IR 05000445/1993014
| ML20045C062 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 06/15/1993 |
| From: | Constable G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20045C060 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-445-93-14, 50-446-93-14, NUDOCS 9306220039 | |
| Download: ML20045C062 (9) | |
Text
,
.-
APPENDIX U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.
REGION IV
Inspection Report:
50-445/93-14 50-446/93-14 Operating Licenses: NPF-87 NPF-89 Licensee: TV Electric 400 North Olive Street Lock Box 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Facility Name:
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES), Units 1 and 2 Inspection At:
CPSES, Glen Rose, Texas Inspection Conducted: April 6-9 and 12-14 and May 25-28, 1993 Inspectors:
H. F. Bundy, Reactor Inspector, Plant Support Section Division of Reactor Safety M. E. Murphy, Reactor Inspector, Plant Support Section Division of Reactor Safety J. E. Whittemore, Reactor Inspector, Plant Support Section Division of Reactor Safety Approved:
. Q11pdL b]$C6
. L. Cdnstable, Chief, Plant Lupport Section Date'
kr'DivisionofReactorSafety Inspection Summary Areas Inspected Units 1 and 2:
Routine, announced inspection of the licensee's audit program for startup activities, precritical data review, startup test results evaluations, and followup on previous inspection findings.
Results Units 1 and 2:
The audit program for Unit 2 startup activities was effective and
contributed to improved performance by operations, test, and maintenance
personnel as the startup program progressed (Section 1).
The licensee had properly performed, reviewed, and approved the
'
completed procedure for initial loading of fuel into Unit 2 (Section 2).
9306220039 930615 ~
PDR ADOCK 05000445 G
I
-
.
-
,
-2-For the Unit 2 initial startup test results packages reviewed, the data
was well organized and identified problems and deficiencies had been suitably resolved (Section 3).
A Unit I unresolved item was closed (Section 4).
- Summary of Inspection Findinas:
Unresolved Item 445/9202-01 was closed.
- Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Persons Contacted and Exit Meeting
Attachment 2 - Initial Startup Test Packages Reviewed
....
.
-3-EETAit.S 1 QUALITY ASSURANCE FOR THE STARTUP PROGRAM (35501)
Earlier inspection of this area was documented in Inspection Report 50-446/93-02.
The purpose of this part of the inspection was to document that the licensee had effectively implemented its audit program for startup activities.
1.1 Discussion Licensee quality assurance (QA) auditors had been assigned to cover the Unit 2 initial startup (ISU) test program under a single audit (QAA-93-ll4), which was performed during the period April 5 to 19, 1993.
This audit included the following three areas:
ISU testing program evaluation
ISU testing program implementation
ISU test results
The plan adequately covered the programmatic aspects of the ISU test program including compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.68, the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), Technical Specifications (TS) and associated commitments.
Through discussions with the audit team leader, the inspectors learned that field observation of test activities was not included in the plan because of the unique involvement of the Independent Safety Engineering Group (ISEG) in monitoring of ISU test activities.
In lieu of direct observation, the following methods were employed by the QA auditors to ascertain proper field performance of ISU test activities:
Interviews with ISEG and other personnel
Review of ISEG field notes, reports, and other documentation
Review of training and qualifications of test personnel
In addition the auditors attended test review group meetings and reviewed meeting minutes.
This audit approach appeared effective.
Because of ISEG's unique involvement in the ISU test activities, the inspector interviewed the ISEG ISU surveillance coordinator and reviewed program documents.
ISEG provided around-the-clock coverage of field activities for the entire ISU program.
Eight senior surveillance specialists plus the coordinator were involved.
Usually one specialist with operational experience and one specialist with plant testing experience were assigned to each shift.
A surveillance plan and test package had been compiled for each ISU test.
ISEG hold points had been placed in each ISU test.
However, the charter of the group was to generally assess the acceptability of the conduct of testing.
Field notes were documented for each shift and issued twice per week. Also, weekly and monthly summaries were issued.
The inspector reviewed the program documents and selected surveillance plans.
They appeared to be suitable to
f
-
.
.
-4-support the audit program.
Corrective action was obtained through existing programs such as the operations notification and evaluation (0NE) form.
The inspector reviewed the available ISEG ISU field notes and weekly summaries. Appropriate activities and conditions were being surveilled.
Suitable corrective actions were being initiated in response to performance errors and other nonconforming conditions. The inspector observed that several performance errors were identified by ISEG personnel early in the ISU test program, but that very few performance errors were identified after the first month. The inspector learned that it was ISEG policy to encourage the involved operations, test, or maintenance personnel to initiate the appropriate corrective action documentation for nonconformances identified.
