IR 05000445/1993036
| ML20059L339 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/10/1993 |
| From: | Constable G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059L324 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-445-93-36, 50-446-93-36, NUDOCS 9311170021 | |
| Download: ML20059L339 (7) | |
Text
y
.
.
Y APPENDI.X U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
Inspection Report:
50-445/93-36
50-446/93-36
,
Licenses: NPF-87
,
Skyway Tower a
400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81
,
Dallas, Texas
Facility Name:
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 2 Inspection At:
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Inspection Conducted: September 13 through October 15, 1993
.
i Inspectors:
J. E. Whittemore, Reactor Inspector, Plant Support Sectinn Division of Reactor Safety, Region IV
P. C. Wagner, Team Leader, Division of Reactor Safety, Region IV
r
,/<
.
i t r[f,/4]
f Approved:
,,
. Constable, Chief, Plant Support Section Date '
.
l
,
Inspection Summary Areas Inspected (Unit 11:
No inspection of Unit I was performed.
_
Areas Inspected (Unit 2):
Routine, announced review and. inspection of the documentation of activities related to the startup testing of. Unit 2.
Results:
Licensee reviees of startup test results were effective in identifying
!
problems and all deficiencies had been resolved.
The startup test results packages reviewed were well organized (Section 1.5).
'
There were isolated cases where inspe'ctors could not verify that the
correct sequence had been performed due.to confusing or Inissing i
information in the test procedure master test log (Section 1.4).
9311170021 931112"
.
PDR ADOCK 05000445 i
G PDR r
.
..
- -..
-.
.
-
.
.
-2-
,
i Attachments:
i Attachment 1 - Persons Contacted and Exit Meeting i
Attachment 2 - Initial Startup Test Packages Reviewed
,
,.
I
,
l I
I
.$
i i
.5 i
!
,
-
,
!
E
!
..
I
i i
b i
)
b I
i i
.
j i
i
..
..
.
. _.
._
..
.
. _ _.
-
-
,
.
.
,
?
-3-
!
DETAILS
,
1 STARTUP TEST RESULTS EVALUATION (72301)
The primary objective of this inspection was to determine if the licensee had met established technical and administrative requirements during the conduct
of initial startup (ISU) testing. A second objective was to determine if the '
'
licensee's ISU testing review process had been conducted in accordance with-the approved site procedures to verify that acceptable testing had been performed and documented.
1.1 Backaround t
The startup test procedures selected for this inspection were subjected to one
'
of two different levels of review in accordance with inspection program guidance. The inspectors either verified the licensee's evaluation and separately evaluated the test results or only verified the licensee's
'
evaluation of test results.
In reviewing the test results, the inspectors
-
determined if the licensee had complied with the following administrative procedures:
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 summaries of some 'f the tests prior to the onsite portion of the inspection. The test summaries were submitted to the NRC in TU Electric Letter TXX-93325 dated September 15, 1993.
,
The inspectors verified the performance of an adequate review by the licensee in accordance with the licensee's program for Initial Startup Test Procedures ISU-003B, ISU-020B, ISU-202B,.and ISU-203B.
In addition, the inspectors
,
performed an evaluation for the balance of the test results listed in l
Attachment 2.
ISU tests reviewed during this inspection were complete and had-
!
been through the licensee's approval process.
Final reviews had been
conducted by the station operating review committee (SORC), and the test
results were approved by the plant manager.
l
"
The inspectors found the results of all of the reviewed startup tests to be
{
acceptable. The following specific observations were noted during the
,
inspectors' evaluations.
i
!
[
!
!
!
j
!
_;
--
- -,,
^
.
,
-4-
.
r 1.2 Reactor Coolant System Total Flow The inspectors reviewed the results of 150-023B, " Reactor Coolant System Total Flow Rate Test," that was approved on July 30, 1993. The licensee noted that ji
'
the flow rate determined at the 75 percent power plateau exceeded the design flow rate. The flow rate determined by the N-16 Transit Time Flow Rate Meter was determined to be 420,422_gpm. The design flow rate was 420,000 gpm. The,
licensee evaluated the higher than expected flow rate and, following
consultation with the reactor vendor, increased reactor power to 100 percent i
'
and conducted additional flow rate testing. The results of the 100 percent-power tests were within the expected and design limits. The reactor vendor
'
'
stated that the design flow rate was based on the temperature and pressure conditions that would exist at the 100 percent power. The licensee determined
that the flow rate test results were acceptable. The inspectors agreed with the licensee's determination.
