IR 05000445/1990012
| ML20042F604 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 05/01/1990 |
| From: | Barnes I, Mcneill W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042F603 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-445-90-12, 50-446-90-12, NUDOCS 9005090141 | |
| Download: ML20042F604 (6) | |
Text
o
.,
t
,
.
!:.
- .
-
APPENDIX l1 ll.S. NtlCLEAR REGllLATORY COMMISSION
"
'
REGION IV
NRC Inspection Report:
50 445/90-12 Operating License:
itPF-28
!
$0-446/90-12 Construction termit: CPPR-127
I Dockets:
50-445
'
<
50-446
.
l Licensee: TV Electric Skyway Tower 400 North Olive, L.B. 81 t
Dallas, Texas 75201
'
facility Neroe: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES)
Inspection At: CPSES, Glen Rose, Sornervell County, Texas Inspection Conducted: April 2-6, 1990 Inspector:
%
NO W. M. Mclieill, heactor liiipector, MateriUs'~
Dite and Quality Frograms Section, Division of
'
Reactor Safety 8[b0
~
Approved:
_f
')
.I!iTrII,Chier,NieteriiTs'iiiir quality Date
~
Programs Sectiosl Division of Reactor Safety InspectjonSummary Inspection Conducted April 2-6. 1990 (Reitor,t,50-445/90-12)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the quality assurance programs for maintenance; surveillance testing ano' calibration controls; and tests and experiments.
Results: The quality assurance program for maintenance was found to be satisfactory. The inspector noted, however, that a number of audit findings had been identified in this area, which would suggest additional licensee e
attention is warranted. The quality assurance program for surveillance testing and calibration controls was found to be satisfactory. One problem was noted in the area of calibration controls which was addressed on a "OttE FORM" by the licensee. The problem dealt with an electrostatic voltmeter used in the surveillance of the source range power supplies and was identified as a 9005090141 900504 PDR ADOCK 0500 a
.
M
,
.
o.
- ..
- :
, - r;
[
^
,
,
-
4-(
os ;,.
.
>
.
' ~
w'
.
-2
- >
'
.
,(
.f'
-
- i -
lnoncited violation. It was additionally ascertained that tests and
!
experinents (falling within the scope of the inspection procedute) were not.
!
scheduled.to be performed.
!
' Inspection Conducted April 2-6.1990_(Report 50-446/90-121
'
.
.-
,
'
i
- Areas Inspected: No' inspection of Unit 2 was conducted.
'
e1 -
- Results: Not applicable.
.
,
>
i is r
. !
- i
_,
<
- t
,,-
.k'.
- f
'
i t
.[
s
,
- !
i
.-f
-
r r
h
>
t
?
.
t
..
!
'
'
,
'
,
\\
p
!
[
i
'
t
,
.
-
..
..
. _ _, _.,,
,
.
._
,
,
.
~
.
'
.
,
'
,
-3-l
,
,
'
DETAILS I.
PERSONS CONTACTED TU Electric
- 0. Bhatty, Issue Interface Coordinator R. C. Byrd, Quality Control Manager
- W. J. Cahill, Executive Vice President M. A. Cox, Assistant Mechanical Maintenance Manager R. L. Green, Lead Metrology Technician L. D. Gunnels, Lead Electrical Maintenance Planner N. S. Harris, Quality Specialist
- T. L. Heatherly, Licensing Compliance Eng'neer
- J. C. Hicks, Licensing Compliance Manager D. N. Hood, Compliance Supervisor W. C. Jones, Instrument and Control (I&C) Supervisor
- M. D. Palmer, Ferformance Assessment Supervisor i
- S. S. Palmer, Project Manager
'
J. D. Roarty, QA Engineer G. R. Ross, Quality Specialist W. B. Sly, Assistance I&C Hanager
'
R. F. Towery, Quality Specialist A. H. Saunders, Quality Technical Support Manager
- J. C. Smith, Plant Operations Staff i
S.-J. Sommer Quality Technical Support Coordinator
!
- J. F. Streeter, QA Director W. G. Westhoff, Quality Operations Manager CASE
- E. F. Ottney, Program Manager
- H. S. Phillips, Consultant
,
'
NRC
- W..D. Johnson, Senior Resident Inspector J. S. Wiebe, Senior Project Inspector
- Denotes those attending the exit interview conducted on April 6.1990.
The inspector also interviewed other TV Electric personnel during the
!
inspection.
Y
!
l
V
.
-
r
-
,
,
f
.
2.
VALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAMS FOR MAINTEWANCE, SURVEILLANCE TESTING AND
!
Call N~tDNTROLS, AND TESTt'XWTUERIMENTS
"
The objectives of this inspection were to ascertain whether the licensee has s
'
developed and imp 1teented QA programs relating to maintenance activities, surveillance testing and calibration controls, and tests and experiments that are in conformance with Technical Specifications, regulatory requirements,
commiternts in the application and industry guides or standards.
