IR 05000445/1989055

Resident Safety Insp Repts 50-445/89-55 & 50-446/89-55 on 890706-0801.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Preoperational Retest Procedure Review, Preoperational Test Witnessing,Plant Tours & Plant Maint

ML20246B060
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	08/17/1989
From:	Bitter S, Burris S, Joel Wiebe Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20246B050	List: IR 05000445/1989055 ML20246B047
References
50-445-89-55, 50-446-89-55, NUDOCS 8908230233
Download: ML20246B060 (11)

Text

,

. - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,

$; , * '

^^

,

'

<

[if?

,

.-

,_

.

q i ,

-

,

, c, ,

c

..

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION,

, OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR-REGULATION l s v

. 4 z_.,,

NRC Inspection Report: .50-445/89-55 Permits: CPPR-126 50-446/89-55 CPPP.-127 Dockets: 50-445 Construction' Permit'

V' 50-446- . Expiration'Date:

...

'

, ' Unit 1: August ~1,-1991

Unit 2: August ~1, 1992

'

'

-Applicant: TU' Electric-Skyway Towe .

400, North: Olive Street-Lock Box 81

,

Dallas, Texas .75201 Facility Name: ' Comanche Peak Steam Electric' Station-(CPSES),

'

Units l'and 2'

Inspection At: Comanche Peak Site, Glen Rose,. Texas Inspection Conducted: July 6 through August 1, 1989 Inspector: D 8 S. D. Bitter, Resident Inspector, Date Operations

.Inspec' tor: M a[ i PJ!l?!/f

" . P. Burris,'Sen16f Resident Inspector, /Date

< perations Reviewed by: A/ l f J/. .S. Wiebe, Senior Project Inspector ~lDate 8908230233 89081'7 PDR ADOCK 05000445 Q PDC

-_ _ __ -___= - __- _ -__- _ -__-_____-__- ______ __ _ _ __:-_ - __ _ _ _ - _ __- _ _ - ______ _ __ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

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

<a-

>

.

4 i

'

-

L,

2

[. '

Inspection Summary g, . .

~

. Inspection Conducted: July 6 through August 1, 1989 (Report:

50-445/89-55; 50-446/89-55)

Areas Inspected: Unannounced, resident safety inspection of

.preoperational retest procedure review;,preoperational test witnessing; plant tours; and plant maintenanc Results: Within the areas inspected, weaknesses in the quality and . performance of preoperational test procedures were noted. These are discussed in paragraphs 2 and 3.' one. unresolved item, involving the performance of a preoperational test, was identified in' paragraph No violations or deviations were note ..

_ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____ _ _

- - _ _

..

.

.

DETAILS Persons Contacted  ;

• L. Barker, Manager, ISEG, TU Electric

• W. Beck, Vice President, Nuclear Engineering, TU Electric

• Bhatty, Issue Interface Coordinator, TU Electric

• R. Blevins, Manager of Nuclear Operations Support, TU Electric

• D. Bruner, Senior Vice President, TU Electric

• M. Carmichael, Senior QA Program Manager, CECO

• J. Chamberlain, Licensing Lead Engineer, Unit 2, CECO

• T. Conly, APE-Licensing, Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC)

