IR 05000445/1980027
| ML19341B909 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 01/14/1981 |
| From: | Crossman W, Renee Taylor NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19341B908 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-445-80-27, 50-446-80-27, NUDOCS 8102280121 | |
| Download: ML19341B909 (6) | |
Text
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Report No. 50-445/80-27; 50-446/80-27 Docket No.-50-445; 50-446 Category A2 Licensee: Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas Facility Name:
Comanche Peak, Units 1 and 2 Inspection at:
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Inspection Conducted: November and December 1980 Inspector:
_
d f/
/ WWQ)
R. G'. laylp, Resident Reactor Inspector, Projects Section
[Mte7
/!/f 80 Approve':
107:
d W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section Date Inspection Summary:
Inspection Durina November and December-1980 (Report No. 50-445/80-27: 50-4a6/80-27)
. Areas Insoected:
Routine, announced inspection by the Resident P.eactor Insoector (RRI) including general site tours; piping and electrical installations; observation of protection of major installed-equipment; and follow up on previous inspection findings.
The inspection involved eighty-sixinspector-hours by the RRI.
Results: No violations or deviations were identified.
- --
,
02280121
'
=81
'
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Personnel
- D.' N. Chapman, TUGCO, Quality Assurance Manager
- R. G. Tolson, TUGCO, Site Quality Assurance Supervisor
- J. R. Ainsworth,-TUGCO, Quality Engineering Supervisor
- J. R. Merritt, TUSI, Engineering and Construction Manager Other Persons J. V. Hawkins, Project Quality Assurance Manager, Brown & Root The RRI also interviewed other licensee and Brown & Root employees during the inspection period including both craft labor and QA/QC personnel.
- Denotes those persons with whom the RRI held on-site management meetings during the inspection period.
,
2.
Action on Previous Inscection Findinos (Closed) Deficiency (50-445/80-15; 50-446/80-15): Failure to Follow Construction Procedures Required oy Drawings.
The licensee informed RIV by~ letter, dated August 18, 1980, that the procedures referenced
- on various pipe hanger' drawings had been determined to be applicable only to the -Warren, Ohio, fabrication facility of the ITT-Grinnell Corporation.
The licensee, as a matter of record, has informed all drawing' holders that the notes are not applicable to the on-site work and that they should continue to apply the standards of project pro-cedures.
The licensee has also instructed on-site personnel generating as-built drawings for hangers to delete the drawing references to these ITT-Grinnell procedures as the drawings are finalized.
The RRI has verified that the committed ~ actions have been and/or are being taken and has no further questions on this matter.
(Closed) Deviation (50-445/80-20; 50-446/80-20):
Incorrect Design of Pressurizer Spray Control Valve Piping.
The licensee informed RIV by letter, dated November 18, 1980, that the installed design layout and elevations of the pressurizer spray control valves.had been accomplished as agreed to between the. AE.and the -NSSS supplier during early 1979.
The licensee stated that the installation agreement was reflected properly on the AE's piping composite drawinss and further reflected in the pipe fabrication and installation isometrics, which is factual.
The licensee also-stated the _ the flow diagram and attendent. notes in the FSAR woJ1d be revised' to. reflect the deletion of the reouirement for a ten foot-downward slope of the piping _ layout.
The RRI has verified that the FSAR-2-
__. _
.
- -.
-.
.
--.
.._ - -
.
.
__
_ _ _. _ -. - -
i
L
.
I has been changed in an appropriate manner via Amendment 13. The RRI also discussed this matter with the NRC/NRR Licensing Program Manager who stated that the technical reviewers wera satisfied with the piping arrangement as installed.
The RRI, therefore, has no further questions on this matter.
3.
Site Tours The RRI toured the safety-related plant areas several times during the inspection period to observe the general progress of construction and t
.
the practices involved.
All of the tours were confined to day shift l
operations since there is no longer a craft labor second shift.
No violations or deviations were identified.
l 4.
Proctection of Major Installed Eauioment The RRI observed that the reactor vessel internals (core support structure)
continued to be partially installed within the Unit 1 reactor vessel.
The vessel head and the lifting rig assembly were fully covered with heavy plastic as a dust cover.
The Unit 2 reactor vessel >:as observed
,
'
to be well protected in its installed location.
Tha Unit 2 internals continued to be stored in an adequate temporary storage enclosure.
The RRI' observed -that randomly selected electric prime movers for pumps had their space heaters energized as did the motors associated with i
motor operated valves.
,
No violations or deviations were identified.
.
5.
Safety-Related Piping Installation and Welding The RRI made several observations of the handling practices relative to piping components during the inspection period in both the on-site fabrication shop and within the main plant buildings.
The practices
.
observed were consistent with the requirements outlined in Construction l
Procedure 35-1195-CPM 6.9, Project Specification MS-100, and good
industry practice.
L The RRI observed the following welds being made during the inspection period:
!'
. eld No.
Isometric No.
Filler Metal Ht.
Melder (s)
Procedure W
_
W-14 CS-2-SB-081 746100 ATX 88021
,
FW-10 RC-2-520 434788 AWK, AMS, BHH 99028 FW-4 CT-1-RB-029 463368 BJI 88021-3-
.
. -.-. - _ -
-
-
. -. ~ -
.
.
.. -.
-
. _ _
-
_
-
.
t The RRI verified that the weld filler metals being utilized in the
'
above welds were certified by the suppliers via Certified Material i
Test Reports as meeting the requirements of ASME Section II.
The welders and weld procedures noted above were verified to have been l
qualified in accordance with ASME Section IX.
The RRI examined the radiographs of the following welds for compliance with the requirements of ASME Section III for weld quality and Section V for the quality of the radiographs themselves:
Weld No.
