IR 05000445/1987020
| ML20236D219 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 10/19/1987 |
| From: | Phillips H, Warnick R NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236D200 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-445-87-20, 50-446-87-16, NUDOCS 8710280074 | |
| Download: ML20236D219 (10) | |
Text
__
-.. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ -
i
\\
..
'
1. :
l i
U. - S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS l
I NRC Inspection Report:
50-445/87-20 Permits:
CPPR-126-
)
50-446/87-16 CPPR-127 j
)
Dockets:
50-445 Category:
A2 50-446 i
Construction Permit Expiration Dates:
)
Unit 1:
August 1, 1988 Unit 2:
August 1, 1987 (Extension request submitted)
Applicant:
TU-Electric Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street Lock Box 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Facility Name:
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES),
Units 1 and 2 Inspection At:
Comanche Peak Site, Glen Rose, Texas Inspection Conducted:
September 3 through October 6, 1987
//IJ/
/d//f/#7 i
Inspector:
-
H. S.'Phillips, denior Resident
'Date
~
Inspector, Construction Reviewed by:
l?fbl DMuh 2
/ObWT7 R. F. Warnick, Assistant Director Dab 6 for Inspection Programs Comanche Peak Project Division Office of Special Projects i
!
p ADO K O O
D G
-__- __
,. - -
I;
,
L
,
l3 i
,
l
(
l.
Inspection Summary
,
Inspection' Conducted: September 3 through October 6, 1987 (Report 50-445/87-20; 50-446/87-16)-
Areas Inspected:
Routine,' unannounced safety inspection including (1) interviews and discussions with managers, supervisors, engineers, and craftsmen; (2) special meetings; (3) followup on previous inspection findings; (4) followup on applicant identified
.'
construction deficiencies; (5) general plant inspections;
.
(6) civil / structural work activities; (7) electrical work
~l activities; and (8) mechanical work activities.
Results:
Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified. -on September 17 and 14, 1987, meetings were held to resolve the issues of not documenting the crack in the ceiling i
of room 83 Unit 1 and continued examples where equipment is not i
adequately protected (paragraph 2).
t i
'l
'l
i I
- =
,
"
,
I l
I i
DETAILS l
1.
Persons Contacted
- R.
P. Baker, Regulatory Compliance Manager, TU Electric (TUE)
q
- J.
L. Barker, Engineering Assurance Manager, TUE
- J. W. Beck, Vice President Nuclear Engineering, TUE
- D. N. Bize, Regulatory Compliance Supervisor, TUE
- M.
Blevins, Technical Support Manager, TUE
'
- W.
G. Counsil, Executive Vice President Nuclear Engineering / Operations,TUE
- R.
D. Delano, Licensing Engineer, TUE
- D. E. Deviney, Operations Quality Assurance (QA) Manager, TUE
- T.
L. Heatherly, Regulatory Compliance Engineer, TUE
- C.
R. Hooten, Unit Manager, CPE Civil Engineer, TUE
- J.
J. Kelley, Plant Operations Manager, TUE i
- 0.
Lowe, Director of Engineering, TUE
- L.
D. Nace, Vice President, Engineering and Construction, TUE y
- D.
E. Noss, QA Issue Coordinator, TUE
- D. M. Reynerson, Director of Construction, TUE
- J.
F. Streeter, Director QA, TUE
- A.
B. Scott, Vice President, Nuclear Operations, TUE
- C.
E. Scott, Startup Manager, TUE
- P.
B. Stevens, Manager, Electrical Engineering, TUE
- T.
G. Tyler, Director, Projects, TUE The NRC inspector also interviewed other applicant employees during this inspection period.
- Denotes personnel present at the October 6, 1987, exit interview.
- Denotes personnel contacted and present at the exit interview.
,
l 2.
Special Meetings (50073, 47054, 30702)
l a.
On September 17, 1987, R. F. Warnick, H.