1.3 Undervoltaae Reactor Trio
,
The inspectors noted a discrepancy in the results recorded during the
[
performance of 150-2228, " Turbine Generator Trip With Coincident loss of Offsite Power." Step 12.6 of the test recorded "the time when each 6.9kV Normal Bus voltage departs from its nominal value until it reaches the Reactor Coolant Pump Undervoltage Allowable Value specified in the Technical Specifications." The values recorded for Busses 2Al and 2A2 were 0.78 and 0.96 seconds, respectively.
The inspectors considered these times to be.long
.
'
when compared to the FSAR Table 15.0-4 total allowable reactor trip response time of 1.5 seconds.
The licensee had noted the voltage decay times and had reevaluated their
.
position in regard to Westinghouse Electric Corporation Technical Bulletin NSD-TB-92-03-R0, "Undervoltage Trip Protection," dated May 15, 1992. The
licensee, in consultation with Westinghouse, determined that the discussion in Section 15.3.2 of the FSAR was not clear. The FSAR indicated that the undervoltage trip provided protection for events such as a station blackout.
i The licensee determined that the undervoltage trip was designed to provide
,
protection from inadvertent opening of two or more reactor coolant pump motor circuit breakers. The licensee initiated Licensing Document Change-Request 93-96 to clarify the use of the undervoltage trip. The licensee was scheduled to include the FSAR change in the Unit 1 Cycle 4 update. The licensee also initiated Licensing Document Change Request TR-92-0019 to correct the undervoltage trip response time included in the -Technical
,
Requirements Manual.
The inspectors found these actions to be acceptable and l
to resolve the concern with an apparent inconsistency between the as-found j
conditions and the FSAR commitments.
i 1.4 75 Percent Power Test Seouence j
The inspectors noted that within ISU-260B, "75 Percent Power Test Sequence,"
there were several sets of steps that were specified to be performed in a specific sequence. The correct sequence was not always verifiable within the
..
.
__
- -
.
-.
.
i
i
,
-5-i l
l r
procedure because only dates, not time-of-day, accompanied the signed off steps.
In these cases, it was usually possible to review the master test log i
and verify that the steps were performed in the correct sequence.
i The inspectors identified one apparent anomaly in sequencing. The procedure
!
stated, "Substeps 11.8.1 and 11.8.2 shall be performed in the stated order."
!
According to the procedure, these steps had been performed in the reverse.
i order on different days. A followup review of the master test log did not l
'
clear up the discrepancy. The inspectors looked at the test results for the l
100 percent testing sequence and varied that related testing was performed in
i the correct sequence with no noted anomalies. After the inspection, the licensee provided referenced documentation from test package,-ISU-2025,
_
" Calibration of Steam and Feedwater Flow," which indicated the steps had been
performed in the correct sequence.
j 1.5 Conclusions The inspectors determined that the licensee had met technical and i
administrative requirements during the conduct of startup testing.
!
Additionally, the conduct of licensee's review process had verified the acceptability of testing and related documentation.
For the initial stariup i
test results packages reviewed, the data was well organized.
Identified l
problems and deficiencies had been suitably dispositioned or were being
!
properly tracked for resolution in accordance with the licensee's i
administrative procedures.
For those tests reviewed, all acceptance criteria had been satisfied.
I
>
l
!
l
i
!
i r
!
b t
e i
i
)
,
.
.
ATTACHMENT 1 1 PERSONS CONTACTED 1.1 Licensee Personnel J. Boatwright, Reactor Engineer
- H. Sunseri, Manager, Maintenance Engineering
- T. Hope, Manager, Regulatory Compliance Manager 1.2 NRC Personnel
,
- L. Yandell, Chief, Project Section B 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 A telephone exit meeting was conducted with licensee representatives on November 5, 1993. During the conference, an inspector reviewed the scope and findings of the inspection.
The licensee did not express a position on the inspection findings documented in this report.
The licensee did not identify as proprietary, any information provided to, or reviewed by the inspector.
< >.e h
'.
.
'
i
..
i
!
ATTACHMENT 2
.
TEST RESULTS PACKAGES REVIEWED i
!
TEST NO.
SEQ TITLE STATUS i
ISU-003B
Core Loading Instrumentation Complete.
150-020B
Adjustments to Control Systems Complete f
Reactor Coolant System Flow Rate Complete-
!
,
Calibration of Feedwater and Steam Complete
!
Flow l
ISU-203B
Automatic Reactor Control System Complete j
'
ISU-207B
Steam Generator Level Control System Complete 150-222B
Generator Trip Without Offsite Power Complete l
'
ISU-?60B
75% Power Test Sequence Complete ISU-263B
Large Load Reduction Complete
+
ISU-281B
Full Power Performance Complete
{
ISU-284B
Full Load Rejection Complete i
l t
i
i
!
i
.
,
i