-through" meetings was identified as one example of an

apparent violation (38E/8907 02).

At Meetings88-107 and -112 radioactive releases were presented

to PORC which were not voted upon or apparently reviewed except

to the extent to conclude that the releases were not to be given

PORC review. The releases in question occurred on April 3 and

)

.

_

. __ ._ - - _ _ .

_ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ -

.

'

. .

. .

I

,' .

,

.g.

L,

M May 23, 1988, and were minor in character and for which LERs

'

.were not' required. The review of accidental, unplanned or

uncontrolled radioactive releases. including the' evaluations,

recommendations, and disposition of the corrective actions to

prevent.. recurrence is required by TS. The failure to review

these releases was identified'as the second example of an

apparent violation (382/8907-02)..

Because of the use of the same forms'by PORC and the normal

document review process to document comments, it is not always

clear what were the comments made at the PORC level of review.

In certain cases, the recorded PORC level coments made during

meetings- failed to have.. sufficient detail to allow verification

of resolution of the coments. It appeared that coments made

in regard to Procedure MI-0-462 made at 88-120 and -127 meetings

were not complied with by the staff. Because of the lack of

detail, an effective evaluation of PORC review activities was

not possible.

Sumary

Improvement is needed in the area of documentation of PORC review

activities which would allow verification of the identification of

4

items and followup on such. The licensee plans revision of the PORC

procedures and activities.

- c. ISEG-

The activities of the ISEG were governed by Procedure N0 SAP-102 and a

,

supporting procedure. The licensee was planning an additional

procedure, N0 SAP-109, to further define ISEG activities. ISEG was

staffed with a supervisor and four other engineers. ISEG addressed

items identified by management of ISEG and other management sources.

In addition, ISEG performed surveillance and assessments in

accordance with a schedule.

Operating experience, outside and inside W35ES, was reviewed by ISEG.

The NRC inspector reviewed the monthly reports for the last 3 months, f

^

the 1988 schedule, and a sample of " Assessment" and "Survefilance"

reports.

Some observations by the NRC inspector were the following:

' "

The monthly reports for December through February were

inaccurate-in that the number of recommendations were not ,

reported correctly.

A schedule for 1989 had not been established as of the time of

this inspection.

_ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ -

v .  ;.

, *J;

>' , '; ,

,i

>

, i

~ '

< - -10- I

Reports of.." Assessments" and " Surveillance" failed.to include

A '

.significant details. For example, Re' port 239-88 failed to

L fidentify that a. recommendation in the report was also' identified

'

in a QN and that the closeout of the recommendation would be via

closecut of'the QN .

The' status of recommendations and reports was misleading. . .

Reports 194-88 and 197-88 were signed off as closed, when in.

N fact, their status was open. Report 183-88 was not signed.off?

-

<

.as closed, when in fact, its status was closed.

p

• -

.There appears.to be a lack of timely. followup on recommendations

which were the result of." Assessments" and " Surveillance." In

~

,

1988, there^had been 54 recommendations issued.of which 27 were

open.as of the time of this inspection.

;

There was no documentation of the reviews performed of NRC

Notices, Bulletins, Notice.of Violations, LERs, 10 CFR 50.59

reviews, PRES, SMPs, procedures and other operating experience

. reports when ,the review by ISEG did not result in'a comment or

recommendation.

• The!1icensee had performed a QA audit of ISEG activities and

, -identified some of the above observations. The QA audit did not

identify the problems above as findings and the report was'in a

draft status as of the time of this inspection.

Summary ,

ISEG activities were found to be in need of improvement. -ISEG

activities in the'past appears to'have been better managed in certain

areas. such as monthly-reports, and should be reviewed again after

.

implementation of N0 SAP-109.