Isometric No.
Line No.
'
'
FW-6-3 RC-1-RB-20 6-RC-1-161-250lR
~
W-30, 31, 32 & 35 RC-2-RB-072 6-RC-2-096-i50lR
.
FW-1 RC-1-RB-017 4-RC-1-075-250lR W-8 SI-2-RB-018 6-SI-2-102-2501R
FW-3 RC-1-RB-016 6-RC-1-147-250lR W-3, 5 & 6 RC-2-RB-072 6-RC-2-098-250lR
,
t FW-1 & FW-4.
RC-1-RB-018 d-RC-1-087-250lR
,
FW-4-1 & FW-4-2 RC-1-RB-021 6-RC-I-163-250lR W-6 SI-2-RB-018 6-SI-2-102-250lR i
FW-26 MS-1-SB-017 32-MS-1-04-1303-2 FW-3A RC-1-RB-026 14-RC-1-135-2501R
'
>
FW-3 RC-1-RB-016 6-RC-1-147-250lR i
W-18
.RC-2-RB-072 6-RC-2-100-250lR
,
FW-6 & FW-3 RC-1-RB-020 4-RC-1-075-250lR
FW-4 & FW-2 RC-1-RB-006 6-RC-1-070-250lR W-34 RC-2-RB-072 6-RC-2-096-250lR 3-F'-2-103-2003-2 W-12 FW-2-RB-077 W
FW-20 SI-1-RB-037 10-SI-1-021-250lR l
FW-13 CS-1-RB-38B 3-CS-1-235-250lR
,
'
-4
, _ _.
-
...
...
.E
.
..
.
._
'
.
Weld No.
Isometric No.
Line No.
FW-25 RC-2-520 Unit 2 Main Loop d4 Hot Leg at RV FW-23 RC-2-520 Unit 2 Main Loop #3 Cold Leg at Pump FW-16 RC-2-520 Unit 2 Main Loop #2 Cold Leg at RV FW-8 RC-2-520 Unit 2 Main Loop #1 Cold Leg at RV i
FW-?6 RC-2-520 Unit 2 Main Loop #4 Hot Leg at Steam Generator No violations or dc iations were identified.
6.
Electrical Installation Activities The licensee notified the RRI on February 29, 1980, that a QC inspection had idencified a problem with the welding of the Unit 1 Main Control Boards to the embedded floor channels that form seismic restraints.
It had been determined by reinspection that some of the welds were short, undersized and improperly spaced, but had none-the-less been previously accepted by QC.
This, the infonnal notification, was followed up by a formal 10 CFR 50.55(e) report to RIV, dated March 21, 1980.
The licensee's Project Engineering Unit, acting on the advice of the designer and fabricator of Main Control Boards, prepared engineering instructions requiring substantial additional welding, shinining, and replacement,,elding to assure that the Boards would be adequately attached to the building floor as originally intended.
The RRI observed this ongoing work at various times during the several weeks required for accomplishment and was satisfied that the work was being done in a manner consistent with the engineering directions and that the licensee's QC organization was closely following the work as it progressed.
All of the rework required was completed during the inspection period and the RRI has reviewed the QC documentation to substantiate overall acceptability.
The Designer / Fabricator (Reliance Electric) has completed a reanalysis of the seismic withstand capability of the Boards in the attachment area and has confirmed that adequate safety margins are present.
The RRI has no further questions on this matter and this 10 CFR 50.55(e) item is considered to be closed.
The RRI also performed a review of test documentation offered by the licensee to support the environmental qualification of electrical cable furnished to the licensee by the Okonite Company under Project Specifi-cation ES-13A for 8KV Insulated Power Cable and ES-138.2 for 600 V Power and Lighting Cable.
The RRI noted that the test documentation for each
,
-5-
-
. _.
_ - _ _ -
. - -.
.
-. - -... -
- -
_
_ - -.. _. _
.. '
-
.
j
i
!
class of cable had been approved by the licensee's engineer in letters,
'
i dated August 22, 1978, and September 22, 1978, respectively.
The letters and the related test documentation indicate the tests were l
performed in accordance with the referenced project specifications and i
IEEE 323-1974, "IEEE Standard for Qualifying Class IE Equipment for i
Nuclear Power Stations," IEEE 383-1974, "IEEE Standard for Type Test j
of Class IE Electric Cables, Field Splices, and Connections for Nuclear Generating Stations." The test documentation reviewed failed to support conclusively that the cables fully met all qualification requirements as follows:
o
a.
The LOCA test performance was not demonstrated by supporting data f
'
that records actual pressures, temperatures, time and dates of the
'
!
test, but rather was only supported by an idealized test profile.
b.
No. data was provided that demonstrates that the required aging was t
,
accomplished.
<
The test documentation appeared to adequately support the fact that the
'
sample cable had been irradiated and flame tested as required.
Based on a letter from Okonite to the licensee, dated Decerter 15, 1980, stating that_ the full supporting documentation is on file at Okonite
and may be reviewed by the licensee at his convenience, this matter will be considered to be an unresolved item pending review by the licensee
and NRC personnel, i
7.
Unresolved Items i
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in
order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, violations or
!
deviations. An unresolved item disclosed during the inspection is dis-
!
cussed in paragraph 6 and will-hereafter be referred to as " Qualification
,
Status of Okonite Cable."
!
{
8.
Management Meetinas
'
!
The RRI met with one or more of the persons identified in paragraph 1
!
on November 3, 4, 6, 7, and on December 2, 11, 15, 1980, to dicsuss
-
inspection findings and the licensee's actions and positions.
,
!
$
f k
,
!
b
!
I v
i
-6-I:
I