IR 05000382/1996024

Ack Receipt of 970206 Suppl Ltr Informing NRC of Steps Taken to Correct Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-382/96-24

ML20135D421
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	02/27/1997
From:	Howell A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Dugger C ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.
References
NUDOCS 9703050232
Download: ML20135D421 (5)

Text

.

. pt * * "' % i g UfelTED sT ATES

'

, ,,

-

.% NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

~~

.

REGloN IV

~"' 611 RY AN PLAZA DRIVE. SulTE 400 O

h.) AR LINGTON, TEXAS 76011 B064

....*

FEB 271997 Charles M. Dugger, Vice President r Operations - Waterford 3 Entergy Operations, In P.O. Box B Killona, Louisiana 70066 SUBJECT: NRC INSPECTION REPORT 50-382/96-24 l

!

Thank you for your supplementalletter of February 6,1997,in response to Notice of Violation 9624-01. We have reviewed your reply and find it responsive to the concerns raised in our Notice of Violation. We will review the implementation of your corrective actions during a future inspection to determine that full compliance has been achieved and will be maintaine j

!

Sincerely,

/

/ i l

I Arthur T. Howel 111, Acting Direc' tor Division of Reactor Projects  ;

l Docket No. 50-382 License No.: NPF-38 cc: '

Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Entergy Operations, In P.O. Box 31995 Jackson, Mississippi 39286-1995 50043 Vice President, Operations Support i Entergy Operations, In P.O. Box 31995 h I Jackson, Mississippi 39286-1995 9703050232 970227 PDR ADOCK 05000382 G PDR sppsppsppps

-

l

.

Entergy Operations, In .

,

l l

Wise, Carter, Child & Caraway )

P.O. Box 651

'

Jackson, Mississippi 39205 General Manager, Plant Operations Waterford 3 SES )

Entergy Operations, In l P.O. Box B Killona, Louisiana 70066 Manager - Licensing Manager Waterford 3 SES Entergy Operations, In P.O. Box B Killona, Louisiana 70066 Chairman Louisiana Public Service Commission One American Place, Suite 1630 1 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70825-1697 l

l i

Director, Nuclear Safety &

Regulatory Affairs Waterford 3 SES l Entergy Operations, In '

.

P.O. Box B Killona, Louisiana 70066

'

William H. Spell, Administrator Louisiana Radiation Protection Division P.O. Box 82135 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70884-2135 Parish President St. Charles Parish P.O. Box 302 Hahnville, Louisiana 70057 Mr. William A. Cross Bethesda Licensing Office 3 Metro Center Suite 610 Bethesda, Maryland 20814

,_ - . . . .. .. . - .

'

.

l

!

l Entergy Operations, In !

l i

Winston & Strawn 1400 L Street, Washington, D.C. 20005-3502 1

!

l i

l

,

.

.

Entergy Operations, In FEB 271997 bec to DCD (IE45)

bec distrib. by RIV:

Regional Administrator Resident inspector DRP Director DRS-PSB Branch Chief (DRP/D) MIS System Project Engineer (DRP/D) RIV File Branch Chief (DRP/TSS) Leah Tremper (OC/LFDCB, MS: TWFN 9E10)

.

l

,

DOCUMENT NAME: R:\ WAT\WT624AK.LAK i

!

To receive copy of document, indicate in box: "C" = Copy without pciosures "E" = Copy with enclosures "N" = No copy PE:DRP/D , C:DRP/D, _

, AD:Djil{p(

GAPick;cmM' PHHarply) ATHcM M j 02/pd97 02/ M / O2/f/97

• 0FFICIAL' RECORD COPY

,

\

i

.

Entergy Operations, In FEB 27 g 1

bec to DC j bec distrib. by RIV:

Regional Administrator Resident inspector DRP Director DRS-PSB Branch Chief (DRP/D) MIS System Project Engineer (DRP/D) RI V File Branch Chief (DRP/TSS) Leah Tremper (OC/LFDCB, MS: TWFN 9E10)  ;

l i

l DOCUMENT NAME: R:\_WAT\WT624AK.LAK To receive copy of document, Indicate in box: "C" = Copy wdhout efclosures "E" = Copy with enclosures "N" = No copy PE:DRP/D , C:DRP/D, _

_, AD:Dji@(

GAPick;cm@( PHHarrpig) ATHcMM 02/p./97 02/7g 02/f/97

' OFFICIAL' RECORD COPY

_ _ . . . - _ _ _

. -

-

.