S.
Phillips, and C. Hale of the NRC met with TUE staff members R.
P.
Baker, R. M. Kissinger, D. Noss, D. M. Reynerson, and other TUE and Stone and Webster field engineers.
A previously identified item (unresolved item 445/8715-U-02) was the subject of this meeting and the i
purpose was to discuss why the cracked ceiling in room 83 of Unit 1 was not documentd as a deficiency when the crack was first found several weeks earlier.
TUE stated that the Project Specification SS-9 allows TUE to i
determine the extent'of the crack before the deficiency
!
is documented as this allows them to determine if it is l
cosmetic or a structural defect.
The NRC stated that
{
this policy appears tn not follow the sequence of I
I
_
j
,
.
<
,
,
.
.
'
JG I,
l
.
&
' Criterion XV of AppendixiB to 10'CFR-PartL50 which'
requiresithe identification, documentation, and 1dispositionLof defects.
The NRC. indicated they hadEtwo concerns: (1).the practice of evaluating a deficiency before it was documented, andL(2)~whether this' practice
!was permitted by procedures other than SS-9.. The NRC'
requested a' meeting'with Mr. Nace to discuss these.
concerns..ThisLitem-remains. unresolved pending the
'
requested' meeting andfresolution of the two concerns..
' :
b.
On September 14, 1987, R. F. Warnick and~H.?S. Phillips.
- met with~D.-M. Reynerson and'T. L..Heatherly of TUE to j
. discuss several recent examplesLin Unit 1 and 2-where-Lj equipment had not been. adequately-protected.- In a l
previous. meeting held on June-25, 1987, TUE management.
i was informed of several problems that the NRC had:
identified regarding system cleanliness, and protection of: equipment. - TUE' management. responded by issuing a stop-work orderland revised procedures tofimprove in these-areas. -Although improvements have-been noted, problems continue 1to occur.because equipment is~not covered to protect it from adjacent work' activity, or an area with a1 q
door is not secured to protect disassembled ~ equipment j
from accidental or malicious. damage.
The.following-are.
examples:
l 1.-
On September 8,.1987, the-inspector observed 2-
. valves in room 67 of Unit 2 SGB. 'Both were partially. disassembled and_were not covered.
Debris-had accumulated in valve CT-078.over a period of-
. time','at least 2-3 months.
l
2.
.On September 16, 1987, the' inspector observed that a j
grinding operation was in progress over a Unit 1
'
containment spray pump motor (CT pump 04) and the motor was not covered to preclude the possibility of'
,
contamination from entering. 'After TUE was advised
of this. condition, the same condition was observed ~
i approximately a week later.
A similar condition
!
caused these same pumps to be torn down and this-was discussed in the June 1987 meeting referenced above.
!
3.
On September 17, 1987, the inspector observed that in room 54 of Unit 2, CT pump 031 was disassembled but the shaft was uncovered and sitting on a stand.
Action to protect the shaft from accidental or malicious damage was not taken (such as locking the
door to control access to the room).
4.
On September 9, 1987, the inspector observed that the Unit i diesel generator heat exchanger had been
,
.
___._._.m______._..____.m
_ _. _ _ _.
.
_.. _. _ _ _ -
._..__.-s-
.. _. _ _ _.... _ _
__-__- ___
.. _
l
)
-
.
!
l
'
!
i disassembled but had not'been covered to protect it i
from dirt and debris.
These findings indicate that the TUE procedures may not-l
'
yet be fully implemented and that organizational responsibility has not been clearly established to assure that personnel access is' controlled and equipment is
!
protected from adjacent work activities. This is an open
)
item pending TUE action to assure that the measures are
'
fully implemented and organizational responsibility is clearly established (445/8720-0-01;.446/8716-0-01).
c.
Efforts have been: initiated by the NRC to identify all ASME compliance issues previously documented by the NRC l
staff.
