IR 05000445/1988072
| ML20206E328 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/08/1988 |
| From: | Latta R, Livermore H NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206E311 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-445-88-72, 50-446-88-68, IEIN-85-045, IEIN-85-45, NUDOCS 8811180045 | |
| Download: ML20206E328 (8) | |
Text
,. _ - -
_
- _
_
'
'a
'
..
.
.
,
,
,
,
>
i.
.
b
.
+
.
'
,
,
>>
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'
OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS
,
NRC Inspection Report:,50-445/88-72 Permits: CPPR-126
' 50-446/88-68
'CPPR-127
'
Dockets: 50-445 Category: A2 50-446-Construction Permit'
f Expiration Dates Unit 1: Extension request submitted.
Unit 2: 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 & 2 Inspection At:
Comanche Peak Site, Glen Rose, Texas t
Inspection Conducted:
October 5 through November 1, 1988 l
$Y, fMvGR i
Innpoctor:
R.
Latta, losident Inspector Date (
i i
Consultants J. L. Taylor - Parameter (paragraphs 2 through 9)
i o
I YYe/ S'$#
Reviewed by:
W 1/Wc f k -.
r H. H. Livermore, Lead Senior Inspector Dato
,
,
!
8911160045 001108 PDR ADOCK 05000445 O
$
!
.
- -
.
- -
-
- -
-
.. - - -
e
.
.
e
- Inspection Summary:
Inspection Conducted:,Oc*.ober 5 through November 1, 1988 (Report 50-445/88-72; 50-446/68-68)
Areas Inspected: Unannounced, resident safety inspection of applicant actions on previous inspection findings, action on 50.55(e) deficiencies identified by the applicant, the Corrective Action Program (CAP), general plant areas (tours), electrical equ.ipment, and significant. meetings.
Results:
Within the areas inspected, no significant strengths or weaknesses were identified, but an improvement in communications and response was noted (paragraph 5).
During the inspection, no significant safety matter, violation, deviation, or unresolved item was identified, one open item regarding electrical separation was identified (paragraph 3.a(2]).
<
l
,
.
,
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- .
.
'
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- R.
W. Ackley, Jr., Director, CECO
- R.
P. Baker, Licensing Complianco Manager, TU Electric
- J.
L. Barker, Manager, Engineering Assuranco, TU Electric
- D.
P. Barry, Manager, ESG, Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC)
- J. W. Beck, Vice President, Nuclear Engineering, TU Electric
- M.
R. Blevins, Manager, Technical Support, TU Electric
- H.
D. Bruner, Senior Vice President, TU Electric
- W. J. Cahill, Consultant, TU Electric
- J. T. Conly, APE-Licensing, SUEC
- G.
G.
Davis, Nuclear Operations Inspection Report Item Coordinator, TU Electric
- R.
D. Delano, Licensing Engineer, TU Electric
- D.
E. Dovincy, Deputy Director, Quality Assuranco (QA),
TU Electric
- G.
L. Edgar, Attorney, Newman and Holtzinger
- G.
E. Grabruck, QA, Impell
- W.
G. Guldemond, Executive Assistant, TU Electric
- P.
E. Halstead, Manager, Quality Control (QC), TU Electric
- T.
L. Heatherly, Licensing Complianco Engineer, TU Electric
- C.
B. Hogg, Engineering Manager, Bechtel
- R. T. Jenkins, Manager, Mechanical Engiacering, TU Electric
- J.
J. Kolley, Manager, Plant Operations, TU Electric
- 0.
W.
Lowe, Director of Engineering, TU Electric
- F.
W.
Madden, Mcchanical Engineering Manager, TU Electric
- G.
M. McGrath, TS/SP Manager, Startup, TU Electric
- J.
C. Millor, Site Manager, TENERA
- J. W. Muffett, Manager of Civil Engincoring, TU Electric
- L.
D. Nace, Vice President, Engineering & Construction, TU Electric
- E.
F. Ottnoy, Representativo, CASE
- S.
S.
Palmor, Project Managor, TU Electric
- J.
D. Rodding, Exocutivo Assistant, TU Electric
- D.
M. Reynorson, Director of Construction, TU Electric
- M.
J.
Riggs, Plant Evaluation Manager, Operations, TU Electric
- J.
C.
Smith, Plant Operations Staff, TU Electric
- P.
B. Stevens, Manager, Electrical Engineering, TU Electric
- J.
F.
Stroctor, Director, QA, TU Electric
- C.
L. Terry, Unit 1 Project Manager, TU Electric
- T.
G. Tyler, Director of Projects, TU Electric
- J.