,

, Entergy

_ - -

squ eamm.i .

~

Operations r

- - ~ - ._ ...._ ..___ _ ..._.._

'

W3F1-97-0013 1 A4.05 TEB PR February 6,1997 .

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 Subject: Waterford 3 SES Docket No. 50-382 License No. NPF-38 NRC Inspection Report 50-382/96-24 j Reply to Notice of Violation l l

Gentleme I'

The purpose of this letter and its attachment is to revise corrective actions and due dates for Violation 9624-01, which were silbmitted in letter W3F1-96-0210 dated December 26,1996. A vertical line has been placed in the right margin of the attachment to indicate the revised information. The revisions were discussed with Mr. Phil Harrell of your staff on Thursday, January 23,199 l If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact me at (504) 739-666 Very truly yours,

} *

~

T. J. Gaudet Acting Director Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Affairs TJG/WDM/tjs Attachment *f ~T - 0 5 4 Y cc: [Q.' Call'an '(NRC' RegkwilV)", C.P. Patel (NRC-NRR),

R.B. McGehee, N.S. Reynolds, NRC Resident Inspectors Office M

9nieoo 73 Dh ,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _

a l

-

Attachm::nt to !

W3F1-97-0013

l Page 1 of 7 l

l ATTACHMENT 1  ;

i ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC. RESPONSE TO THE VIOLATION IDENTIFIED IN 1 ENCLOSURE 1 OF INSPECTION REPORT 50-382/96-24 1  !

)

V'lOLATION NO. 9624-01 i i

i

' '

'

a 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, requires, in part, that conditions adverse to quality be promptly identified and correcte q

'

i F '

Procedure OP-901-511 " Instrument Air Malfunction," Attachment 5, Note 1, requires

! that accumulators for Valves CC-135A(B), Dry Cooling Tower A(B) inlet isolation  ;

i Valve, have pre-staged motive cylinders (nitrogen bottle) to allow a backup air l source to be connected to the accumulators on a loss of instrument ai ,

i l Contrary to the above, conditions adverse to quality were not promptly identified and

-

corrected in that:

!

l 1. As of October 22,1996, the licensee failed to determine all of the potential water l usage sources from the Condensate Storage Pool (CSP) following a design basis j tomado event, as required by Condition Report (CR) 96-0086, dated January 22, j 1996.

!

! 2. From October 14-21,1996, the licensee did not implement immediate corrective i actions specified in CR 96-1603 by prestaging a nitrogen cylinder for valve CC-l 135B, as required in procedure OP-901-511.

j This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement l} (50-382/9624-01).

L

L RESPONSE

(1) Reason for the Violation (Example 1)

,

Entergy believes that the root cause of this condition is that design documents

are inadequate for the design basis tomado accident. Contributing causes

were personnel error, poor verification and testing techniques, and inadequate l procedures and instructions.

t

Design basis document W3-DBD-003, Emergency Feedwater (EFW), states

! that the Component Cooling Water (CCW) Makeup Pumps will require a

minimal amount of CSP volume following any design basis accident. An j existing calculation which stated that the CCW Surge Tank would require 116 T gallons of makeup from the CSP following a design basis tornado event was 1 overlooked in calculation MN(Q)-9-17 and therefore, subsequently in the i W4.101 evaluation performed for CR 96-0086.- Weaknesses were discovered

!