An NRC inspector has proposed an action plan to
)
assure. acceptable closure of these issues as described in
!
the attached memorandum, dated September 24, 1987, from l
Cordell C. Williams to R. F. Warnick.
!
On September 24, 1987, R. F. Warnick and C. C. Williams
met with L. D. Nace and O. W. Lowe to discuss ASME
'
compliance issues and the proposed action plan.
On September 25,.1987, R. F. Warnick and C. C. Williams met with S. M. Matthews and R. Bryan, Texas State Department of Labor and Standards, to discuss ASME
compliance issues and the proposed action plan.
i 3.
Follow up On Previous Inspection Findings (92701)
a.
(open) Unresolved Item (445/8710-U-01; 446/8708-U-01):
I Cooling fans were installed backwards in Unit 1 and 2 auxillary feedwater (1.?W) pump motors.
On July 8, 1987, TUE notified the NRC of these potentially reportable 50.55(e) deficiencies.
!
The inspector continued his review of this item and found j
that TUE had not completed the evaluation of this item l
'
for 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) deportability.
The next report to the NRC is due on November 8, 1987, after the l
completion of the Westinghouse evaluation and completion of work orders.
TUE has broadened, the corrective action I
effort to include a review of component cooling water and containment spray pump motors, used in Unit 1 and 2, to
assure this condition does not exist in these motors.
l This item remains unresolved pending the completion of
'
the evaluation and further review by the NRC inspector.
,
b.
(Open) Unresolved Item (446/8617-U-04):
Disposition of l
NCR on electrical cables damaged during pulling, SDAR
!
CP-86-71 inconsistency, damaged cable trends.
- - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_-_- - _ -
---
-l
'
-
c
.
,
,
'
i
- ]
d The inspector reviewed Special Technical Issue keportL
(STIR).NRC-E-002. This report identified a number of I
.
deficiencies with respect to the cable pulling
]
procedures. The results of this review were' referred'to-
,
i b
- the NRC electrical engineer in' Office of Speciel Projects
!
for-an engineering review / inspection. This item remains I
open pending the completion of that review.
.
.
.
i No violations or~ deviations were identified-
!
4.
Follow up On-Applicant Identified Construction Deficiencies'
(92700)
The-NRC-inspector reviewed Construction Deficiency Reports CP-87-83 through CP-87-109 which have been identified :as i
<
potentially' reportable construction deficiencies in:accordance with 10 CFR'Part 50.55(e).
Each. report submitted during this-inspection period was reviewed to assure.that'the deficiency
was fully identified, described,. evaluated,.and that the NRC
!
Was notified'in accordance with TUE: Procedure NEO-CS-1, l
Revision 2.
Further NRC review of applicant corrective i
actions will be accomplished'in subsequent inspection reports.
l
,
No violations or deviations were identified.
l h
5.
General Plant Inspections (50053, 50073,~51053, 51063, 52053)
At various times during the inspection period,.the NRC
inspector conducted general inspections of 'be Unit 1 and 2
!
reactor containment (RCB), safeguards (SGB), auxiliary (AB),
electrical' control (ECB), diesel generator (DGB),and fuel l,
handling (FHB)-buildings.. All accessible rooms in.these.
!
buildings were inspected to. observe current work activities
- !
with respect to major' safety-related equipment, electrical
cable / trays, mechanical components, piping, welding, coatings,
.,
and Hilti bolts.
Housekeeping, storage, and handling i
conditions inside these buildings and various outside storage l
areas were also inspected.
Work activities that were selected for more detailed inspections are described in paragraphs 6, 7, and 8.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Civil / Structural Activities (46053, 48053, 48055, 55050, 50100)
The NRC inspector observed the following Unit 1 and 2 work that was in progress: (1) lateral restraint shims for steam generator in RCB 2; (2) BISCO seals sample tested to 18.26
- /sq ft; (3) polar crane welding of rail clips per procedures WES 029 and WPS 11032; (4) rework of the steel plate that is a
'
i
)
- - ___.