• G. Counsil, Vice Chairman, Nuclear, TU Electric

• S '. Dacko, Licensing Engineer, TU Electric

• L. Davis, Nuclear Operations, Results Engineer Manager, TU Electric

• J. Daly, Manager, Startup, TU Electric

• G. Davis, Nuclear Operations Inspection Report Item Coordinator, TU Electric

• L. Edgar, Attorney, Newman and Holt:inger

• M. Ehat, Consultant, TU Electric

• C. Finneran, Jr., Manager, Civil Engineering, TU Electric

• A.-Fonseca, Deputy Director, CECO

• P. Garde, Attorney, CASE

• H. Greene, Site Licensing, TU Electric

• G. Guldemand, Manager of Site Licensing, TU Electric

• E. Halstead, QC Manager, TU Electric

• C. Hicks, Licensing Compliance Manager, TU Electric

• B. Hogg, Chief Manager, TU Electric

• T. Jenkins, Manager, Mechanical Engineering, TU Electric

• J. Kelley, Manager, Plant Operations, TU Electric

• J. LaMarca, Electrical Engineering Manager, TU Electric

• M. McAfee, Manager, QA, TU Electric

• G.'McBee, NRC Interface, TU Electric

• E. Nyer, Consultant, TU Electric

• Ondriska, Startup, TU Electric

• F. Ottney, Program Manager, CASE

• S. Palmer, Project Manager, TU Electric

• R. Raysircar, Deputy Director / Senior Engineer Manager, CECO

• M. Reynerson, Director of Construction, TU Electric

• H. Saunders, Quality Surveillance, TU Electric

• B. Scott, Vice President, Nuclear Operations, TU Electric

• C. Smith, Plant Operations Staff, TU Electric

• F. Streeter, Director, QA, TU Electric

• L. Terry, Unit 1 Project Manager, TU Electric

• D. Walker, Manager of Nuclear Licensing, TU Electric

• R. Waters, Site Licensing Engineer, TU Electric l * G. Withrow, EA Systems Manager, TU Electric f

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

.- . _ - - _ _ _ ___ _- _ _ _ ____ ___ - _ ____,

.

.

.

The NRC inspector also interviewed other applicant employees during this inspection perio * Denotes personnel present at the August 1, 1989, exit intervie . Preoperational Retest Procedure Review (70300, 70304, 70305, 703331-The inspector reviewed the following preoperational test procedures to ensure that:

Administrative content, format, and requirements were incorporated in the final approved procedur Test objectives met the referenced Regulatory Guide and FSAR Section 14 commitment Acceptance criteria were identified and clearly define Prerequisite conditions were established, adequately defined, and easily understoo Test equipment used specified the appropriate custody control and required calibration dat Procedure format was clearly written and appeared to be able to be easily.followe Procedure 1CP-PT-49-03, " Chemical Control and Makeup,"

Revision 0. The following problems were noted:

(1) A switch lineup table with blanks for signatures was required to be used twice by the procedure. This could lead to confusion when the table is used the second time and the signature blanks are already signe (2) During restoration, a drain valve from the chemical mixing tank was not restored to its proper positio The applicant took immediate steps to amend the procedure to correct these problem Procedure 1CP-PT-57-ll, " Integrated Safeguards Actuation Test," Revision 0. The inspector reviewed this procedure i

immediately prior to witnessing the test. Because the

'

inspector had previously resolved numerous minor concerns similar to those identified in Procedure 1CP-PT-64-02, l there was no need for the inspector to discuss the procedure with members of the Startup organization. No discrepancies were identified in the revie __ -_-

a

.

.

5 Procedure 1CP-PT-64-02, " Reactor Protection System operational Checks," Revision 0. Review of this procedure by the inspector resulted in the identification of several minor concerns. ' Discussion of these concerns with members of the Startup organization resolved all concerns to the inspector's satisfaction. There are no discrepancies outstanding as a result of this revie . Preoperational Test Witnessing (70312, 70315, 70316, 70433)

The inspector witnessed selected portions of the followina preoperational tests:

1CP-PT-29-04 RT-2, " Diesel Generator Sequencing and Operational Stability Test Retest 2."

1CP-PT-49-03, " Chemical Control and Makeup."

1CP-PT-57-11, " Integrated Safeguards Actuation Test."

The witnessing activities were performed to ensure that all testing was performed in accordance with approved procedures and to verify the adequacy of test program records including the preliminary test results. The inspectors accomplished these goals by ensuring that:

The latest revision of the test procedure was in use by test personne Testing was performed in accordance with an approved procedur Criteria for interruption of testing and continuation of testing was adhered to during all witnessed portions of the tes All deficiencies were documented in accordance with program requirement All temporary modifications, such as, jumpers, strainers, spool pieces, or blank flanges, were installed and tracked per established administrative control Test equipment required by the procedure was calibrated and in service, if applicabl All crew manning requirements were me All test prerequisites were me Proper plant systems were in servic _ _ _ _ _ .

. - - _ _ - _ _ _

.

.

.

.

