ML19209C983
| ML19209C983 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 09/05/1979 |
| From: | Crossman W, Gilbert L, Martin L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19209C977 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-445-79-19, 50-446-79-19, NUDOCS 7910180544 | |
| Download: ML19209C983 (7) | |
See also: IR 05000445/1979019
Text
_ . _ _ .
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Repo r- No . 50-445/79-19; 50-446/79-19
Dociat No. 50-445; 50-t46
Category A2
Lic- m : Texas Utilities Generating Company
2001 aryan lower
Dallas, Texas
75201
Facility Name: Ccoanche Peak, Units 1 and 2
Inspection at: Comanche Peak Site, Glen huse, Texas
Inspectica conducted: August 9, 10 and 13-16, 1979
Inspectors:
_
f/f[7f
'
L. D. G(Ibert, Reactor Inspector, Engineering
4)a:fe
Support Section (Paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 7, & 8)
.
/
&?
f?bb
Ab'//f
L. E. Marting Reactor Inspector, Engineering
/Da r'e
Support Sa;t:on ('aa graphs 2 & 6)
e
(August 13-16, 1979, caly)
&c
sp$ps&
T o f-7 D
@. P.'Todlinson, Reactor Inspector, Engineering
Date
Support Section (Paragraph 5)
Reviewed:
W
78
e
R. G. Taylor, Resident Inspector
Bat'e
Projects Section
il77
Ji9
7910180
_.
_ _ _
..
. . . . _ . _
Approved:
h
_, _
8[f ~/9
W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section
D' ate
'
f0$
'
R. E. Hall, Chief, Engineering Support Section
fafe
Insrec_1:n St==ar :
Insce_ ica on Aunts: 9.10 and 13-16, 1979 (Report No. 50-445/79-19;
50- e 7 -Ic;
Areas r_snected: Roc" 'a, unannounced inspection of cons
, ion activicies
,
i
incic---- site tour; observation of work and review of records for safety
related piping, Unit 1; ebservation of work for Reactor Coolant Pressure
Borm c 7--- _3iping, Unit 1; and review of QA implementing procedures for
elec M eni cable and
follow up review of a previously identified item of
noncompliance.
The inspection involved ninety-two inspector-hours by three
NRC inspectors.
Results: In the four areas inspected, one apparent item of noncompliance
was i:ientified in one area. (infraction - failure to follow nonconformance
proce0.ces for electrical cable
paragraph 6).
.
P00RBRIBiku
.
1177
J20
2
_ _ _ _ . . - . . . _ _ . . . _
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
3-4--4 cal Licensee Personnel
- R. G. Tolson, TUGCO, Site QA Supervisor
- J. V. Eawkins, TUGC0/G&H, Product Assurance Supervisor
- !. Icwry, TUGCO, QA Engineer
- P
Webb, TUSI, Resident Manager
- L. M. Popplewell, TUSI, Project Electrical Engineer
C ~~- ?ersacnel
J. Reed, Pipe Foreman, Brown and Root (B&R)
S. Dodd, QC Inspector, B&R
J. Strickland, QJ Inspector, B&R
J. Dale, QC Training Coordinator, B&R
L. Dick, Electrical QC Supervisor, B&R
The IE inspectors also interviewed other licensee and contractor personnel
during the course of the inspection.
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
(Closed) Infraction (50-4l'/79-C'- 50-446/79-06):
Failure to Follow
Inspection Procedure for Class IE Cable Tray Supports. The IE inspector
reviewed ten randomly selected cable tray supports that were Class IE
and previously inspected as non Class IE to ensure that the hangers had
been reinspected as Class IE. The IE inspector reviewed Brown and Root
Procedure QI-QP-ll.3-2, Revision 8, " Cable Tray Hanger Inspection," and
the associated training records for Revision 8.
hangers have been reinspected and all rework on Class IE hangers initiated
by this reinspection has been completed.
3.
Site Tour
The IE inspectors walked through the Unit 1 Reactor Building and Auxiliary
Building to observe construction activities in progress and to inspect
housekeeping.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
I177
221
3
_
.
- - . . .
- - - . . - - . . .
. - . - - - . . .
