IR 05000445/1989079
| ML19332C642 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/08/1989 |
| From: | Ray Azua, Murphy M, Seidle W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19332C641 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-445-89-79, 50-446-89-79, NUDOCS 8911280378 | |
| Download: ML19332C642 (8) | |
Text
g py,
-
- -
,
,
,
Q 'i? ; ;
,
w.
-
.
"
c-@ :
%y
.
,
[-
~ APPENDIX l
'
s
,
,
,
L~
'
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
p RE3!ON IV i
,
'
.
,
$^
^
.NR_C Inspection Report: 50-445/89-79
. Construction Pennits: CPPR-126-i i
,
o.
50-446/89-79 CPPR-127-i
-
...
e 3,
r Dockets: 50-445 50-446 glpi >
,
-
,
i
..
Licensee: TV Electric L g?
Skyway Tower F^
400. North Olive, L.B. 81 p:
Dallas Texas 75201 i
,
iacilityName: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES)
!
B clnspection At: CPSES, Glen hose, Sommervell County, Texas
.
Inspection Conducted: October 16-20,_1989(Onsite); October 23-27,1989(Inoffice)
l
-
.
,
i :
Inspectors:
k
[ _-
//!M
'
r M. E( Murphy, Keactet p ector Test Programs Date
,
Section, Division'of Reactor Safety l
s h < h ? k _
-.
// k9
!
's-frua JeetTor Inspector, Test Programs Date '
j actich Division of Rerctor Safety
'
"Nhf t Approved:
/
W. C. SeidleL4hief Test Programs Section Date
'
Division of Reactor Safety i
.c Inspection Sumary
-
Inspection Conducted October 16-27. 1989 (Report 50-445/89-79)
l t
Areas Inspected:
Routine. ' announced' inspection of preoperational test results
.
'
evaluation, y-l
'~
e 1~
h
g l
- -
-
y
_x
- I
+,
l
.
.
.
I t
'
4 ~:
!
-
(-
Results: The licensee has adequate administrative procedures covering
preoperational test performance, test changes, review, evaluation, and acceptance of test results.. The test data were found to meet established acceptance
,
criteria or deficiencies were identified, dispositioned, and retested as required.
Completed test packages were found to be complete; however, the
.
tracking of specific iter.s of interest was complicated by the format and lack
'
!
of specific information that would identify why a particular decision was made, or clarify the disposition of a review comment. The review and verification of
,
the containment. integrated leak rate test (CILRT) results verified that the
,
test was properly conducted and all requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix J and
.the draft Technical Specifications were satisfied.
Inspection Conducted October 16-27, 1989 (Report 50-446/89-79)
l Areas inspected: No inspection of CPSES, Unit 2, was conducted.
- ;
,
.
t
$
f
i T
__
_
W..
-
.
,
..
,
,
d
.,
,
'
- *
3-
,
!
DE1 AILS I
a
' 1.
Persons' Contacted
,
TU Electric q
J. Hicks, Licensing Compliance i
J. Martin, Manager, Integrated Startup 0. Blatty, Issue Interface Coordinator G. Ondriska, Supervisor, Startup Technical Support
- J. Allen, Assistant Project Manager, Regulatory Administration
- R. Daly, Manager. Startup
- H. Bruner, Senior Vice President.
- S. Ellis, Manager, Performance and Test
- R. Hornak, Supervisor, Startup Program Review
'
- S. Palmer, Stipulation Manager
- J., Beck, Vice President
,
- D. McAfee, Manager Quality Assurance
,
- D. Deviney. Deputy Director, Quality Assurance
,
- D. Allen, Test Coordinator
- A. Scott, Vice President, Nuclear Operations
.
- A. Sounders, Manager Quality Surveillance
- J. Greene, Licensing Engineer
- R. Smith, ClCO Project Manager
.'
,
CASE
'
,
O. Thero Consultant
"
M.'Thero. Training
.
~-4 2.