The inspector observed that most of the ONE forms had been initiated by the organizations performing the work, although several had been initiated by ISEG. The inspector noted that several of the field notes indicated that other parties were supposed to issue ONE forms and questioned whether issuance had occurred.
To establish a confidence level, the inspector verified ONE forms for the following field notes as indicated:
Field Note ISEG-FN-086, ONE Form 93-000563-00
Field Note ISEG-FN-091, ONE Form 93-000580-00
Field Note ISEG-FN-189, ONE Form 93-000850-00
The ISEG ISU surveillance coordinator stated that a computer followup file existed for field notes, and that in the future issuance of ONE forms by other parties would be tracked in this file. This issue was also discussed in NRC Inspection Report 50-446/93-20, Section 5.1.3.
The inspector accompanied senior surveillance specialists on a surveillance of Test 150-2118, " Loose Parts Monitoring Baseline Data," and determined that appropriate test characteristics were being verified.
1.2 [onclusions Taken together, the activities of the QA auditors and ISEG senior surveillance specialists satisfied the licensee's TS and QA program commitments for auditing the ISU test program.
Around-the-clock coverage of test activities by ISEG appeared to have contributed to improved performance by operations, test, and maintenance personnel as the startup test program progressed.
2 PRE-CRITICAL DATA REVIEW (72596-01)
This part of the inspection was undertaken to gain assurance that the licensee had properly performed, reviewed, and approved the completed procedure for the initial loading of fuel into Unit ~
l
.
..
j-5-
2.1 Discussion Pursuant to the above objective the inspectors reviewed Test Package ISU-0018,
" Initial Fuel Load Sequence." The final objective of this test procedure was to install and independently verify the correct installation of the initial fuel load and reactor core components for CPSES Unit 2.
The inspectors performed a review to assure that the licensee had met the test acceptance criteria and properly verified the satisfactory completion of the initial fuel load evolution.
Inspectors verified that procedure changes had been implemented according to Procedure STA-817, " Review, Approval, Revision of and Changes To Initial Startup Tests and Results," Revision 2.
Two deficiencies were identified early in the procedure, but were dispositioned prior to the completion of fuel load. A pre-load inspection revealed that debris was present on the core plate.
The licensee initiated corrective action by issue of a ONE form and the debris was successfully removed prior to the start of fuel loading.
A second ONE form was issued to correct spurious actuation of the containment evacuation alarm that resulted from Radiation Monitor 2RE-6253 circuitry. This was not considered an ISU deficiency. About 45 hours5.208333e-4 days <br />0.0125 hours <br />7.440476e-5 weeks <br />1.71225e-5 months <br /> after the start of core load, there was a suspension of core alterations for about 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> due to problems with the refueling machine. This problem was corrected with assistance from the refueling machine vendor.
The inspectors verified that all data sheets had been completed and the completion of individual test steps had been documented in the completed test package. The test summary document confirmed that all test acceptance criteria of the procedure had been met and there were no open items or test deficiencies to be addressed. Through a review of documentation in the completed test package, the inspectors also verified that all reviews required by the licensee's process had been completed. The inspectors concluded that the performance, review, acceptance and approval of Test ISU-001B was conducted in accordance with the licensee's procedures.
2.2 Conclusions The initial fuel loading for Unit 2 had been properly performed and documented.
Identified deficiencies were suitably dispositioned and required approvals were documented.
3 STARTUP TEST RESULTS EVALUATION (72301)
This part of the inspection was to determine if the licensee had applied uniform criteria during the evaluation of completed ISU tests and that the completed tests met technical and administrative requirements.
3.1 Discussion The startup test procedures selected for this inspection were subjected to one of two different levels of review.
The inspectors either verified the licensee's evaluation of the test results and separately evaluated the test results, or only verified the licensee's evaluation of test results. The
.- -
.
.-
-6-inspectors reviewed the following administrative procedures to determine the licensee's requirements for ISU testing:
Procedure STA-818, " Conduct of ISU Testing," Revision 2
Procedure STA-817, " Review, Approval, Revision of and Changes to ISU
-
Tests and Results," Revision 2
.
The inspectors reviewed the ISU test packages listed in Attachment 2.
Completed ISU tests reviewed during this inspection were at various stages of the licensee's approval process and were determined to be either complete, i.e. approved by the Station Operating Review Committee (SORC); review complete, i.e. approved by the Plant Manager, but not yet approved by SORC; partially complete (partial), i.e. complete for a specified plateau, with additional levels remaining to be completed; or partially complete and approved by the plant manager for that plateau, but not having SORC approval
'
(partial review).
The status of each test reviewed-is listed in Attachment 2.
For partial completions, the plateau for which the data package was reviewed is also indicated in the status block. The inspectors will verify that all tests selected for review received SORC approval.