- _ _ _ _. -
_
,
.
. - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - - _ _
< ]:-
..
i.:
1 l
part of the removable: wall in room 62 of the Unit 2 safety'
injection pump room; and-(5)-compaction of. backfill on. north
_1 easte side of RCB 2.
'
on September 19, 1987,.the inspector observed a steel plate
~from which.7 attachments had been removed..The attachments hadJoriginally been. welded on the plate in the fabrication:
' shop in 1985..Recently, a craftsman was installing'the plate
'
a
' assembly at the field: location (per traveler CE84-145-0903)
and noticed'that the heat. numbers on Material Requisition Form L341657' did not match'those on two.of the-installed-
'
. attachments. 'As a result all attachments were removed and~it was.found that 2 attachments had been welded with their heat numbers. face down on the wall-plate.
Apparently:someone came along after theJattachments were welded and,saw.that 2 attachments had no heat' number and applied the same heat
. number that was visible on the/other 5 attachments. They'
applied.the wrong heat numbers as these 2 attachments were from 2 other material. heat numbers.
The NRC inspector found that no nonconformance or' construction
>
defiency report had been. written because' quality-control.
'
' inspectors had notisigned off on.the traveler which required
- i verification of materials used during assembly.
Although the reasoning for not writing a deficiency. report may have'some merit and be allowed.by procedures this practice' appears.to be
flawed.
Unless-it isfdocumented the' deficiency will not be j
evaluated to; determine the cause or. generic applicability.
,
.This item is unresolved pending further review by TUE and'NRC
]
(446/8716-U-02).
'
i-No violations or-deviations were identified.
7.
Electrical Work Activities (51063, 51065, 51053)
The inspector observed'the following~ work activities: (1)
6.9kv switchgear removal and placement of new-base plates for l'
cabinets in room 83 of Unit 2 including storage of components during work, concrete removal, base leveling with instruments, and. welding of new 0.53 inch plate to existing embeds secured to rebar with "J" hooks, and review of new design loads on the new welds; (2) RCB 2 hydrogen recombiner rework relative tx)
terminations; (3) quality control review for electrical penetration assembly (EPA) 2E15 for terminating cable. number
EG 2241902-01 including inspection reports, design change l
authorization (DCA) 23317, procedure ES 100, and cable connection sign off card; (4) witness the realignment of journals in Unit 1 diesel generator (DG),
"A" train, and tear
,
down'of "B" train DG heat exchanger relative to material j
control and equipment. protection; (5) meggering of cable EG118234 per work order C870005051, and review of documentation for testing cables EG109860 and EG118260 (at 54%
,
.
-- -
- _ _ -. _ _ _ _ _ _
NI
- " '
h
'
humidity applying 500' volts to terminals 12 & 13);' and (6)-
electrical. color coding in Unit 1 AFW pump rooms.
-
!
-No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Mechanical Work Activities (50073, 50090, 55050)
'
)
The.NRC. inspector observed the following work:
(1) fire line
'
334-783-4121 over cable tray T23GSCE67, and 8". fire-line over
.:
T13GSCE53 in-Units 2 and 1, respectively, for seismic-l analysis;1(2) welding of EPA sleeve in room.63S of SGB 2 where interpass temperature was to be measured by using a Temstik; i
(3) orientation of valve 2-CT-024 during testing was verified
'
with respect to seismic qualification; (4)' containment pump
.(031) in> room 056N of SGB 2 had seized and later inspections
'of tear down showed inadequate protection; (5) "A" train
. diesel engine rework in DGB 1; (6) RCB 2 reactor
internals / head-control rod drive storage; (7) AB 1 penetrations MIII-19, and MV-2;-(8) Unit.1 main steam line weld near clamp MS-1-012-003; (9). structural steel welding of plate to embeds in room 83 of SGB 2; (10) SGB 1 main' steam isolation valve disassembly; and (11) cutting of Unit 2 pressurizer.line (12" RC-2-115-601, R5) per DCA 31274, R0:to remove debris.