R. Waters, Licensing Complianco Engincor, TU Electric The NRC inspector also interviewed other applicant employees during this inspection period.
- Donotes personnel prcsont at the November 1, 1988, oxit mocting.
a,
.
'
.
~
.
.
2.
Applicant Action on Previous Inspection Findings (92701)
(Closed) Open Item (445/8513-0-23):
Improper conduit installation.
As noted in NRC Inspection Report (IR)
50-445/88-45; 50-446/88-41, this item remained open pending applicant revision of nonconformance report (NCR) CE87-10192X and review of other NCRs for similar dispositions of zero separation requiremonta-In a meeting on August 18, 1988, the L
applicant reported that aaditional NCR scrooning had revealed no further diacrepancies (IR 50-445/88-59; 50-446/88-55).
The NRC inspector reviewed an interoffico correspondence from SWEC dated Octobt 17, 1988, detailing the extent of the NCR screening and noted that NCR CE-87-10192X, Revision 1, was issued to reviso the disposition to the latest separation requirements.
The NRC inspector also reviewed
.
NCR CE-87-10192X, Revision 1, and found the disposition acceptabic.
Based on the above, this item is considered
'
closed.
3.
Action on 10 CFR Part 50.55(c) Deficiencies Identified by the Applicant (92700)
a.
Reportablo Issues (1)
(Closed for Unit 1 only) SDAR Cp-85-40, "Flux Mapping Seal Tablo Restraints":
According to letter TXX-4601 dated October 16, 1985, TU Electric verbally informed the NRC on September 18, 1985, of a deficiency regarding the adequacy of rostraints for the flux mapping system under scismic loads.
Failure during a scismic event could possibly cause multiple failurcs in the flux mapping tubing or fittings that would produce a small break loss of coolant accident (LOCA).
This possibility was reported by the NRC in IE Information Notico 85-45 dated June 6, 1985.
At the request of the applicant, the vendor ovaluated the flux mapping system for scismic loading.
This evaluation included Design Change Authorization (DCA) 22611, Revision 0, and DCA 22732, Revision 1, which the applicant provided to the vendor.
The vendor provided recommended mo)ifications in letters WPT-8128, Ucccmber 13, 1985, and WPT-8150, January 13, 1986.
Theso
!
modifications were impicmented by DCA 24021, Revision 1, and traveler ME-86-4892-7400 in Unit 1.
DCA 24060, Revision 0, was approved for Unit 2.
i The NRC inspector reviewed the above records and inspected the flux mapping equipment.
Unit 1 DCA impicmentation is complete, and Unit 2 work is not
,
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
'
.
~
5-
>
.
.
complete pending construction resumption.
Based on these observations, this SDAR for' Unit 1 is considered closed.
The SDAR for Unit 2 remains open.
-
(2)
(Closed) SDAR CP-88-10, "15 kV Bus Ampacity Rating":
The applicant informed the NRC by letter TXX-88069, dated January 11, 1988, (subsequent to telephone notification) that an ampacity test had not been performed on non-Class lE buses by the manufacturer-and that calculation 16345-NU(B)-109-SEA was performed to determine bus ratings.
The calculation demonstrated that both derating and bus duct design modification were required to ensure the buses were adequate for their intended use.
The NRC inspector reviewed the package provided by the applicant, including the DCAs to modify the bus ducts and travelers to implement the modjfications.
Also, the buses were physically inspected by the NRC to verify
that modifications had been installed.
During the inspection several items were noted requiring follow-ups (a) the open mesh areas of the duct cover modification could possibly create separation
'
criteria violations; and (b) bird's nests have been built in the ducting near the two ultrasonic testing (UT) Unit 2 auxiliary transformer.
A question by the NRC inspector regarding a conflict of the temporary labeling of a tap box was quickly
"
resolved by applicant provision of DCA 67159, Revision 0, and DCA 73086, Revision 3, which doloted tap box No. 4 from Unit 1 and reinstalled it in
Unit 2 as tap box No. 7.
Based on the abovo inspections, the SDAR is L
considered closed.
The applicant was advised of tho l
inspection findings in regard to separation critoria
,
,
and bird's nosts.
Ponding further action these findings will bo tracked as open item
(446/8868-0-01).
l
,
b.
Issues Dotormined Not-Roportable by the Applicant l
The NRC inspector also reviewed the following issues l
which the applicant dotormined to to not reportablo l
l following the completion of their review.
These issues l
were originclly reported to the NRC as potentially
'
reportablo under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.55(o) with i
tho following assigned SDAR r. umbers i
'
(1)
(Open) SDA9. CP-87-111, "Motor Control Contor (MCC)
Looso Torn..nal":
By letter TXX 6916 dated i
i l
I
+
--
-
-- - - - -
.