7 d.- 0ther Organi n tions

-The activitin of N0SA, in particular DA&lD and the assessment group,

were reAewed. -These activities tvers governed by Proceduras N05AP-103

anu 104. 0A&IO performs reviews of operating experience reports such

i'

..

as Significant Occurrence Reports (50Rs) and PRES in accordarce with

6 a checklist for deportability on the nuclear network. INPO S0s,

l<,. SOERs, and SEPS are also reviewed by OA&ID. Several recent evaluations

<" > of PRES and SERS by 0A&ID were examined by the NRC inspector. The

j -identification of items and followup appeared satisfactory.

'

I

" In regard-to the assessment group, it was noted that it shared the

same problem ISEG- had, as identified above, in regard to timely

followup of recommendations. The assessment group reviewed third

,

party audits of W3SES by INP0, Middle South Utilities, and others, in

=. - ___ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ .-_ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _____ __ _ ___-__ - - - - - - -

'

'

[,

. . ]

p

p. -

m .. .

,

h -11-

L

order to establish priorities for its assessment and surveillance

schedule.

Summary

Other organizational activities in regards to self-assessment

appeared to be implemented at W3SES. Some of these activities

appeared to cover areas that are normally addressed by ISEG.

4. Procurement, Recei)t, Storage, and Handling of Equipment and Materials

Program (38701,-33702. and 38703)

Initial NRC inspection of the programs for procurement, receipt, storage,

and handling of equipment and materials is documented in NRC Inspection

Report 50-382/89-02.. During this inspection, the NRC inspectors reviewed

the following additional documents in. order to verify that administrative

controls exist and that they provido measures to ensure that received

materials and equipment will be examined for conformance with requirements

specified in the procurement documentation. The documents were reviewed

to verify that acceptance criteria were' clearly established and that

requirements for documenting the~ performance of receipt inspections were

= delineated.- They were also reviewed to assure that controls exist with

respect to storage and maintenance of safety-related items, and

responsibilities were assigned in writing.

Document No. Revision Title

N0EP-004 1 The Engineering Procurement Process

QAP-251 2.0 Material Storage Inspection

UNT-8-013 3 Receiving, Handling, and' Storage

ME-4-703 7 Routing Electrical' Equipment Inspection

and Maintenance

The NRC inspectors reviewed the licensee's computer listing of commercial

grade parts or components which were designated Quality Class 3 items that

had been installed in safety-related systems or equipment and selected the

following items for review of the procurement and dedication processes:

-

Condition Purchase

identification _ Order Stockcode Description _

252256 14436 101-A04159 Flanged Bearing for Personnel

Air Lock Hand Wheel Shaft

254069 16795 135-C11563 Diaphragm for Resin Tank

Isolation Valve

_ _ __ _

,

-. -

. .

.

.

. o

,

-12-

256126 15740 151-F00027 Adhesive Thread Sealant for

Reactor Coolant Loop 2A Cold

Leg Temperature Detector

257372 11740 135-C30772 Insert Disc with Pin and

22961 160-A00034 Bellows Subassembly for

Charging Pump A Discharge

Header Relief Valve

259165 73018 102-C50002 Stud Bolt Nut for Reactor

Coolant Pump 1A and Motor

Coupler Assembly

260848 16688 101-D38476 Seal Kit, Jackscrew

22958 135-C00191 Assembly, Spiral

135-C58055 Assembly, Seal Nut, and

135-C70187 Cylinder Assembly for

23258 135-C00209 Component Cooling Water

Supply Valve Operator

The NRC inspectors reviewed the procurement and receiving inspection

documents while reviewing the commercial grade dedication process for the

items selected above. The reviewed documentation consisted of a purchase

order, a receipt checklist which addresses shipping damage,

identification, documentation received, protective devices, and

cleanliness, and an engineering evaluation. The programs for procurement,

receiving inspection, and dedication of commercial grade parts and

components appeared to be effective with respect to meeting the committed

objectives.