'

- -. .- - -. _ - . - . '

• l Attcchm:nt to '

W3F1-97-0013

Page 2 of 7 3

,

in procedural guidance to direct engineering personnel in determining if other information exists that would affect calculations being performed or to pursue in what documents (i.e., procedures, other calculations, etc.) information obtained from calculations should be place i

,

,

(2) Corrective Steps That Have Been Taken and the Results Achieved Upon discovery, calculations were performed to include the additional makeup requirements. Based on Technical Specification (TS) minimum levels, the

WCT and CSP contain 344,000 gallons of water. During the first 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of i

the design basis tornado event, a total of 343,976 gallons of water would be needed for EFW consumption, Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS) consumption, and

-

CCW Surge Tank makeup. Based on these numbers, the WCT and CSP l provided a 24 gallon margin. This margin, however, was based on the DCT outlet isolation valves, CC-181 A(B) and CC-135A(B), being leak tight. Since these valves had not been leak tested, an assumed leakage of 5 gpm per valve was made. Recommendations were made to the Control Room to

maintain CSP level greater than 92% to provide added volume. Operations management directed the Control Room staff to maintain CSP level greater

,

than 96%.

With CSP level at 96%, the available margin for the tornado event, not l

-

considering seat leakage through the Dry Cooling Tower (DCT) inlet isolation 4 valves, CC-135A(B), discharge check valves, CC-181 A(B), and bundle

'

isolation valves, is 10,555 gallons. Assuming a combined leak rate of 10 gpm ,

for CC-135A(B) and CC-181 A(B) for the initial two hours prior to isolation of i

, the damaged bundles, the remaining margin is 9,355 gallons. The combined

.

leakage to the damaged bundles through the bundle isolation valves for the remaining 22 hours2.546296e-4 days <br />0.00611 hours <br />3.637566e-5 weeks <br />8.371e-6 months <br /> could not exceed 7 gpm. The DCT bundle inlet and outlet isolation valves were used as isolations during two maintenance activities

'

(Work Authorization (WA) #'s 01142260 & 01144162) with no appreciable leakag ,

Testing produced the following results:

^

CC-181A/CC-135A 0.04 gpm CC-181B/CC-135B 0.008 gpm (3) Corrective Steps Which Will Be Taken to Avoid Further Violations

.

. Research all licensing and design documents pertaining to the design

'

basis tornado event. Detail the design basis tornado event similar to Calculation MN(Q)-9-3 that details the LOCA event. Revise design

documents and issue a Licensing Document Change Request (LDCR)

to clarify the FSAR if required. Determine leakage criteria for valves

,

. .

'

Attachm:nt to

• W3F1-97-0013

,

Page 3 of 7 I required to be leak tight during a design basis tornado event. The IST I Program will be updated with these results. ECD, July 31,199 . Develop a design basis for CCW Makeup following design basis accident. Revise DBD-003, Emergency Feedwater, and update Calculation EC-191-003 with results. ECD, March 31,199 !

.

. The WCT cross-connect line will be tested during RFS to ensure; make- ,

up capability from one basin to another (corrective action from CR 96- l 0086). ECD, July 31,199 . Revise Calculation MN(Q)-9-17 to take into account the CCW makeup from the CSP. ECD, July 31,199 '

. Revise NOECP-011, Performance of Calculations, to strengthen the design input and verification process for calculations. ECD, January 31,199 . Add DCT bundle isolation valves, CC-137A(B)/CC-179A(B), CC-141 A(B)/CC-175A(B), CC-139A(B)/CC-177A(B), CC-143A(B)/CC-173A(B) to the IST Plan to ensure these components will be able to l perform their specific function during a design basis tomado even ECD, January 31,199 '

Initial testing has been completed on all bundle isolation valve Subsequent quarterly testing is being incorporated into Operations department surveillance procedure . Determine if testing of the CCW makeup pumps in accordance with ASME Section XI is required. ECD, March 31,199 (4) Date When Full Compliance Will Be Achieved Waterford 3 is in full compliance in that all potential water usage sources during a design basis tornado accident have been identified. Estimated completion dates are provided, above, for corrective actions aimed at reducing the potential for future violations. Those corrective actions will be completed by Juiy 31,199 (1) Reason for Violation (Example 2)

The cause for the second cited condition in this violation is personne8 error, incorrect assumptions, inadequate follow-up of task status, lack of task ownership, and inadequate communications between Operations and System Engineering led to the temporary nitrogen bottle not being stage . _ . - __ _-