The results of witnessing each test.are described below: ICP-PT-29-04 RT-2, " Diesel Generator Sequencing an Operationa?. Stability Test Retest 2." - This test was conducted in coincidence with 1CP-PT-57-11, " Integrated

, Safeguards Actuation Test." Witness activities will be discussed'with.the results of 1CP-PT-57-1 CP-PT-49-03, " Chemical Control and Makeup." The personnel perfor;ning this test were knowledgeable concerning the test and were aware of-their dutie Quality Assurance personnel were present for required test hold points. Problems with switches out-of-position and apparent test failures were resolved by Test Deficiency Reports (TDRs) and Temporary Procedure Changes (TPCs) in accordance with administrative procedures. The test logs were detailed enough to reconstruct test events and sequenc CP-PT-57-11,'" Integrated Safeguards Actuation Test."

Three' major sections of this test were witnessed concurrently with three major sections of 1CP-PT-29-04 RT- Each section of 1CP-PT-57-11 (including the corresponding section of 1CP-PT-29-04 RT-2) is discussed belo (1) Section 7.1, " Safety Injection Actuation (Normal Power) - Train A and B." .The purpose of this section was to verify the plant's ability to sustain a safety injection (SI) for both Trains A and The inspector reviewed the shift test log and the official test records to ensure that all prerequisite conditions had been met and that the procedure steps were performed in the proper sequence. During the performance of this section, the inspector noticed that the operators were using and verifying the current approved copy of the emergency operating procedures for reactor trip and safety injection. During the conduct of this section'of the test, the applicant identified several deficient conditions that were documented as TDR These deficient conditions included:

HVAC valve 1F-582 was not closed (as required).

SI valve 2404A could not be verified close A Train A voltage relay faile Component cooling water relief valves for the containment spray pumps were lifting (apparently below the lift setpoint).

- _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ . _ - - - . _ _ _ _ - __-. _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- ._ _-_ _. _-_

._ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_-_

.

-

.

Because of these discrepancies, the applicant stopped the diesel testing, and thus, stopped this section (7.1) of the 1CP-PT-57-1 The inspector then left. Later, while witnessing Section 7.2 of ICP-PT-57-11, the inspector reviewed the test lo He questioned the STE as to why steps 7.1.18 through 7.1.21 of 1CP-PT-57-11 had been signed off as being completed without the QA hold point being signed. Discussions with the STE and Startup supervisor revealed that because the test had been stopped, steps 7.1.18 through 7.1.21 had been signed off merely as restoration steps; i.e., steps performcd to, place the plant back to norma Therefore, the STE and his supervisor felt that they 1 could omit the QA hold point. They documented this in the shift test log. The deletion of this QA holdpoint by Startup personnel is an unresolved item (445/8955-U-01).

(2) Section 7.2, " Loss of Offsite Power (LOOP) -

Train A." The inspector witnessed the coordination between the STE for this section of 1CP-PT-57-11 and the STE for Section 7.1 of 1CP-PT-29-04. The inspector attended the shift test briefing. This briefing was professional in nature and covered all pertinent aspects of the test. The shift supervisor participated by asking appropriate questions and contributing to the discussio During the conduct of the test, the applicant identified several concerns. These are described below:

. A lead for blowdown valve 2399 was found to be unlanded in the junction bo . The auxiliary lube oil pump for the centrifugal charging pump (CCP) was noticed cycling on and off every two seconds. This condition has been reported in the past; it had previously been reported as being resolved. The resolution of this discrepancy will be reviewed in a future inspection period as part of the inspector's review of the applicant's action on Violation 445/8937-V-0 . Circuit breaker 3-1 in motor contro?. center XEB was found out of the required conditio All v2 these test deficiencies were identified in accordance with the Test Department Administration l

._-_-___ _ _-_ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _

.

'

manua The inspectors will continue to review and witness both of these tests (lCP-PT-29-04 RT-2 and-1CP-PT-57-ll) until. completion of the ITS currently scheduled for mid-August, 198 (3) Section " Safety Injection Actuation _ Coincident with Loss of Offsite Power (LOOP) - Train The inspector reviewed the test prerequisites and procedure status prior to the STE commencing this section of the test. During his preliminary review, the inspector noticed that valve'SI-8835 indicated both open and closed at the same time.- This ,

discrepancy was already identified by the applicant via TDR-8397 on July 30, 198 During performance of the test, the inspector noticed that this section of preoperational test 1CP-PT-57-11 required the STE to verify both the Train A and Train B reactor trip breakers open following Train A SI initiation. Because the Train B reactor trip breaker remained closed, the STE documented the failure to open on a TD However, by design, it should not have opened. This discrepancy resulted from an inadequate review of the preoperational test procedure prior to approva The inspector considers this item an additional example of errors in procedures that were identified in Inspection Report 50-445/89-45; 50-446/89-45 as an open item (445/8945-O-01). The present item will be followed using the same open item numbe . Plant Tours (71302)