The NRC inspectors also inspected for proper storage of safety-related

equipment ard materials in Warehouses 7B and 2B, and the Service Buildir.g

Warehouse. The buildings were designated Storage Leval B except for a

small room in the Service Building which was controlled as a Storage

Level A. The NRC inspectors reviewed the Warehouse Surveillance

inspection Records of the sturage areas fnr March 6-12, 1989. The

environmental conditions in the storage areas were consistent with the

stora5e level requirements o# Procedure UNT-8-013. Electric motors, which

are required to be heated while in storage, were observed with heaters

energized and maintained as specified in Procedure ME-4-703. During the

tour of the storage areas, tha NRC inspectors selected the following items

to verify the tagging or marking for traceability of the item to purchase

documents, receipt documents, quality certification documents, and if

applicable, limited shelf life.

Stockcode Purchase Order Description

120-A73132 83287 Stainless Steel Tubing

135-B81240 48296 Globe Valve

107-C00001 66121 Alumina Activated Desiccant

- _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _

_

.. .

. .

. o

,

-13-

105-A46185 19475 Limitorque Electric Motor

135-B80910 14639 Valve Solenoid

152-C19300 16679 Mass Flowmeter

138-A15424 10458 Welding Material

151-B15408 66101 Welding Material

151-B15407 66101 Welding Material

101-D53873 96954 0-Ring

102-C53947 16176 0-Ring Gland Plate

102-C54033 23305 0-Ring

102-C53944 20768 0-Ring Gland

127-B38461 24764 Spare Parts Kit

127-B53849 24764 0-Ring

The above items were traceable to purchased documents, receipt documents,

and quality certification documents; however, discrepancies were noted

regardir.g the identification of limited shelf life for the following

items:

a. Unsolicited Shelf Life Limitations Provided by Vendor _s,

' The Material Management Information System specified no shelf

life requirements for Stockcode 152-019300 but the vendor

documentation received for the mass flowmeter gave an unsolicited

shelf life of 3 years.

The Material Management Information System specified no shelf

life requirements for Stockcode 101-D53873 but the vendor

documentation received for the 0-Ring gave an unsolicited shelf

life of 20 years.

Although the licensee was attempting to implement unsolicited shelf

life limitations received from vendors, no formal program was in

place to handle this matter. The licensee stated that a procedure

will soon be issued to promulgate the requirements for limited shelf

life, including handling of uronlicited info;mation. This is in

apparent violation for failure to identify and control limited shelf

life materials. (382/8907-03)

b. Shelf Life Limitations Not Requested From Vendors

• The Material Management Informatten System specified no shelf

life requirements for Stockcode 102-C53947. The vendor was not

' requested to provide shelf life limitations for this 0. Ring

gland plate, therefore no information ws.s provided.

The Material Management Information System spec 1fied no shelf

life requirements for Stockcode 102-C54033 from Purchase

Order 23305. The vendor was not requested to provide shelf life

limitations for this 0-Ring, therefore no information was

provided. However, a shelf life was received on another

purchase order for this stockcode.

,

_ __ - _ _ - - _ _ - - _ - - - _ _ - _ _

- - - -. _ _ _ - _ _ - _

... .. -

. # ll .

y . .

.

-14- 1

J

The Material Management Information System specified no shelf

life requirements for Stockcode 127-B38461. The vendor was not

requested to provide shelf life limitations for.this spare parts

kit, therefore no information was provided.

The Material Management Information System specified no shelf

life requirements for Stockcode 127-B53849. The vendor was not

requested to provide shelf life limitations for this 0-Ring;

therefore no information was provided.

The above discrepancies are additional examples of a recent inspection

finding, Violation 382/8902-03, documented in NRC Inspection

Report 50-382/89-02. The licensee has written Quality Notice QA-89-071

which will assure that'these items are included in the corrective

action developed for Violation 382/8902-03. The licensee has

committed in response to this violation to establish an overall

program for control of limited shelf life materials, including review

of items currently' stocked in warehouses.

5. Exit Meeting

An exit meeting was held on March 17, 1989, with those individuals denoted

in paragraph 1 of this report. At this meeting, the scope of the inspection

and the findings were sunnarizeo. The NRC resident inspectors also

attended. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the

information provided to, or reviewed by the NRC inspectors.

.

I

k

i