IR 05000445/1986024
| ML20207R855 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 02/27/1987 |
| From: | Barnes I, Kelley D, Spessard R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207R847 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-445-86-24, NUDOCS 8703180211 | |
| Download: ML20207R855 (6) | |
Text
e-
- .;..
. APPENDIX U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
NRC-Inspection Report:
50-445/86-24 Permit: CPPR-126 Docket: 50-445 Category: A2 Applicant: Texas Utilities Electric Company (TVEC)
Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street Lock Box 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Facility Name: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES), Unit 1 Inspection At: Glen Rose, Texas Inspection Conducted: August I through October 31, 1986
- IIr.,
z/z7/ U Inspectors:
c
.
D... Kelley, Senior R hsident Reactor Inspector Ddte'
(SRRI), Region IV CP5ES Group s
Reviewed By:
M
? f7 R. L. SpessardyDeputy Director, Division of Date Inspection P'rograms, Office of Inspection and Enforcement Approved:
8- - m, V27/p7
-
I. Barnes, Chief, Region IV CPSES Group Date h'[ [
DOC
5
. --
-
_.
,.
._
>
.. -...
-2
..
'
Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted August 1 through October 31, 1986 (Report 50-445/86-24)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of (1) applicant actions on previous inspection findings, (2) plant tours, and (3) plant status.
Results: Within the two areas inspected, no violations or deviations were-identified.
I
)
I
!
-
-
. -, _. _. _ _ _ _
-.. _ _ _ _, _....
..,. _. _ _. _ _.. _.... _.., _. _ _., _ _ _ -.... _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _. _... _. _ _ -. _. _,. -. _, _. _, _., _ _ _ _ -
.
.
E k
- ..,,
r DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Applicant Personnel
- A. B. Scott, Vice President, Nuclear Operations L. G. Barnes, TUGCo Operations
- M. R. Blevins, Engineering Superintendent R. E. Camp, Unit 1 Program Manager
- R. W. Clark, Staff Engineer, Operations Performance Evaluations Group D. Davis, Maintenance Engineering Supervisor
- D. E. Deviney, Operations QA Manager S. Ellis, Results Engineer J. Hicks, Licensing Engineer
- B. T. Lancaster, Administrative Suptrintendent
- G. M. McGrath, Special Project and Technical Support Lead W. I. Melton, Executive Assistant to Vice President Nuclear Operations
- C. E. Scott, Startup Manager J. C. Smith, Operations Quality Assurance B. B. Taylor, Maintenance Superintendent S. Underwood, Public Information Specialist
- Denotes applicant representatives present during exit interview.
The NRC inspector also interviewed other applicant employees during this inspection period.
2.
Applicant Actions on Previous Inspection Findings a.
(Closed) Violation (8514-01):
During an inspection to verify the adequacy of the applicant's preventative maintenance program, several discrepancies in water chemistry data were noted.
The discrepancies fell into the following categories:
(1) Missing data entries in water chemistry records.
(2) Failure to note that shift supervisor was notified of out-of-specification conditions.
(3) Failure to identify corrective actions taken to correct out-of-specification conditions.
(4)
Inadequate review of the acceptability of water chemistry data.
The NRC inspector has reviewed the applicant's corrective actions:
-
....
Item No. 1:
Revision of the data sheets to clarify the information required and highlight parameter limits.
Item No. 2:
Revision of Procedure CHM-508 to include the requirement to notify the shift supervisor and document notification on data sheets.
Item No. 3:
Revision of Procedure CHM-104 to include guidance for documentation of corrective action.
Item No. 4:
Review of all past CHM-501-1 and CHM-508-1 data sheets will be conducted to identify any previously unidentified and unresolved chemistry items.
On October 1, 1986, all actions were completed by the applicant.
In addition, the applicant received from Westinghouse Electric Corporation a report on the out-of-specification condition which was present in the steam generators.
No adverse problems were identified in the Westinghouse report.
The NRC inspector reviewed the procedures and actions taken by the applicant.
No uncorrected or unidentified problems were identified.
This item is closed.
b.
(Closed) Violation (8431-08): The initial review of the applicants response to this violation was conducted during the reporting period documented in NRC Inspection Report 50-445/86-01. 'At the time, all parts except part "a", the revision of STA-602, " Temporary Modifications and Bypassing of Safety Functions," and the receipt of new tags to implement the procedure were left open.
The NRC inspector has reviewed the revised procedure and verified that the new tagging provisions have been implemented.
This item is closed.
c.
(Closgd) Deviation (8605-01):
This deviation deals with the failure to meet a commitment date to revise a procedure in response to a notice of violation. The commitment was to revise Procedure STA-602 in response to violation 8431-08 (b. above).
To correct this situation a directive from the Vice President, Nuclear Operations was issued emphasizing the importance of fulfilling response commitments.
The NRC inspector reviewed the directive.
This item is closed.
d.
(Closed) Deviation (8605-03):
This deviation involved failure to provide documented evidence that minimum acceptable maintenance actions were performed on several components selected by the NRC for review.
As a result of the inspection findings, there was a concern regarding potential Preventative Maintenance (PM) program weakness.
To resolve this deviation, the applicant selected an additional 12 safety-related components to evaluate.
The applicant concluded that the gaps in the records were the result of the PM program not taking
.....
into account the time the equipment was operating or was having maintenance performed on it. The program has been revised to require annotation and justification when scheduled PM activities cannot be performed. Review of the applicant actions by the NRC inspector indicates that, although there were instances where the PM activities were not performed, explanatory or equivalent activities were in progress; i.e., equipment operating or maintenance in progress. No basis was found to indicate that deterioration of equipment has occurred. This item is considered closed.
e.
(Closed) Open item (8436-08):
This open item identified several Emergency Response Guidelines (ERGS) that contained missing data which were labeled "later." The final correction, the inclusion of a graph in ECA-31, has been completed and the ERGS now contain no missing data. This item is closed.
5.
Plant Tours During this reporting period, the SRRI conducted inspection tours of Unit 1.
In addition to the general housekeeping activities and general cleanliness of the facility, specific attention was given to areas where safety-related equipment was installed and where activities were in progress involving safety-related equipment. These areas were inspected to ensure that:
o Work in progress was being accomplished using approved procedures, o
Special precautions for protection of equipment were impleniented, and additional cleanliness requirements were being adhered to for maintenance and welding activities, o
Installed safety-related equipment and components were being protected and maintained to prevent damage and deterioration.
Also during these tours, the SRR1 reviewed the control room and shift supervisor's log books.
Key items in the log review were:
o Plant status.
o Changes in plant status, o
Documentation of problems which arise during operating shifts.
6.
Plant Status as of October 31, 1986 a.
Unit No. I remains at 99 percent complete. Replacement of condenser tubing has been completed. A significant amount of pipe support rework is in progress and/or in the planning stage, b.
Unit No. 2 is now 80 percent complete. Preoperational testing of safety related systems has not coninenced; however, test procedures are being generated.
Replacement of the condenser tubing is in progres.-.
'
.
,
....
-
,
..
..
,
'
7.
Exit Interview An exit interview was conducted November 19, 1986, with the applicant representatives identified in paragraph 1 of.this appendix. During this interview, the operations SRRI summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
The applicant acknowledged the findings.
.
L
..
.
..
.
-
-
.
.
-
.