The inspector made periodic inspection tours of equipment 4 rooms that are turned over to operation The rooms toured were the component cooling water pump rooms, the centrifugal charging pump rooms, the residual heat removal rooms, the ,

safety injection pump rooms, and the diesel generator room The inspectors did not identify any safety concerns er find i any unauthorized work in progres . Plant Maintenance (62700, 62702, 62703, 62704, 62705)

The NRC inspector met with the TU Electric maintenance manager to review the maintenance progra Using organizational charts, the manager described an organization made up of three divisions: electrical, instrumentation and controls (I&C),

and mechanica The manager of each division has several supervisors who report to him. Among these are planning and scheduling supervisors. The organization appeared to be adequately staffed. The manager described the various work l

h L_ _ _ _ I

, ,. _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _

5 -.

'

.

.

.

control This description covered the processing of work orders per Station Administration (STA) Procedure 606, the tracking of work orders (WOs) by~a computer in the work control center, and the providing of Wos to the field. At the time of this discussion, approximately 1000. items that needed attention were being tracked. The maintenance training center, operated by two coordinators, provides classroom and:

laboratory training in an impressive facilit During this inspection which includes the documentation of some historical work, the inspector observed maintenance activities involving the auxiliary feedwater (AFW) motors and pumps for Units 1 and 2. The disassembly / reassembly to correct the fan reversals in both motors was observed at various stage The pumps were also inspected during teardown. . The completed packages documenting the Unit 1 motor fan reversal were reviewed. (See NRC Inspection Reports 50-445/89-35; 50-446/89-35 and 50-445/89-44; 50-446/89-44).

As a result of these problems, the inspector requested a computer run which detailed the history of the motors and pumps. The information contained therein (work order, location, frequency, work description) was reviewe Except for minor deviations (from the required time) the one month, six month, one year, and five year frequencies were met for testing oil, oil change, megger testing, and tear down. Other activities (with no frequency specified) included thrust bearing replacement, motor lead check, coupling alignment, shaft rotation, and occasional walkdown inspection Similarly, the NRC inspector reviewed maintenance records while inspecting the service water system (SWS) piping, pumps and valves (50-445/88-34, 50-446/88-30; 50-445/88-47, 50=446/88-42; and 50-445/89-44, 50-446/89-4 The review included a review of procedures and work records similar to those described abov No violations or deviations were identified during the course of the maintenance activitie . Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, violations or deviation One unresolved item disclosed during the inspection is discussed in paragraph . Exit Meeting (30703)

An exit meeting was conducted on August 2, 1989, with the applicant's representatives identified in paragraph 1  !

of this repor No written material was provided to the applicant by the inspectors during this reporting perio The

_

- - - - -

gyyy - . e.m ::' ,,;- +,;; p ,

,

&,s y. yj-

,

.

y; Y- -+. .. f .,..

r- ,

s

.,f y

<..;  ; *w 'l- ' .,.

V e rt;c e s

, .

~

j10-c .

4-. ,

,

'

( '( 'h'.

,g,

___

/wi

" '

applicant'didinot identify ~as1 proprietary'any o'f the materials-.

.

g provided1.to'orfreviewed by the-inspectors during:this

? inspection.: During this meeting,..the NRC inspectors

,  : summarized the' scope and findingsiof the inspection.-

p -

.k;

~

,? 4  %

");;

'

hv ,

, ,

/ I

-

Y a

' .,

a

.l

b

$

.< ; ,.

>

fi'>

s

,.

e 4 d'

i ru l.

f I-p l: =_:___-_:_- _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ .

___ ___

.

NRCFoRM1es .