For the tests reviewed, all acceptance criteria had been satisfied.
The test
'
data was well organized. All identified problems and deficiencies had either been suitably dispositioned or were being properly tracked for resolution in
'
accordance with the licensee's administrative procedures.
Except for Test 150-0168, there was not a substantial number of problems and deficiencies.
For Test 15U-0168, 63 problems were listed in a matrix and the package
!
included 7 retests. However, it appeared that all ' problems had either_ been suitably resolved, or were being properly tracked for resolution in accordance i
with the licensee's administrative procedures. Acceptance criteria had been satisfied for this test.
3.2 Conclusions For the Unit 2 initial startup test results packages reviewed, the data was well organized and identified problems and deficiencies had been suitably dispositioned.
For most of the tests there were not a substantial number of problems and deficiencies. All acceptance criteria had been satisfied.
4 FOLLOWUP (92701)
(Closed) Unresolved Item 445/9202-01: Test Data Not Always Included in the Work Packaaes for Post Work Reviews The inspector found that post maintenance test data was usually separated from the' associated work packages prior to filing. There was a concern that the test data would not be available when the work package was presented to the shift supervisor for acceptance. The licensee was unable to provide data to
. _ _.
_..
.
.
-7-indicate that this issue had been satisfactorily resolved. This is a concern because of the excessive length of time that this issue has been open.
It was the inspector's understanding from the original exit meeting on January 17, 1992, that a ONE form would be issued to address this issue. However, as of January 31, 1993, a ONE form had not been issued.
The licensee was continuing to track the issue under tracking number 25866 as of April 15, 1993. However, it was not clear that a determination had been made that the test data was readily available during the review process for the work packages.
Because it is not clear that any requirements have been violated, this unresolved item is considered closed, and the effectiveness of the licensee's work package review process will be revisited as a part of the routine inspection program.
I i
i l
l l
i I
I l
L.
.
.
.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-.
_
,..
ATTACHMENT 1 1 PERSONS CONTACTED
-
1.1 Licensee Personnel D. Allen, Manager, Startup Testing
- 0. Bhatty, Site Licensing
- W. Cahill, Group Vice President R. Chamberlain, Senior Surveillance Specialist
- D. Davis, Manager, Plant Analysis
- J. Donahue, Manager, Operations
- R. Flores, Shift Operations Manager W. Hartshorn, ISEG ISU Surveillance Coordinator
- T. Hope, Site Licensing Manager N. Hottel, Senior Surveillance Specialist
- D. Kross, Shift Operations Manager
- B. Lancaster, Manager, Plant Support D. Hayer, ISU Test Engineer
- D. McAfee, Manager, QA
- D. Moore, Maintenance Manager
- J. Muffett, Manager, Technical Support and Design Engineering J. Patton, Lead Auditor
- W. Ross, Component Test Group
- R. Withrow, Component Test Supervisor 1.3 NRC Personnel D. Graves, Senior Resident Inspector
- R. Latta, Resident Inspector
- G. Werner, Resident Inspector In addition to the personnel listed above, the inspectors contacted other personnel during this inspection period.
- Denotes personnel that attended the exit meeting.
2 EXIT MEETING An exit meeting was conducted on May 28, 1993. During this meeting, the inspectors reviewed the scope and findings of the inspection. The licensee did not identify as proprietary, any information provided to, or reviewed by the inspector _
"
.
ATTACHMENT 2 TEST RESULTS PACKAGES REVIEWED (72301)
ISU NO.
SEQ TITLE STATUS ISU-026B
Cold Control Rod Operability Testing Complete 150-027B
Hot Control Rod Operability Testing Complete ISU-022B
Reactor Coolant System Leakage Rate Complete Test ISU-101B
Initial Crit. and Low Power Test Seq.
Complete 1S0-240B
50% Reactor Power Test Sequence Review Complete 15U-0038
Core loading Instrumentation and Complete
'
Neutron Source Checks 150-016B
Incore Movable Detector System Review Complete Alignment 150-023B
Reactor Coolant Flow Measurement Partial, Mode 3 j
RCS Flow Coastdown Test Complete I50-2038
Automatic Reactor Control System Test Review Complete ISU-226B
Operational Alignment of Process Partial, Mode 3 Temperature and N16 Instrumentation 150-282B
Contain. and Pen. Rooms Temp. Survey Partial, Mode 5 ISU-015B
Reactor Trip System Tests Complete ISU-0198
Plant Computer Software Verification Partial Review Mode 3 j
Press. Spray and Heater Capability Complete ISU-205B
Dynamic Automatic Steam Dump Control Review Complete 15U-220B
TG Initial Sync. and Overspeed Test Review Complete