IR 05000445/1987026
| ML20236S121 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/20/1987 |
| From: | Kelly D, Warnick R NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236S111 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-445-87-26, GL-87-11, NUDOCS 8711240234 | |
| Download: ML20236S121 (7) | |
Text
..
I.
'
<
)
I
$
U.
S.. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-OFFICE'OF SPECIAL PROJECTS l
NRC Inspection Report:
50-445/87-26 Permit: CPPR-126 Docket: 50-445 Category: A2 Construction Permit
,
Expiration:Date:
L l
Unit'1: August:1, 1988
'
Applicant:
TU Electric Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street Lock Box 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Facility Name:
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES),
Unit 1 Inspection At:
Comanche Peak Site,-Glen Rose, Texas.
,
Inspection Conducted:
October 7 through November 3, 1987 i
Inspector:
bm'
/
//!2d s
.
D. T. 'Kellef, Se}io Resi h Inspector,
/Dat6
,
Operations
]
,
I Reviewed by:
M[ k)dM.
- 2d///
,
R. F. Warnick, Assistant Director
'Date
!
for Inspection Programs Comanche Peak Project Division Office of Special Projects 8711240234 871120 ADOCK05000gg5
PDR G
L-___--_-______-___-_=-_:___________-=______
. _ _.
+
,
.
Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted: October 7 through November 3, 1987 (Report 50-445/87-26)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced safety inspection including:
(1) applicant actions on previous inspection findings; (2) generic letter follow up: (3) preoperational testing program; (4) fire protection inspection / audit; and (5) plant tours.
'
Results:
Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations
)
were identified.
j l
l l
l l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
a
_______.__
.
3
,
i DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- R. W. Ackley, Project Manager, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC)
- R.
P. Baker, Engineering Assurance (EA) Regulatory Compliance Manager, TU Electric
- J.
L. Barker, Manager, EA, TU Electric
- R.
D. Best, Nuclear Operations Inspection Report Item Coordinator, TU Electric
- R.
C. Byrd, Quality Engineering (QE) Supervisor, TU Electric
- R.
D. Delano, Licensing Engineer, TU Electric l
- D.
E. Deviney, Manager, Operations QA, TU Electric l
,
I
- J.
J. Kelley, Manager, Plant Operations, TU Electric l
- A.
W.
Leach, Engineering Supervisor, SWEC I
- 0. W. Lowe, Director of Engineering, TU Electric
)
- D.
M. McAfee, Manager, QA, TU Electric
- L.
D. Nace, Vice President, Engineering & Construction, I
TU Electric
- D.
E. Noss, QA Issue Interface Coordinator, TU Electric
- D.
M. Reynerson, Director of Construction, TU Electric
- M.
J. Riggs, Plant Evaluation Manager, Operations, 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 The NRC inspector also interviewed other applicant employees during this inspection period.
- Denotes personnel present at the November 3, 1987, exit l
interview.
2.
Follow-up on Open Inspection Findings (92701)
a.
(Closed) Open Item (445/8605-0-02):
Technical adequacy of System Operating Procedure SOP-607A, Revision 4, "118v i
AC Distribution System and Inverters."
During the review j
of this procedure and comparison with the actual hardware
and vendor technical manuals, the following items in the procedure were found to be incorrect:
l
I
.)
I
- - _ - _ - _ _ _ _
,
'
)
(1)
Section E.1 (first. note) incorrectly specified 465 volts, which reflected what was in the nonplant specific technical manual, but should have been 48S volts for CPSES.
(2)
Section E.1 (second note) specified 495.5 volts, which appeared incorrect.
The: applicant's representative could not justify the value and indicated it probably should have been 485 volts.
(3)
Section E.2 switch nomenclature did not match the installed equipment name plate.
(4)
Section E.2 was missing a clarifying. note that I
should have been transcribed from the vendor technical manual.
The applicant, in it's review, noted that item (1), (2)
and (4) were repeated in Section 5.1.4.F.1 and item (3)
was repeated in Sections 5.1.4.F.2, 5.2.2.B.3, and 5.2.4.A.3.
The applicant revised the procedure as follows:
(1)
Sections 5.1.2.E.1 and 5.1.4.F.1 were revised to include the correct voltage (485 volts vice
.
465 volts).
l l
(2)
The second note was deleted since it did not apply l
to the installed plant equipment.
l l
(3)
Sections 5.1.2.E.2, 5.1.4.F.2, 5.2.2.B.3, and
5.2.4.A.3 were revised to specify the correct switch nomenclature (rectifier AC input breaker).
(4)
Sections 5.2.1.E.3 and 5.1.4.F.1 were revised to add the clarifying material from the vendor technical
,
I manuals (close the DC input breaker prior to releasing the precharge pushbutton).
The NRC inspector reviewed the revised procedure and
!
!
verified that the inaccuracies had been changed.
The NRC inspector has no further questions on the matter.. This item is considered to be closed, b.
(closed) open Item (445/8436-o-02):
Testing of Lo-Lo water transient with auxiliary feedwater system only.
During the review of NUREG-0797, " Safety E7aluation Report Related to the Operation of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2," several.open confirmatory issues were' identified.
One'such issue was
- _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ - - _ _
_ _ _ - - _
-
_
.
I
.
..
