IR 05000445/1987021

Insp Rept 50-445/87-21 on 870903-1006.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Followup on Open Insp Findings,Prestart Testing Program,Fire Protection & Plant Security Meetings & Plant Tour

ML20245C524
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	10/23/1987
From:	Kelley D, Warnick R NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS
To:
Shared Package
ML20245C522	List: IR 05000445/1987021 ML20245C519
References
50-445-87-21, NUDOCS 8711030193
Download: ML20245C524 (7)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:i

. , .+
.

l U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS l NRC Inspection Report: 50-445/87-21 Permit: CPPR-126 I Docket: 50-445 Category: A2 Construction Permit

   ~ Expiration Date:

Unit 1: August 1, 1988 Applicant: TU Electric Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street ' Lock Box 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 1

~ Facility Name: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES),

Unit 1 Inspection At: Comanche Peak Site, Glen Rose, Texas Inspection Conducted: September 3 through October 6, 1987 l Inspe r: 1 s / 26[P[ D . ~L . Kelley, S nior Qt j pIHBnt Inspector, 'Date j Operations Reviewed by: [[ asd R. F. Warnick, Assistant-Director

      /
      'Dat6 o73/P7 for. Inspection Programs Comanche Peak Project Division Office of Special Projects 8711030193$0 45 PDR ADOCK PDR G

i - - - _ -. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

   .

2 -

    .

l l Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted: September 3 through October 6, 1987 (Report 50-445/87-21) Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced safety inspection of (1) Follow up on open inspection findings; (2) Prestart Testing Program; (3) Fire Protection meeting; (4) Plant Security meeting; and (5) Plant Tour Results: Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.

_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _

L l

 *
 *

I I I ,

l DETAILS , Persons Contacted l l *R. P. Baker, Engineering Assurance (EA) Regulatory Compliance ! Manager, TU Electric l *J. L. Barker, Manager, EA, TU Electric i *J. W. Beck, Vice President, Nuclear Engineering, TU Electric l l *W. H. Benkert, Staff Assistant Manager, Operations Quality Assurance (QA), TU Electric

  *R. D. Best, Nuclear Operations Inspection Report Item Coordinator, TU Electric
  *D. N. Bize, Regulatory Compliance, TU Electric
  *M. R. Blevins, Manager, Technical Support, TU Electric
  *R. C. Byrd, Quality Engineering (QE) Supervisor, TU Electric
  *W. G. Counsil, Executive Vice President, TU Electric
  *R. D. Delano, Licensing Engineer, TU Electric
  *D. E. Deviney, Manager, Operations QA, TU Electric
  *M. D. Gaden, CPRT, IT Corporation
  *T. L. Heatherly, EA Regulatory Compliance Engineer, TU Electric
  *D. A. Hodge, CPRT Interface, TU Electric
  *C. R. Hooten, CPE-Civil Engineering Unit Manager, TU Electric
  *J. J. Kelley, Manager, Plant Operations, TU Electric
  *O. W. Lowe, Director of Engineering, TU Electric
  *D. M. McAfee, Manager, QA, TU Electric
  *C. K. Moehlman, CPE-Mechanical Engineering, TU Electric
  *D. Moore, Administrative Assistant, Operations, TU Electric
  *L. D. Nace, Vice President, Engineering & Construction, TU Electric
  *D. E. Noss, QA Issue Interface Coordinator, TU Electric
  *M. J. Riggs, Plant Evaluation Manager, Operations, TU Electric
  *S. F. Sawa, Assistant Project Manager, Unit 2, TU Electric
  *A. B. Scott, Vice President, Nuclear Operations, TU Electric
  *C. E. Scott, Manager, Startup, TU Electric
  *J. C. Smith, Plant Operations Staff, TU Electric
  *M. R. Steelman, CPRT, TU Electric
  *P. B. Stevens, Manager, Electrical Engineering, TU Electric
  *J. F. Streeter, Director, QA, TU Electric
  *T. G. Tyler, Director, Projects, TU Electric  >
  *R. D. Woodlan, Supervisor, Docket Licensing, TU Electric i

The NRC inspector also interviewed other applicant employees I during this inspection perio ! i

  * Denotes personnel present at the October 6, 1987, exit l intervie I Follow up on Open Inspection Findings (92701) (Closed) Open Item (445/8508-0-01): This open item pertains to Human Engineering Deficiency (HED-88). The

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

l

,

j

'
    \
    !
.

4  ! open item identified a scaling difference between records )' and recorder scales. The paper for the last recorder with this problem has been on order for some time and has now been received on site. Tha NRC inspector has verified that the scales for the recorder and paper are g the same. This item is considered close j l b. (Closed) Open Item (445/8511-0-02): In Inspection Report { 50-445/85-11, the SRI reviewed the applicant's test data package re-evaluation for preoperational test 1CP-PT49-02, "Sealwater and Letdown Flow Performance," and raised two questions which required additional explanation. In the first case, the re-evaluation had questioned why the JTG failed to consider the impact on the test results caused by the replacement of the letdown orifices with a different size since the letdown heat exchanger capacity is a function of flow through these orifice The JTG approved response was that the objectives of the test were not compromised because the ) FSAR does not require operational testing of these heat i exchangers. However, the test method on sheet 11 of FSAR, table 14.2-2 states, " Verify operability of heat exchangers...." In the second case, the re-evaluator had questioned why TPD-4 did not state the reason for changing letdown from 120 to 75 gpm. The JTG approved disposition provided the reason which appeared to be technically correct; however, no reference was made to any corrective actions to ensure the reason for a change would be entered on TPD In a memorandum issued on September 8, 1987, the i applicant noted that verification of heat exchanger operability is an FSAR commitment, but the determination of heat exchanger capacity is not. They further stated that operability can be determined by other methods such as observing inlet and outlet temperature to verify that heat was transferred. They also stated that the test did provide baseline heat transfer data for the performance of the heat exchanger. In further explanation, they stated that the word operability (underlined above) was inadvertently used instead of capacity and since the capacity of the letdown heat exchanger had been ! determined, it need not be reverified because of the change in letdown orifice siz i

    !