$

Attachm nt to

) W3F1-97-0013 Page 4 of 7 A Condition Report (CR) was written on 10/14/96 when it was discovered that a temporary nitrogen bottle was not staged for CC-134B and CC-135B as directed by Operations Off-Normal Procedure OP-901-511, " Instrument Air

. Malfunction." The nitrogen bottles are staged locally for the A and B train CCW DCT isolation and bypass valves to minimize shift effort in the event of

, .

an instrument air malfunction after normal working hours. This requirement is administrative in nature. There is no design or safety requirement that requires the bottles to be staged in the DCT areas.

,

A series of communication errors and incorrect assumptions led Operations

-

personnel to assume that System Engineering would stage the bottl Engineering personnelinformed the Control Room of the lack of requirements for the bottles and believed that Operations would stage the bottle as a requirement of OP-901-511. No one person took ownership of the issue and acted as the coordinator to ensure replacement of the bottl On 10/21/96, NRC inspectors discovered that a nitrogen bottle was staged in the A DCT area but not in the B.

i (2) Corrective Steps that Have Been Taken and Results Achieved

'

Once informed, the shift superintendent directed personnel to immediately place a nitrogen bottle along with the necessary equipment in the area of CC-135B.

.

(3) Corrective Steps Which Will Be Taken to Avoid Further Violations

. A review will be done of the need for the temporary nitrogen bottles to be staged in the DCT areas. If the bottles are left in the area, they will be identified with an OPS AID.

e As an enhancement, OP-901-511 will be revised to remove

requirements for staging the nitrogen bottles in the DCT are . Operations management will review this CR with personnel with emphasis on the necessity for thorough communications and proper follow-up of assigned task completion. Also stressed will be the consequences of incorrect assumptions during problem solving.

(4) Date When Full Compliance Will Be Achieved

-

Waterford 3 is currently in full compliance in that the temporary nitrogen bottle

'

has been staged in the DCT are::. Estimated completion dates are provided, above, for corrective actions aimed at reducing the potential for future violations. Those corrective actions wii! be completed by July 31,199 __ __ _ . . ___ __

'

Attachm:nt to '

W3F1-97-0013

Page 5 of 7 i

.

,

k

VIOLATION NO. 9624-02

4

.

10CFR50.55a(g) requires, in part, that inservice testing to verify operational readiness of pumps and valves whose function is required for safety be accomplished in accordance with Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure

,

Vessel Code.

Section XI, " Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components,"

Subsection IWV-1100, includes within the scope of inservice testing, Class 1, 2, and j 3 valves (and their actuating and position indicating systems), that are required to I

'

perform a specific function in shutting down the reactor or in mitigating the

'

consequences of an accident.

i Contrary to the above, as of October 22 1996, the licensee failed to verify the i operational readiness of valves whose function is required for safety in accordance

>

with Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Specifically, the licensee failed to perform testing that ensured operational readiness of the safety-related air accumulators of ASME Class 3 valve RESPONSE Basis for Disputing the Violation Waterford 3 disputes the NRC's position that the failure to stroke fail-as-is valves CC-134A(B) and CC-135A(B) using their air accumulators as the source of air constitutes a violation of 10CFR50.55a(g) and ASME Section X As noted in your inspection report, the operation of ASME Class 3 valves CC-134A(B) and CC-135A(B) mitigate the consequences of the design basis tornado event. Therefore, Waterford performs the following tests to verify the operational readiness of each valve and its actuating device:

. Quarterly IST stroke time test using the lA system as the motive force for the valves. Both valves are timed in the open and closed direction . Accumulator drop test each refueling outage to meet 10CFR Appendices A and B operational readiness criteri inspection Report 96-24 cites Information Notices (lN) 85-84 and 86-50 which '

{

describe the failure to test valves that have been identified as fail-safe (i.e., valves that fail to either the open or closed position on a loss of control air or power). ASME Section XI, Subsection lWV-3415, also addresses fail-safe valves. This section

i t

Att: chm::nt to W3F1-97-0013 i; Page 6 of 7 states that when practical, valves with fail-safe actuators shall be tested by observing

] the operation of the valves upon loss of actuator power.

i

Valves CC-134A(B) and CC-135A(B) are not fail-safe valves. These valves are fail-as-is valves (i.e., valves that do not change position on loss of control air or power).