.
..
..
_.
.
l k I hd${13lg]
g:
g
gl p)g)[-
E
INfi
-
4.
Safety Related Piping - Unit 1
The IE inspector observed the piping activities involving identification,
>='dling, installation and quality related inspection of the following
i+=-c:
Spool Pes. 6Q3 and SQ3 from Drawing BRP-BR-1-SB-06; Spool Pcs. 6Q2
and SQ2 frem Drawing BRP-CS-1-SB-10; and Spool Pc. 2Q2 and Valve 1-8400
from Drawing BRP-CS-1-SB-31.
The IE inspec cr verified the fit-up and evidence of QC inspection for
pipe weld numbers I~4-8 on Line 6-CC-1-204-152-3 and FW-5 on Line 3-CS-1-
139-151-R2.
On completion of fit-up and gas purging of FW-5, the IE
'-----tcr abserved the root welding of the joint for compliance with the
wid pr=* m.
The IE inspector observed the welding of two other pipe welds, FW-18 on Line
-EE-X-001-151-R3 and FW-22 on Line ?-CS-1-242-151-R2, for compliance with
t2e weld procedure.
The IE inspector selectively reviewed documentation of receiving inspections,
saterial test reports, welder qualifications, QC personnel certifications
and nondestructive test results for the following pipe spools and welds:
Drawing
Spools
BRP-CS-1-AB-24
2Q3 & IQ3
FW-1 & FW-se
BRP-AF-1-SB-11
1&2
FW-i & FW-3
.
BRP-CC-1-SB-20
~
FW-7 & FW-la
-
1&3
FL-9
BRP-CT-1-SB-03
-
,
BRP-CT-1-SB-01
-
FW-2
BRP-RH-1-SB-19
2 & 1-8717
FW-3
BRP-RH-1-SB-07
-
FW-5
BRP-SI-1-SB-04
8Q2 & 2
FW-4
BRP-SI-1-SB-14
-
FW-8
In the areas inspected, no discrepancies from the requirements of the
weld procedures; the piping fabrication construction procedure, Procedure
CP-CPM-6.9; or the ASME B&PV Code were noted.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
I177
J22
4
..
.
._
_-. . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ .
_. __.
. _ .
_ _ _ . __
_ _ . _ _
_
.
l
)
h
f%$.
$ M { {_[
\\
5.
Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary Piping - Unit I l
v ult
3e IE inspector witnessed the liquid penetrant inspection of one repair
area on each of two pressure boundary piping welds (BRP-CT-1-RB-046
To-1 and BRP-RC-1-520-1 FW-19).
Both areas had been identified by
radiog sphy, escavated by grinding and were being inspected immediately
pri:r to repair weldiag. QC records for both joints were reviewed for
aaacuacy. Personn4 qualification records were also checked for the
welcers perfo + g the , pairs and the inspectors. The record packages and
"~ = =aterial issue cards were checked against the repair procedures to
assu e the correct welding rod and verify that other welding variables were
somCt..
.
_ca II insp- m r wi~ essed the pre-weld fit-up operation on one 4"
cnent cooling system pipe joint (BRP-CC-1-RB-23-2-FW-4).
A physical
cr* was made to verify the joint alignment and fit-up dimensions prior
to velding.
Ihe weld joint record package was reviewed to assure that
QC verification, weld identification and joint location were correct. The
weld procedure was compared to the weld joint data package for agreement
and the welding operation was witnessed to assure compliance with the welding
procedure.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Electrical Systems
a.
Cable Identification Deterioration
b
During an inspection of the cable reel storage yard, the IE inspector
noticed that there had been some deterioration in the color of many
i
of the cables in the yard.
Some of the orange colored cables had
faded, some of the white color coding was flaking and peeling off.
'
This color coding is the licensee's principle means of meeting the
identification of Class IE and associated cables required by the
!
FSAR Section 8.3 and IEEE-384, 1974.
The IE inspector asked the licensee representative if any action was
'
under way to evaluate this deterioration of the cable identification
with the A/E and the supplier. The licensee's representative told the
IE inspector that the deterioration in the color coding had been ques-
tiened, but that no formal action had been initiated.