' The second exception noted was previously addressed and , closed in NRC Inspection Report 445/85-14. The i memorandum has been verified as having been placed in the test data package. The SRI has no further questions.

l This item is closed.

3

l l

_ _ _ _ __ __-_____ _ _ _ _

 .

 . (Closed) Open Item (445/8511-0-03): This finding, identified in Inspection Report 445/8511, concerned the re-evaluation report of a deficiency identified on TDR 1226 in the test data package of preoperational test 1CP-PT-55-10, " Pressurizer Pressure Control System." The TDR identified a pressure bistable, 1PB-445A, that failed to trip at the required set point when the data appeared to indicate it should have. Although the JTG approved disposition indicated a 2400 psig limit prevented the trip, the bistable subsequently tripped at 2385 psig when calibration checked. No explanation existed in the test packag In a memorandum dated September 8, 1987, the applicant documented that the cause of the deficiency reported on TDR 1226 was the early termination of the pressure increase by the STE. The test contained numerous cautionary statements that the pressure was not to exceed 2400 psig. At a pressure of 2414 psig (2398.3, corrected for elevation) on the test Hiese gage, the test was terminated. At that time, three of the four bistables had tripped. The memo also indicates that while the pressure at the Hiese gauge was 2398.3 psig, the pressure at the location of the permanent plant pressure transmitter that drives this instrument loop was 2383 psi The instrument loop was calibration checked and the bistable tripped at 2385 psig local pressure. The SRI has no further questions and has verified the memorandum has been included in the test data packag This item is considered close (Closed) Open Item (445/8513-0-08): This open item identified in Inspection Report 50-445/85-13, concerned TDR 1337 written during the performance of preoperational test 1CP-PT57-09, " Check Valves and Hot Functional Safety Injection." The TDR identified excessive leakage during the seat leak tests of check valves 1-8900A, B, C and The test specified a maximum leakage of 45 ml/hr for each valv The four valves were tested in parallel and the combined leakage was 84 ml/hr. The TDR was dispositioned as acceptable on the premise that a combined leakage of 180 ml/hr (4 times 45 ml/hr) would be acceptable. The .
      '

NRC inspector questioned this logic because the combined method does not identify the individual valve leakag The applicants response, in a memorandum dated September 8, 1987, was that the valves in question were established as reference data for future Technical Specification Surveillance Testin The applicant compared the total leakage for four valves to the ASME Section IX Criteria of 90 ml/hr and the Technical Specification Requirement of 1 gal / min (~226,800 ml/hr)

      !

_ _ - _ . . .

 .

per single valve and concluded that there was ! insufficient justification to require repair of the check valves. The SRI has .ru) further questions and has _

     '

verified that the memorandum has been included in the test data packag This item is considered close . Prestart Testing Program (70301) The NRC inspector is continuing the inspection of the applicants prestart test program. As discussed in Inspection Report 50-445/87-17, several draft test control procedures were written. These procedures were commented on by the NRC inspector. Several discussions have been held with applicant representatives and a solution appears to be no closer to a definitive system of test control than befor The NRC inspector has again emphasized the need of a straight forward, unambiguous administrative control schem Further, it has j

     '
 ~

been requested that a detailed program description be formulated so that the NRC inspector can review it. The administrative control scheme and program description will be reviewed and the results documented in subsequent NRC inspection report . Significant Meetings (30702) Fire Protection Audit - Reinspection Planning Visit I During the period of September 9-11, 1987, members of the i Office of Special Projects staff and NRC fire protection j contractors. met with applicant representatives to obtain I current information relative to the Fire Protection ) Program presently being implemented at Comanche Peak j Steam Electric Station. The information was obtained in j preparation for the forthcoming team audit in October 1 198 j i Security Meeting ] On September 4, 1987, a meeting was held in the NRC l Region IV office with the applicants security , organization to review with the applicant the NRC security regulatory criteria required to meet the i performance objectives of 10 CFR 73.55(a). In addition ; to the applicants security personnel and Region IV ,

     '

security specialists, the Assistant Director for Inspection Programs and the Senior Resident Inspector (operations) of the Office of Special Projects were in attendanc l l l j-f;k . .. o

   .,

      ,)
'

, . y  ,
     '
     , '( %
 ,
 ., >
 ,; >
 )'  ,
     ' Plant Toulgip l312J .The NRC inspector performed frequent tours'$f Unit l'and *

common plant areas during this inspection perio In addition

 . to the general: housekeeping activities and general cleanliness r

of the facility, specific attention was given to areas where

'

safety-related equipment was installed and where activities were in progress. involving safety-related equipmen These areas were inspected to ensure that:

,

 . Work in progress was;being accomplished using approved procedure ..>
 . SpecialprecautionsforprotecEkonofequipmentwere impleae'nted and additional cleanliness requirements were being adhered to for maintenance and welding activitie >

a: .

 . Installed safety'related. equipment and components were being protected and maintained to prevent dtmage or
 , deterioratio ,
    ' I '

7b , Exit Interview i3b703) _ ,

 ;,

i['IAnexitinterviewwasconductedtonOctober6, 1987, with the applicant's representative identified in paragraph 1 of thic report. During this interview, ' the NRC inspectors summarized ' the scope of the inspectio >. i t i

       !

l l

       ;

l l l l l

       )

I l L _ _____________-_ _ }}