2.1 Maintenance (35743}
The inspector reviewed a sample of recently completed preventive ard corrective
'
maintenance work requests. The sample was the following:
,
F890005539 C680003610 0900001219 P900000148 0890016929 C900001415 F900000418 C900000947 It was verified that the work orders and the associated procedures were properly initiated, reviewed, and approved; instructions were followed and signed off; inspections were documented as required; and materials and equipment used were identified.
Ineddition,thelatestaudit(QAS-89-28A)andthesixQAprogram surveillances performed and documented this year were reviewed by the inspector (0AS-90-413,415,425,442,445,and456). The inspector noted that the auditing of maintenance activities had identified a number of findings, which would suggest additional licensee attention is warranted in tnis area.
l 2.2 SurveillanceTesting_andCalibrationCongols (35745)
_
2.2.1 Surveillance Testing The inspector reviewed a sample of 16 surveillances performed recently. The sample was the following:
5890000227 5900000132
$900000461
$890000597 S900000252 S900000486 j
S890000860 5900000269 5900000604
.
$890001199 5900000277 S900000737 5890001345 5900000292 S890001529 S900000399 j
These surveillances were verified to have been entered in the " Master Maintenance Computer Program" and the " Master Surveillance Test List." The records for 13 of these surveillances had been completed and filed in the vault. The reco-ds of the 13 were reviewed in detail to assure proper review and approval of the surveillance work order and test procedures; completion and sign off of applicable steps; revisions of work orders and procedures were appropriate; the frequencies of surveillances were as required; and post test reviews were completed and test results were properly dispositioned.
In
,
addition, the inspector reviewed four " Technical Specification Assurance Program" audits (QAA-90-004,005,009,and010)andtwoQAprogram
,
I d
..
-
r
.
5-
<
surveillances (QAS-90-437 and 449) that have been performed and docu:nented so l
far this year ThesurveillanceprogramasdefinedinSTA-702hasnotchanged e
since last inspected except for the addition of a provision to *take credit
,
i for start-up testing activities as the initial surveillance testing in certain
cases.
'
!
2.2.? Calibration Controls I
The inspector reviewed a sample of six instruments identified in the surveillance testing referenced earlier in paragraph 2.2.1.
The sample of instruments and their associated work orders was as follows:
Instrument Work Order IC 1839
$900000461
1C 2132 S900000292 IC 2591 5900000132 l
10 2815 5890000597 i
'
IC 3810 5900000486
,
IC 8422
$900000269 i
These instruments were verified to be in the calibration program and controlled properly. The inspector verified that the calibration has been performed as required and documented.
In addition, the last audit (TUG-89-15) and this year's QA program surveillances (QAS-90-435 and 438) were reviewed by the inspector. The inspector found the calibration program was as defined in STA-608. The most significant change since the last inspection was the
,
consolidation of calibration activities for issuance and calibration under one
'
group (l&C).
One problem was discovered during this inspection pertaining to an electrostatic voltmeter that had been used for the source range channel
'
calibration. The instrument had been designated for " limited use" after the channel calibration surveillance.
It was noted that the instrument had been used before this disposition during the surveillance beyond the " limited use" range. The instrupent hed been dispositioned " limited use* because the low end l
(e.g., 900 VDC range) could not be calibrated to the required tolerance. Thet e
was no evaluation of the then questiorable use of this instrument for this l
range.
l The licensee identified this probitm on "0NE FORM" FX-90-1368. Corrective actions and preventive actions were established and implemented during the inspection. The source range surveillance was reviewed and found to be acceptable even though the voltmeter used was not as accurate in the lower range as required. The surveillance procedure was changed to not require'use in the lower range. A review 1s under way to identify if there are any similar cases in addition to this. The metrology procedure STA-608 will be revised to require a review to be performed in future cases similar to this. A Notice of Violation is not being issued because the criteria of Section V.A. of the NRC's Enforcement policy have been me,
> ',
l
..
,
e.
_t
-
.
..
,
-6-
?
'
?'!
2.3 Te,sts and Experiments _(35749)
j
)
The ins:>ector found that there have been no tests and experinents performed
[
'
'
L other tian those described in the safety analysis report. The tests and
- experiments described in the safety analysis report are beyond the scope of h
this ins)ection module.
In that there are no tests and experiments scheduled.
i j.
within tie scope of this nodule, this inspection nodule will be closed.
.
!'
l 3.
EXIT INTERVIEW l
_
e F:
,
k.
- An exit meeting was held April 6, 1990, with personnel indicated 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 inspector.
,
I
..
~
t i
i
!
a
!
[
E
,
-s f
Mc
-[
1
M i