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PRWCIPAL WSPECTon tName gst %gt ,ang m se sngs INSPECTOR'S REPORT RE WlE WER Of fice of Inspection and Enforcement J. WIEBE asaCTORs S. BITTER "

uCENsmvENDOR 'a ^~,5,y t ** n L,CENs, RiPoRT NERv *snt oc Docu NO isv, PROOvC NO ,,,,,,, O13.c.,

No g ,o ,a TU ELECTRIC J '" -~ *c*'" *5'"'

0 5 0 0 0 4 4 5 g 9 y y A COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC n 5 0 0 0 4 4 6 g y r RTATION

_

D - DELETE r si

_ o R - REPLACE o

1 2 14 16 te PEMOD OF INVESTIGATCN/IN$PECTION WSPECTtON PER80RMf 0 97 FROM ORGANi2ATON EODE (W REGION /MO COND9 TO 1 - REGONAL DFFICE STAFF OTHER ,I .

M DAY VR MO DAY vm y 2 - RESIDENT INSPECTOR

_ R(GON DvtSiON BaAN A 017 0i6 FI7 OlF ol/ 919 8-""'o""^*C'^"'"^'5^**'

4 i C U 5 N *

$1 C

33 34 35 REGIONAL ACTON TVPE OF ACriviiv CONDUCTEDICheCh OM b0e DNyl tC w kom bosonlyi X 02 - SAFETY 06 - MGMT vi$li .

_ 10 - PL ANT Sf INoutRY 1 - NRC FORM 601 03 - WCIDENT 07 - SPECIAL 11 - hvth? vt INVESTIGATION X 2 - REGONAL OFFICE LETTER 04 - ENFORCEMENT 08 - VENDOR 12 - SH4PMENT/ EXPORT 06 - MGMT AUOff 09 - MAT. ACCT, 13- iMponiT

J54- 3 .*

37 3

• • I N N'oYt[oM n,T Aj E,R EN50RC N N

' NELD FORMAT N X Y 1- CLEAR NRC FORfA Stil OR REG REPORTSENT TOMO FOR 2 - VIOLATION LETTsh isluf D ACTcN 3. DEVIATION A B C O A 3 C D A B C D go day vm M0 DAv 70 4 - voLAfoNa oEviAtoN i - vEs

, , , , i - vis olg jls gy l l l

.

, ,;. 0,mp. .0 . A2 e u * s0 s MODULE INFORMAYoh M00utE eksonMarch N M00VLE NUM8th INS Og g MODULE REO FOLL0wup pg fEC MOOutE NUMBER WSP 3g g woDutt REO FOLLDwd o as !E s : s $.

!!f!5ruE:  ! zvII -I!h!!<!: $-

. - - o . -

. "

r

i I a5 i

8[

tA

..

ra s 63Ea

-.

e 2:

>

li

=

, e 8:

- .

%E 1'

• i

>

-:

.

i B

.

.!,E o

EE*

. e n :> : e:

II

.

I 5- I a5 1 : *E -.E63.aru - 2. c av : ,E i, e } 3 310l7,0.3l *

0:0 3 , l i , l f 3,7 0l3,o .51 * gioiB OiFio

i i .

i liil 0,0,/ i , i liil *

i e i i i I,il c

i, i i i liil i i i s i liil o

,, i ,

.

i Iiil o e i i , i Iiil e 2 3 7,0l3:0 01 ^

0:0 4 lio D C

'

lR f ^

n i l i 3 7.013 / 51 vi /i2 oiBio i l i i l'

ii i, i liil *

i i i i liiI c

i, in i liil c i i , i i liil o

i , ,, , l..I o e , i n i I,il

^

e $ 3_ 7:0l3rl: 2l 0:0 8 0.9,0 i l,il. [ 3 7ol3li4l ^

0.2 iB / ,0iO C i liiI

'

i i ii i liil *

ii i i i lii!

c i , i, i liil c ii i i i liil o

s i ii i liil o i, , i i l,i1

.. f 3 7:0laioi'/l * Di /i(, lioi o c i liiiR 8 3 7iol3 3i31 ^ oivis/ioio c i lii1-

i s i n i liil *

ii i i liii c

liil  :

. cme .,0utNCE .

D i n i , i ii e i i IiiI va>ATcCgR 80tmT@2 n n a 0 i a i n n n -

• , a a i