The deterioration of this color coding on Class IE and associated
cables is being considered as an unresolved item pending identification
and qualification of the color coding medium, the determination of
cause of deterioration, and the licensee's action to preclude or
correct the deterioration to ensure proper identificatica of Class IE
and associated cables during and after installation in the plant.
b.
Nonconformance Report Corrective Action
During the inspection of the cable reel yard, the IE inspector noticed
that cable reel No. W-108-1 had a QC hold tag on it which referenced
5
1177
J23
._
_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
. . _ . . _ . . _ _
. _ _ _ . _
__
-
.
.
NCR E-1570. Af ter review of NCR E-1570, the in inspector was able
to identify numerous other reels of improperly color coded cable in
the reel storage yard, as described and included in the NCR. Reel
No. W-108-1, however, was the only reel which was on QC hold. The
other reels that were improperly color coded were not segregated
or tagged as conconforming. The licensee's representative acknowledged
the nonco
- -- 4 g condition of these cable reels and the absence of
QC TEold" tags and/or segregation of this nonconforming material. All
ca',le in the reel yard by procedure is released and acceptable for
installarica taless the material has been identified as nonconf ; ming
and prcperly targed.
Cr'13 7 Assurn,ce Procedure, QAP 15.1, Revision 5, July 18,1979,
"Cantani. of Neucenforming Items," paragraph 3.1.1 requires that, "Non-
c aforsing items shall be identified by a red " Hold" tag and when
practicable segregated trem acceptable items."
Figure 13 of QAP 15.1, Step No. 17 requires, " Disposition: Action
to be taken to resolve /close the nonconformance."
10 CFR 50 Appendix B, Criterien V requires that " Activities affecting
quality .
. shall be accomplished in accordance these instructions,
.
procedures, or drawings."
Contrary to the above:
NCR E-1570 identified two installed cables (E0102531 and E0102532)
'
and cable reel W-105-1 that were color coded orange witi white stripe,
contrary to specification ES 13.B2 which required solid orange colored
jacket. These three items were properly tagged wita QC " Hold" tags.
However, the NCR also stated chat there was a large number of both
orange and green cable in the reel yard which were required to have
solid colored jackets that also have white stripe;. The IE inspector
determined that this large nu.aber turned out to be twenty addir.ional
reels of table that were also nonconforming. On August 14, 1979, only
one reel 5-108-1 had been tagged and placed on hold.
The other twenty
reels were in the reel yard without tags or any identification or
segregation indicating that the cable was not suitable for installation.
The disposition for NCR required the repulling of cab.es E0102531
and E0102532 utilizing orange jacketed cable. This corrective
action is insufficient in that it only addresses these two cables.
The nonconforming condition described a large number of nonconforming
reels of cable and the possibility of more cables having been in-
stalled with improperly colored jackets. The disposition described
above would not have provided a satifactory action to resolve or
close the nonconformance.
I177
J24
6
.
.
.
The above are two examples of failure to comply with 10 CFR 50
Appendix B, Criterion V.
This is an infraction.
c.
Record Review
I
O
!N
i
L*
ne II inspector reviewed the following document packages for power,
c:n rel, and instrumentation cables, for compliance with FSAR
Chapter S, 10 CFR 50, IEEE 323 and 383, IPCEA STDS, and specifications:
"at. .:ial receiving Reports (rRR)-0889, 2553, 2737, 4848, 5215,
2 2 , and 5500.
Receiving Inspection Reports (RIR) - 04129, 06737, 07115, 07429,
10477, 10778, 10787 and 11108.
These packages were reviewed for completeness and for inclusion of
.anufacturer test, qualification reports, and certificates of
compliance.
No ite=s of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Enresolved Items
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required
in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of
noncompliance, or deviations. An unresolved item disclosed during
the inspection is discussed in paragraph 6.
-
8.
Exit Interview
The IE inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in para-
graph 1) at the conclusion of tne inspection on August 16, 1979. The
IE inspectors summarized tne purpose, scope and findings of the inspection.
The licensee representatives acknowledged the statemer M b1 the inspectors
with regard to the item of noncompliance and the unreso aed item.
1177
J25
.
7