Preo3erational Test Result Evaluation (70400,70322,70324,70325;70326, 7032))
F The inspectors verified by review of the "as run" preoperational test
packages listed in the attachment that the results were within the stated
'
acceptance criteria and that any deviations were properly dispositioned.
This review encompassed all test changes, test deficiencies, the test summary and evaluation, quality assurance reviews, and review and approval of the test results. The licensee's administrative practices in maintaining proper test disctpline concerning test execution, test alteration, and test
- records were verified by the inspectors through review of the administrative procedures which are listed in the attachment.
Review of.all test changes verified that each one was properly approved and
' entered in the "as run" procedure.
Specific actions required by the changes
!
were documented as complete. During review of Procedure ICP-PT-29-02 SFT, it was found that two test procedure changes, TPC-10 and TPC-11, altered
,
,
-
.m i
s,
,
.
,,
p.
,,
...
,
<
e v
'
c
.4
,:
some of the acceptance criteria, but did not correct the affected test objectives. This was discussed with licensee re L
deficiency report was promptly issued (TDR-9257)presentatives and a test
.
,
The review of test deficiencies was to verify that each had been resolved, accepted by appropriate management, and retests completed where required.
It w6s also to verify that any system or process change caused by the test deficiency had been properly documented and reviewed. These requirements were determined to be satisfactory in all reviewed test packages but one.
During the review of Procedure 1CP-PT-37-01, the inspector did not_ find it apparent that the auxiliary feedwater pump met all of its acceptance criteria during the pump flow 1 test. The_information provided in the test
,
result package did not seem to fully support the final test conclusions.
Upon talking with the associtted test engineers. the inspector was
convinced that the test had been completed satisfactorily, but it was-
_
apparent that the results package lacked important'information that would
historically support the test conclusions. The following are some of the
. items that required explanation because'of insufficient specificity in the licensee's test log:
,
1.
Item Why was the ccndensate storage tank level versus time method
-
used for determining pump flow instead of the flow indicator f
-
'
downstream from the pump?
!
A.
The flow indicator is located downstream from thc pump recirculation line and is only adequate to determine actual flow going to the steam generators.
,
2.
Item During Retest No. 5, which was performed as a result of Test Deficiency Report (TDR) 7138, the quality assurance (QA) hold
point was not signed and no QA waiver was listed in the test
'
log.
It was not apparent that QA was present during the retest or that they gave their consent to waiver the hold point during-
the retest.
l A.
The test section in question was reperformed shortly after it failed the first time. The.QA personnel had signed the OA hold point on the original test and remained until the retest was
,
~
completed. At the time they did not feel that it was necessary to sign the hold point again and did not consider a waiver since
they were actually present.
'
l 3.
Item Because of the failure of the auxiliary feedwater motor-driven
pump to meet the acceptance criteria set forth for pump flow,
'
TDR-7057 was written. The cause of the failure was located and repaired. Retest No. 2 was performed. The test result package has the results of this retest along with an attached additional test.
It appeared that one part of Retest No. 2 failed to meet l
<
,
,
-
-
p.
ct
,
,
,
<y k W ' a v[ 3' ',
ny p..
'
.
.
>
y y
pf -g
-
,
%~~~
,
- .
~
-5-
'j
"
g4
,
g
,
<
.
m
>
.
D u'
b
'the. acceptance criteria again.uThe attached additional test'
.
(
results.provided acceptable data for the. step that had failed
+
o
,
Eduring ths. retest. The log stated that the data for the step
,
4$,
.
that> failed to meet the acceptance criteria in Retest No. 2 was=
'
faulty and that the' attached additional data was correct.
Thus.it was, concluded that the test was acceptable.
No explanation'was provided as to why the data for the~ failed step
,
in-Retest No. 2 was considered to be faulty.
It was also not-
'
apparent why a TDR 'was not^ written for the failed: step _ in Retest
'No. 2 prior to performing-the additional test that provided the acceptable data.
'
,A..
