ML19263D610
| ML19263D610 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 03/22/1979 |
| From: | Aswell D LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Seidle W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19263D607 | List: |
| References | |
| LPL-10769, NUDOCS 7904130059 | |
| Download: ML19263D610 (4) | |
Text
.
k' LOUISIANA P O W E R & Li G H T! P O BOX 6008
- NEW OALEANS. LOUISIANA 70174 342 onAnoNoesrncer
- (504) 36G 2345 EEts svsE 6
March 22, 1979
,[,$,2 y, % 3., n LPL 10769 Q-3-A35.02.01 Mr. W.C. Seidle, Chief, Region IV Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011
SUBJECT:
Waterford SES Unit 3 Docket No. 50-382 Construction Permit No. CPPR-103 IE Inspection Report No. 50-382/79-02
Dear Mr. Seidle:
LP&L's response to the items of noncompliance identified in the subject report is given below:
Failure to Follow Procedure - Surveillance of Welding Parameters 9
Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 requires that activi-ties affecting quality shall be accomplished in accordance with documented instructions, procedures, and drawings.
Section 6.1.14 of T-B Procedure, " Visual Inspection," TBP-26, Revision D, states in part, " Surveillance of welding parameters, i.e., amperage, voltage, gas flow rate, etc., will be performed daily on a random basis to verify conformance with the welding procedure being used."
Contrary to the above:
The welding parameters, preheat and interpass temperatures, were not included in the surveillance conducted on safety related pipe welding activities during the period December 21, 1978, through January 25, 1979, as verified in a discussion with the cognizant welding surveillance inspector.
79041300571
Mr. W.C. Seidle 2
March 22, 1979 1.
Corrective Steps Taken and the Results Achieved:
Corrective action taken by Tompkins-Beckwith was in the form of con-ducting a training class on January 25, 1979.
The class outlined the welding inspector's responsibilities for checking in-process welding parameters, i.e., gas flow rate, amperage, voltage, preheat, and interpass temperatures, as described in TBP-26, Revision D, " Visual Inspection Procedure".
Ebasco Quality Assurance conducted an audit, No. CEB-79-1-3, on January 25, 1979 and reported the following:
Item 6.1.14 Finding: a) The daily surveillance of the in-process welding has been implemented in part on 12/4/78, however, there are no surveillance re-ports available to verify that preheat and interpass temperatures were checked on all days worked between 12/4/78 and 1/25/79.
b) There are no surveillance reports available to verify that the gas flow rate and voltage checks were made on a daily basis.
c) The surveillance reports that are available verifying that amperage checks were made do not cover all days worked between 12/4/78 and 1/25/79.
On March 8, 1979 Ebasco conducted a follow-up audit and verified that subsequent to 1/25/79 surveillances of welding parameters were conducted by Tompkins-Beckwith on a daily basis and documented as per procedure re-quirements.
2.
Corrective Steps Taken 'to Preclude Further Noncompliance:
Tompkins-Beckwitn's QC Engineer (Welding) will monitor surveillance re-ports daily to ascertain that the requirements of TBP-26, Paragraph 6.1.14 are satisfied.
In addition, Ebasco Quality Assurance will periodically conduct audits in this area to verify compliance by Tompkins-Beckwith.
3.
Date When Full Compliance Will Be Achieved:
Full compliance was satisfactorily verified on Fbrch 8,1979.
Failure to Follow Approved Procedures During Initial Charge of Safety Related Batteries __
Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 requires that activities affecting quality shall be accomplished in accordance with documented instructions and procedures.
Ebasco Instruction CMI-177, Revision 5, Fischbach and Moore Procedure CP-311, Revision 0, and Could Industrial Batteries Instruction Book, Docket No. 5817-889-R0 require the following in regard to safety related batteries:
Mr. W.C. Seidle 3
! arch 22,1979 1.
A minimum of seventy hours initial charge.
2.
That the electrolyte is oo t to be removed during the initial charge.
3.
The batteries are to be placed on a float charge and indi-vidual cell voltages, specific gravities (corrected to 770F),
ambient temperature and cell temperatures be recorded for all calls and the electrolyte levels for 107. of the cells.
4.
An equalizing charge is to be performed when the specific gravity of a cell falls below 1.205 and evaluation of the condition is to be documented.
Contrary to the above:
During the initial charge of 125 VDC Class IE batteries 3A-S, 3B-S, and 3AB-S from September 20 to September 23, 1978, it was determined that:
1.
The records for the initial charge indicated that the charge duration was forty-four hours; however, discussions with Fisch'oach and Moore indicated that all charges lasted sixty-eight hours, two hours less than the minimum specified.
2.
When questioned concerning low electrolyte levels in numerous cells, the IE inspector was told by the licensee representative that electrolyte had been removed from numerous cells during the initial chargel 3.
All three batteries were placed on open circuit for the final set of readings and only two cell temperatures for 3A-S and 3B-S, and four cell temperatures for 3AB-S were recorded. No electrolyte levels were recorded at any time during the charges, as confirmed by the licensee representative.
4.
The final specific gravity log for battery 3AB-S taken on September 25; 1978, indicated that cells No. 4 and 12 had specific gravities of 1.203.
An equalizing charge was not performed and the evaluation of this condition was not documented, as confirmed by the licensee representative.
- 1) Corrective Steps Taken and the Results Achieved:
A meeting was held between LP6L Startup, LP&L QA, Ebasco Startup and Fischbach and Moore to ensure that all parties agreed to the require-ments that must be met in order to maintain the warranties for the sta-tion batteries, and also to determine the required procedure revisions necessary to address the applicable vendor requirements and to schedule completion dates for these actions.
. Mr. W.C. Seidle 4
March 22, 1979 A second meeting was held on 2/9/79 with Ebasco QA and the same attendees as above.
The purpose of this meeting was to review draf t copies of the Ebasco Care and Maintenance Instruction, CMI #177 R6, " Storage Batteries 6 Accessories" and the Fischbach and Moore Construction Procedure 311 R1,
" Connecting and Maintaining Safety-Related and Non-Safety Related Batteries".
The Fischbach and Moore Construction Procedure CP-311 R1 was transmitted to Ebasco for final review on Fbrch 9,1979 The minutes of these meetings are documented on letter No. ESU-79-23 dated 2/2/79 and letter No. ESU-79-41 dated 2/12/79.
Additionally. Ebasco has requested assistance from the supplier of the batteries, Could, Inc., in clarifying issues relative to electrolyte levels durirg the initial charge of station batteries and power interruptions during the battery charging cycle.
Fischbach and Fbore has issued Nonconformance Report No. W3-1288 (F6M-132) to document the nonconforming initial battery charge and to obtain a cor-rective action disposition.
2.
Corrective Steps Taken to Preclude Further Noncompliance:
Subsequent to the completion of and acceptance of the required procedure and CMI revisions a training session will be held, to be attended by Ebasco and Fischbach and Moore personnel, prior to the next battery charge to assure that all personnel involved in the battery charge are properly indoctrinated and knowledgeable of all the requirements for the battery charge.
Ebasco Quality Assurance will audit this area during the month of April to verify the satisfactory implementation of the applicable requirements.
3.
Date When Full Compliance Will be Achieved:
Full compliance will be achieved on March 23, 1979 during th'e next initial battery charge due March 23, 1979.
Yours very truly, D.L. Aswell DLA/TFG/ys