- -
u a
-
.
.
.
November 9, 1987, the applicant informed the NRC that the problem of a loose connection on one phase of a circuit breaker terminal in a Unit 2 MCC was not reportable.
The applicant based the decision on the facts that the affected circuit, Reactor Coolant Pump Seal Injection Isolation Valvo (MOV-2-8351D),
in a normally open (decnergized) circuit, fails
'as-is," receives no automatic isolation signal, and is capable of being manually operated.
The NRC inspector agreed with this conclusion and additionally noted that a fault at the terminal could be isolated from the MCC by the 15 amp breakers's magnetic trip.
However, an inspection revealed that tho hardware work required by NCR CE87-9151X, Revision 0, had not yet boon performed.
The SDAR will remain open pending work completion.
(2)
(Closed) SDAR CP-86-79, "Over-Torquod Westinghouso AR Relays":
By letter TXX-6533 dated June 19, 1987, the applicant informod t!.e NRC that the potential problem of AR relav contact cartri'.ge terminal screw overtightening wa's not reportable.
This decision was based on Westinghouse evaluation as reported in letter WPT-8857 dated April 21, 1987.
The NRC inspector reviewed NCR E86-104005 which was transferred to Construction Deficiency Report (CDR)
87-2771 EC and then to DR C87-1052, where it was adequately dispositioned, based on Westinghouse relay testing referred to in letter WPT-8857 above.
Additionally, ES-100, Revision 5 was verified to currently contain the now torque requirement in Appendix D, Section 1.5.d, as a result of DCA 49140, Revision O.
Based on the abovo review, the NRC inspector agreed that the posJiblo over-torquing Was not reportablo and this SDAR is closed.
4.
Correctivo Action Program (CAP)
a.
_ Electrical Components (51053)
The NRC inspector accompanied SWEC engincors on PCHVP walkdowns for Fiold Verification Method (FVM)
CPE-SWEC-FVM-EE-023, Revision 4, "Acquire Data for Cablo Percont-Fill Calculations and Identification of
,
Thru-Floor and Thru-Wall Embedded Conduit Sicevos."
Rooms inspected woro Nos. 141, 143, 146, and 147, in which Nos. 8, O. 14, and 49, slooves woro observed, respectivoly.
The PCRVP walkdowns woro performed in an adequato manner.
Approximately 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> of NRC inspection was performed.
Na violations or deviations woro identified.
. -
-
.
.
.
.
,
5.
plant Tours (51053)
At various times during this report period, the NRC inspector conducted inspections of Unit 1, Unit 2, and common plant areas, auxiliary, and electrical / control buildings.
These inspections were conducted to observe work in progress, completion of applicant's actions on previous findings and deficiencies identified by the applicant, and general housekeeping activities.
hv violations or deviations were identified.
During the inspection period, communications with the applicant improved due to increasing the number of personal contacts betwcon the NRC inspector and electrical engincorir.g staff.
The applicant's staff provided more updated information on tho NRC inspector's concerns and were more responsive in pro"iding needed information and applicable documentation.
6.
Electrical _ Equipment (51053)
The NRC inspector observed some of the preparation for and a portion of the initial energization and "cook-in" of startup transformer 13T.
The preparation and testing appeared to be adequate.
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Otter Significant Meetings (3070?)
,
During t:c first week of the reporting period, p.
Stevens, J. Lamarka, M. Lucas, and K. Ryan mot with NRC's H. Livermore, R.
Latta, and J. Taylor to introduce Mr. Latta, the incoming Resident Electrical Inspector, to the applicant's personnel.
Mr. Stevens also mot with NRC's R. Warnick, H. Livermore, J. Wicbe, and J. Taylor to discuss the 3 ALP report.
8.
Open Items Opon items are matters which have been discussed with the applicant, which will be reviewed further by the inspector, and which involve some action on the part of the NRC or applicant or both.
One opon item disclosed during the inspoetion is discussed in paragraph 3.a(2).
9.
Exit Mocting (30703)_
An exit mcoting was conducted November 1, 1988, with the applicant's representatives identified in 7aragraph 1 of this report.
No written material was provided to the applicant by the inspector during this reporting period.
The applicant did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspectors during this inspection.
During
. -
b
.
e
'
.
t
.
this meeting,. the NRC inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection and noted improved communication with a corresponding increased strength in the area of responsiveness, L
<
i.
1
!
l
T
'
i i
I
i
!
!
!
r I
i ti
,
!
i
<
I i
. - -
_.