The licensee explained that the test data attached to Retest
< No. ~ 2 was obtained prior to the performance of the retest.
his was taken as a sample to verify that the repairs made were
' "
adequate"before reperforming the whole test section. During Retest.No. 2, the data for the step that failed to meet the acceptance criteria during the retest indicated a transmitter-
' error because the data obtained was not believable. The
.
,
'
pump vendor was contacted to verify this conclusion.
It was decided to add the data.obtained prior to initiating Retest
.No..2.as an attachment to the Retest No. 2 results.
,
(
Thedinspectors were concerned th t the tracking of. specific items of
'
interest tasifound to be complicated by the fonnat and lack of. specific
'
&
infonnation that would help 'a reviewer identify why a particular decision t
was made +r unat the disposition to a given coment meant. This was the licensee representatives and they agreed to investigate s
discussed - '
"and detern a if further actions were warranted.
.No violations or deviations were identified in the review of this program
,
area.
'
,
3.c Review of CIlRT Results (70323)
'
P A revier of Comanche Peak Unit 1 Prestart Test Program containment J
L
. integrated leak rateitest (CILRT),results was performed by'the inspector.
,
'
- The Conianche Peak CILRT was completed on July 7,1989. The function of M
this test was to demonstrate that the containment b'uilding leakage under prescribed postaccident conditions, does not exceed allowable leakage
"
specified in the code of federal regulations, and Comanche Peak Unit 1 draft Technical Specifications.
,
a c
!*
The test was conducted in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50,
?
. Appendix J, using the' absolute method defined in ANSI N45.4-1972.
Leakage rates were calculated using the Mass Point method. The CILRT leakage
.
t
'h (',
h A[
_
,
-
-
~
,.
,
.i
nc ' wr
- e t
, _
,
,
.
> ls A a ;
.
V,
'
d
>
,
"
-6-
-i
,
> -
e
- .-
,
T f
!
- !
p'
rates'and.the. Type'B'and C test leakage: rates were used to calculate the'
- i
,
.
total "as left" CILRT leakage rate.
-
O
'
The "as left"-leakage rate calculateo at the 95 percent upper confidence
'
-
- limit (UCL)_was.less than--75 percent of the maximum allowable leakage-h rate,'i.e.',.less than 0.075 wt percent / day. The~ inspector verified these.
p
' values by inputting the CILRT results.into an NRC "CILRT" computer program,
>
,
Y, andl.by-performing manual calculations.-
s F
,
'
<
Alltrequirements of.10 CFR 50 Appendix J and Comanche Peak Unit I draft
[
- Technical
- Specifications were. satisfied.
-i No violations'or deviations were identified in the review of.this
,
t L
program area.-
'
's 4.
Exit Meeting (
'An exit' meeting'was held October-20,71989, wit'h the individuals noted in.
,
~ paragraph 1.of this report. At this meeting, the scope of the inspection
'
,
and.the findings were summarized.
The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the information'provided to, or reviewed by the inspectors.
,,
.
h b
i-
'
s
'
t !
<
.,
'El
.I
'
r c~
+
.z.
'
~a
,
r a
4
, -.
+
,
-
L e
-
--- --
-
7!y.,a ; f e
' w; 7p < s n
,.
,
;,y
-
-b
,
- n
,
.
,,
,
,
'
,,
3w l--
.'
'
l" i' ~l
-
>
n; m
,
,
,
,,
,
t
>
- . -
1:
,
,_
gf :-- r.
-
'
-s
,
_y
,
,
,. y <
,7
Ft,
'
' ATTACHMENT.
'
w
.g
\\'
n
.
,,
.
.
.,
,
p,
Completed. Test Packages
'
'
'
"
rc
,'
Procedure No.:
Titli Revision i Date'
'
M 3CP-PT-48-01.SFT Containment. Spray System
9/12/89
_
,
Containment' Spray System'
LEGT-702A SFT'
c, Five YeariTest
-
11/12/88-
t
,
h
<>
'*
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
12/27/88-1CP-PT-58-01-SFT-Residual Heat. Removal System
.SFT-
, 11CP-PT-58-02,SFT-;
Residual' Heat Removal System
3/28/J9
.
y
.