Because they fail-as-is, these valves do not change position on loss of control air or power. These valves are therefore not subject to testing in accordance with

, subsection IWV-341 Engineering inspection report 96-202 also comments on Waterford 3's position on testing of fail-safe valves in accordance v.ith IWV-3415. The inspection report states that the licensee did not interpret the ASME quarterly test specified in the ASME Code Section XI, Article IWV-3415 for fail-safe valves, to include valves that relied on air accumulators to change position on loss of normal non-safety l The IST Program monitors valves for degradation so that corrective action may be taken in a timely manner should problems with the valves develop. Valves CC-134A(B) and CC-135A(B) are in Waterford's IST Program. The testing currently performed on these valves satisfies all applicable ASME Section XI requirement Consistent with the definitions from Regulatory Guide 1.22, the actuator or actuating system of the code class valve is taken to be, "A component or assembly of components that dired'y controls the motive power (electricity, compressed air, etc.)

for actuated equipraent." An air accumulator does not " control the motive power";

rather, it provide", the motive power which is controlled by the actuator. An air accumulator is therefore not part of the actuator or actuating system. There is no requirement in ASME Section XI, Subsection IWV, to test accumulators on fail-as-is valve Waterford 3 does believe, however, that periodic testing of accumulators for CC-134A(B) and CC-135A(B) should be conducted in accordance with 10CFR50 Appendix B Criterion XI, Test Control, to duplicate, as closely as practicable, the performance required of the valves in the event of an accident. This has been addiessed in Condition Report CR-96-1978. Therefore, stroke testing CC-134A(B)

and CC-135A(B) using the accumulator as the motive source will be added to STA-001-005, " Leakage Testing of Air and Nitrogen Accumulators for Safety Related Valves." initial testing will be completed by January 15,1997, with subsequent testing being performed on a refueling outage basis. Waterford 3 believes that stroke testing these valves each refueling outage will verify their operational readiness under all condition In addition, it has also been determined and documented in CR-96-1978 that periodic testing of the accumulators for the following valves should be conducte These valves will be stroke tested with their respective accumulators each refueling ;

outage beginning with RF8: q

. CC-641, CCW to Containment Outside Containment isolation i

I e . - - - - - _ . . . - . - - - . , - , -- -- ,- .. -- -

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

s,

.

• Attachm:nt to W3F1-97-0013

,

Page 7 of 7

!' e CC-710, Containment CCW Retum Header Inside Containment Isolation

. CC-713, Containment CCW Return Header Outside Containment isolation

. CC-963A, Shutdown Heat Exchanger A CCW Flow Control Valve

.

. CVR-101, Containment Vacuum Relief Train B Control Valve

. CVR-201, Containment Vacuum Relief Train A Control Valve

.

d

-

'

.

A preliminary evaluation has been performed regarding the above valves. It has been determined that the accumulators for CC-1348 and CC-135B are free from l

~

moisture accumulation. Since these valves are located in the -35 wing area at the lowest point of the IA system, this is strong evidence that IA accumulators in general i will not experience air volume reduction due to moisture buildup. Accumulator

volume reduction could result in degradation or loss of function of the associated i

valve if the accumulator was needed during a loss of instrument air even Further review has shown that there is a high degree of confidence that listed valves will perform if needed based on:

1. all of the listed valvea ^ tested periodically as required by ASME Section XI 2. the lA system dewpoint is maintained at s -10 *F and is therefore very dry and will not promote corrosion 3. a maintenance history search was performed and only one recorded event was found where an IA check valve (test boundary valve) failed to close during accumulator testing Given the above, Waterford 3 believes there is a high degree of certainty that the subject will perform as designed. This, coupled with the stroke testing of these .

valves each refueling outage will verify operational readiness for air-operated safety- {

'

related valves supplied with air accumulators under all condition l l

l l

!

l