The NRC inspector observed the disassembly of the "A" train i
. diesel' generator. engine and interviewed workers and the'TUE
inspector who was witnessing the work.
Access-to the area was controlled and all' incoming materials were monitored.
I Dicussions with TUE personnel revealed that the crankshaft
'
journals were being realigned and' reassembled.
Unplanned-disassembly had been caused by the loss of stainless steel bristles from a brush while cleaning the female threads inside
the engine.
The TUE inspector stated that he questioned
'
workers during the brushing of the threads because it appeared that the brush was losing bristles.
One of'the workers said that he had worked for TransAmerica DeLaval, the manufacturer, and had disassembled engines at other sites and the brushes did not lose bristles.
The TUE inspector inspected the threads using a boroscope and found that bristles had been
,
lost and could only be retrieved by further disassembly.
On September 9, 1987, the NRC inspector found that no deficiency report was issued because the TUE procedures do not require one if the deficient condition can be reworked to conform with the the original requirements of the design document.
This policy may have merit; however, it seems to preclude an evaluation for 10 CFR Part 21 and 50.55 (e)
deportability.
A subsequent review of work order (WO)
C870002841 and inspection report /inprocess monitoring quality sheet revealed that the condition was also not noted there.
This item was discussed with TUE management and is considered
___
_ _
- - - - - - - - - - _ -
..
,
'
\\
-
to be unresolved pending further review by the NRC and discussion with TUE management of this item and several other similar examples that have been recently identified (445/8720-U-03).
The NRC inspector observed grinding over the containment spray
motor and pump in room 61 of SGB 1 as discussed in paragraph 2
!
above.
In addition it was noted that a stud had been broken
!
off-the motor body.
TUE followed up and found a second stud
'
that was broken off and it will be documented on a deficiency
report. This item is open pending the issuance of the
!
deficiency _ report (445/8720-0-04).
j i
The NRC inspector followed-up on a question regarding the i
proximity of welds on a Unit 1 main steam line.
The section
!
of-piping is located outside the safety-related buildings west
'
of the large pipe whip restraint where it goes to the turbine building.- It was found to be nonsafety-related and is covered by ANSI B31.1, Power Piping, instead of the ASME III, Division i
1, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.
There is no limitation other then the heat affected zone.
The welds observed are at least 12 inches. apart and are out of the heat affected zone.
l An attachment was welded across the seam weld on this piping-
!
however, this does not violate ANSI B31.1 criteria.
The
' inspector has no further questions.
No violations or deviations were identified.
9.
Open Items
Open items are matters which have been discussed with the applicant, which will be reviewed further by the inspector, i
and which involve some action on the part of the NRC or
'
applicant or both.
Open items identified during the inspection are discussed in paragraphs 2 and 8.
]
10.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to determine whether they are acceptable
,
items, violations, or deviations.
Unresolved items identified in this inspection are discussed in paragraphs 6 and 8.
11.
Exit Interview (30703)
An exit interview was conducted on October 6, 1987, with the applicant's representatives identified in paragraph 1 of this report.
During this exit interview, the scope and findings of J
the inspection were summarized.
(Also see IR 50-445/87-18; 50-446/87-14 exit meeting.)
j Attachment:
See next page
-_- -- -
_ _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
- - - - -. -
-_
_
__
-
-
- _ - - -
- -,
c,. L
'
'
- !
- -
.
.
..
Attachments ' Memo'from Williams
-
'to Warnick dated 9/24/87 on Control and Resolution of j
ASME Compliance Issues (3 pages)
-k l
!
!
.
!
l
-'r
l
!
O
,
,
I i
,
'
'C
__m___________
_ _ _ _