At Hot' Functional Test
-
.
l s
n.
,
I.
L
'
Auxiliary Feedwater System
.1/10/89-ICP-PT-37-01 SFT-
(Motor Driven Pumps)
,
-
'1CP-PT-37-03 SFT
- Auxiliary Feedwater Turbine
3/14/89-
-,
,
Driven Pump
'
.
1CP-PT;64-10 SFT.-
Safeguards Relay Actuation Test
6/29/89-
-.
l ICP-PT-57-11
_'
. Test Integrated Safeguards Actuation
7/20/89:
lm
.
,
,
11CP-PT-64-08 SFT Reactor Trip System Time
6/27/89 Response
x-
.
ICP-PT-29-04;SFT Diesel Generator Sequencing,and
7/22/89
.
"
'
0perational Stability. Test
!
1e
' Retest 2 t
- ;
'
ICP-PT-29-02 SFT Diesel Generator Control ~ Circuit
6/18/89 l
Functional and Startup Test Retest 3
-
1CP-PT-11-01 SFT Component Cooling Water System
12/29/88
'
Functional! Test
'
ICP-PT-55-02 SFT Hot Functional Test Sequence
3/21/89
/
ICP-PT-64-07 SFT Solid State Safeguard System
8/23/88 Sequences Preoperational Test Procedure
,
. -
-
.
-
-
-
i
c
l ' f qdQ ; ' *
'
'
r
- )
i,f '
,
>
,
,
L 4 -n b;p.
n4
':x e
'
<-
n
<
,
,
s
,
h; ;l ;ypE: %Y Y'*: '
>
r>
h
~
- < e. a.
.,, g, e
.#p, p
,
,c
.
,
~
w
-
,,.,
..
,
3 *,
y+4 1-
,.;,,
,
p y 94 -
- : 2
-3
,.
-
'*
~
i
[W pf 9,
'
'
>
y-
-
.!'
G
,a j, '
~,
'
Qh
}l
.m (
hi
_
,
'
'
s 11,
i1CP-PT-64.-01 SFT RPS Time Response Measurement:
'
- 8/8/89
,('
'
,
-
w
+
,
+
,
@
ICP-PT-64-02 SFT f
0~
2/7/89
'
,-
-
Operational Checks!
' '
,
,
4[.
.. ~.
.
.
.
.
.,
~
1..
8/15/89
'
'
>
.
yJ
. ~ l'
'
ICP.-PT-64-04 -: SFT 4 Reactor Plant Systems Setpoint.
.
Verification,
<
-
.. -.
m
,s
,,
,
D ICP-PT-55-11 SFTe Hot Functional. Thermal 0-2/14/89
-
~
Expansion '
j
'
,
,
%
Administrative' Procedures
=
,
' Procedure
"
'
'
'
<
.
'l No.-
Title Revision Date-
<
,
~
.;
'. STA-809A--
Development of System Test Matr1ces:
2:
8/12/89
-.
,
..
c
'
'
TDA2302 Review. Approval,'and Revision of
'
< '
1TesttInstr"ctions/. Procedures
.. 0 4/4/88
-
t
- y
.
-
v-t<
i
'
LTDA-303 Conduct of Testing
4/4/88
m
,
L t
..
-f
' -
.TDA-304 Test Instructions / Procedures Changes :
0 -
4/6/88
,
x t
.TDA-306 Control of Deficiencies and
5/23/88
>
.Nonconformances
,
k
$
i e
E
~
m, h(
.
(
p
'
.,..,
A c
,
--
'
l. 9_
~
r
?
r b
..., ;
-
,
- ;jt, $ l ^
"
,
"!
T'
- . _t :
1
'
'
.q_
?