|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Adams
| | #REDIRECT [[IR 05000382/1989007]] |
| | number = ML20245C728
| |
| | issue date = 04/12/1989
| |
| | title = 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
| |
| | author name = Barnes I, Gilbert L, Mcneill W, Stewart R
| |
| | author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
| |
| | addressee name =
| |
| | addressee affiliation =
| |
| | docket = 05000382
| |
| | license number =
| |
| | contact person =
| |
| | document report number = 50-382-89-07, 50-382-89-7, NUDOCS 8904270360
| |
| | package number = ML20245C716
| |
| | document type = INSPECTION REPORT, NRC-GENERATED, INSPECTION REPORT, UTILITY, TEXT-INSPECTION & AUDIT & I&E CIRCULARS
| |
| | page count = 14
| |
| }}
| |
| See also: [[see also::IR 05000382/1989007]]
| |
| | |
| =Text=
| |
| {{#Wiki_filter:. - _ _ _ _ _ _ -
| |
| . .
| |
| . .
| |
| 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 Meetings 88-107 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
| |
| }}
| |