Section 10.4.7 which states, " Demonstrate that the Main'
Feedwater System design is adequate to preclude water hammer during recovery from.a low level transient."
The preoperational testing of the main and auxiliary feed water systems only specified recovery from the low level water transient using auxiliary feedwater,fnot the main feedwater system.
The issue of whether this test alone.
was sufficient to satisfy the water hammer criteria was left open and resolution requested of the Nuclear Reactor Regulations (NRR) staff.
Amendment 60 to the CPSES'FSAR was submitted on November 3, 1986, as a result of TU Electric discussion with the NRR staff. 'The NRR staff concluded that due to'the design of the main and auxiliary feedwater systems and the steam generator, the
,
i single test using the auxiliary feedwater system was i
l sufficient for the water hammer test.
The NRC inspector-was informed by the project manager that this position will be documented by a memorandum from the project manager to R. F. Warnick and in a. supplement to the SER.
The NRC inspector has no further questions on this issue.
This item is considered closed, c.
(Open) Unresolved Item (445/8601-U-01):
Apparent
!
inadequacies in STA-606, " Work Requests and Work Orders."
This item resulted from the procedure review conducted by
,
the NRC inspector of STA-606.
Although the procedure has
!
been revised, this item can not be closed.
The l
l resolution of this item is directly dependent upon'the i
closure of violation 445/8431-V-05a and the finalization
of the Station Operations Review Committee (SORC). review I
'
responsibility in Section'6.0 of the CPSES. Unit 1 Technical Specifications.
The applicant has recently submitted an amended plant specific version of The Standard Technical Specifications to the NRC for review and approval.
Until this review and approval process is-completed,. unresolved item'445/8601-U-01 and. violation 445/8431-V-05a will remain open.
3.
Generic Letter (92703)
,
Generic letter, GEL-87-ll, " Relaxation of Arbitrary l
Intermediate Pipe Rupture Requirements,"
to all operating I
licensees, construction permit holders, and applicants for construction permits.
The generic letter transmitted the I
final revision of Branch Technical Position MEB 3-1 of the Standard Review Plan, Section 3.6.2'in NUREG-0800.
The revision eliminates all dynamic effects'and all environmental effects resulting from arbitrary intermediate pipe ruptures.
On October 13, 1987, the NRC staff transmitted to TU Electric.
the results of their evaluation of the applicants request.to
- _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _.
,
..
!
eliminate arbitrary intermediate pipe breaks in high energy
!
i piping systems.
The staff concluded that the request could be implemented without undue risk to the public health and safety.
The staffs evaluation will appear in a future i
supplement of NUREG-0797 and will close out Issue 37.
4.
Review of Preoperational Testing Program (70301)
t The NRC inspector continued to review the applicants procedure for control and conduct of the reperformance of the preoperational test program.
This review was'of amended drafts of procedures:
a.
TDA-101, Test Department Organization and Responsibilities.
b.
STA-808, Unit 1 Prestart Test Program.
c.
STA-625, Conduct of Daily Scheduling.
As of the end of this reporting period, the NRC review of TDA-101 has been completed.
The NRC review of STA-808 and STA-625 continues and will be discussed in NRC Inspection Report 445/87-28.
The following major comments _on TDA-101 were discussed with the applicant:
Section 4.6: " fuel load" should be " issuance of operating I
.
license".
Section 4.7: needs clarification to ensure a return to
.
operable status.
t Sections 5.1.2 and 5.1.3 should be clarified as to which
.
QA plan is to be used and/or what conditions dictate the choice of QA plans if two are to be referenced.
Sections 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, and 5.9.3 all make reference to
!
.
Startup Administrative Procedure CP-SAP-2.
Either the descriptions referenced in CP-SAP-2 need to be_ detailed in this procedure or CP-SAP-2 needs to be reviewed and approved by the SORC.
Section 5.7 needs clarification of the initial startup
.
manager's duties to include the coordination of activities to submit reviews and test results to the SORC for approval.
Section 5.8.5 needs to be clarified so that directions to
.
station operators are given through the~ shift supervisor.
No violations or deviations were identified.
i i
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _
m._.____
______________.m__
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
. _ _
.
,
.
>
'.
!
5.
Fire Protection Inspection / Audit On October 19-23, 1987, an inspection team composed of NRC fire protection auditors, fire protection consultants and the NRC Senior Resident Inspector performed an inspection and audit of the applicants implementation of the requirements of Branch Technical. Position BTP-9.5-1.
An exit meeting was' held with the applicant on October 23, 1987.
The inspection / audit results will be documented in NRC Inspection Report 50-445/87-22.
6.
plant Tours (71302)
The NRC inspector performed frequent' tours of Unit 1 and common plant areas during this inspection period.
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:
Work in progress was being accomplished using approved
.
procedures.
Special precautions for protection of equipment were
.
implemented and additional cleanliness requirements were I
being adhered to for maintenance and welding activities.
Installed safety-related equipment and components were
'
.
being protected and maintained to prevent damage or j
deterioration.
j No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Exit Interview (30703)
j An exit interview was conducted on November 3, 1987, with the applicant's representatives identified in paragraph 1 of this i
report.
During this interview, the NRC inspectors summarized the scope of the inspection.
l
_ _ _
_ _ _ _ _