ML20149G626
| ML20149G626 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 02/08/1988 |
| From: | Burris S, Joel Wiebe NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20149G613 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-445-88-06, 50-445-88-6, IEB-87-002, IEB-87-2, NUDOCS 8802180339 | |
| Download: ML20149G626 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000445/1988006
Text
.
.
U.
S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS
NRC Inspection Report:
50-445/88-06
Permit: CPPR-126
Docket: 50-445
Category: A2
Construction Permit
Expiration Date:
Unit 1: August 1,
1988
Applicant:
TU Electric
Skyway Tower
400 North Olive Street
Lock Box 81
Dallas, Texas
75201
Facility Name:
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES),
Unit 1
Inspection At:
Comanche Peak Site, Glen Rose, Texas
Inspection Conducted: January 6 through February 2,
1988
2
N
Inspector:
S.
P. Burris, Senior Resident Inspector,
'D&te
Preoperational Test Program
Reviewed by:
N.
A
Ps
[
A
B. Wiebe, Lead Project Inspector
' fate
.
Inspection Summary
Inspection Conducted: January 6,through February 2,
1988 (Report
50-445/88-06)
Areas Inspected:
Unannounced resident safety inspection including
(1) preoperational testing; and (2) Plant Tours.
Results:
Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations
were identified.
The licensee is actively involved in resolving
the outstanding issues in their preoperational testing program for
Unit 1.
Additionally, the program controls are being reviewed to
provide a more structured and useable format for the upcoming
testing programs.
8802180339 800209
ADOCK 05000445
G
.-.
.
.
_
9
.
2
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
- J.
C.
Aldridge, Engineering Assurance (EA), Stone & Webster
Engineering Corporation (SWEC)
- R.
P. Baker, EA Regulatory Compliance Manager, TU Electric
- J.
L. Barker, Manager, EA, TU Electric
- D.
P. Barry, Manager, ESG, SWEC
- D.
N. Bize, EA Regulatory Compliance Supervisor, TU Electric
- M.
R.
Blevins, Manager, Technical Support, TU Electric
- J.
T.
Conly, Lead Licensing Engineer, SWEC
- J.
C.
Finneran, CPE-PSE, TU Electric
- K.
M. Fitzgerald, HVAC Program Manager, Ebasco
- P.
E. Halstead, Manager, Quality Control (QC), TU Electric
- T.
L.
Heatherly, EA Regulatory Compliance Engineer, TU
Electric
- C.
R. Hooten, CPE-Civil Engineering Unit Manager, TU Electric
- J.
J.
Kelley, Manager, Plant Operations, TU Electric
- 0.
W.
Lowe, Director of Engineering, TU Electric
- F.
W.
Madden, Mechanical Engineering Manager, TU Electric
- D.
M. McAfee, Manager, Quality Assurance (QA), TU Electric
- D.
E.
Noss, QA Issue Interface Coordinator, TU Electric
- E.
Odar, Project Engineering Manager, Ebasco
- M.
D.
Palmer, Plant Evaluation, Nuclear Operations,
TU Electric
- B.
L.
Ramsey, Project Manager Civil / Structural, TU Electric
- D.
M.
Reynerson, Director of Construction, TU Electric
- M.
J. Riggs, Plant Evaluation Manager, Operations, TU Electric
- A.
B.
Scott, Vice President, Nuclear Operations, TU Electric
- C.
E.
Scott, Manager, Startup, TU Electric
- J.
C. Smith, Plant Operations Staff, TU Electric
- M.
R. Steelman, CPRT, TU Electric
- P.
B.
Stevens, Manager, Electrical Engineering, TU Electric
- J.
F. Streeter, Director, QA, TU Electric
- C.
L. Terry, Unit 1 Project Manager, TU Electric
- R.
D. Walker, Manager of Nuclear Licensing, TU Electric
The NRC inspector also interviewed other applicant employees
during this inspection period.
- Denotes personnel present at the February 2, 1988, exit
interview.
2.
Preoperational Testing (70301)
The inspector reviewed the status of the licenscos
preoperational test program with the Manager of Startup and
his supervisors.
At this time, the startup organization is in
,
the process of developing a preoperational test review matrix
program.
This program will review all previously performed
preoperational tests for Unit 1 to ensure that:
.
_
_
.
.
.
.
3
the proper functioning of instrumentation and controls,
.
interlocks, and protective devices whose function or
premature actuation may jeopardize system or equipment
operation have been tested.
system prerequisites were accomplished in accordance with
.
the applicable regulation and FSAR commitments.
preoperational tests were conducted using acceptable test
.
methods and all tests were performed and verified by
qualified test personnel as delineated in the licensee's
administrative procedures.
acceptance criteria for each test had been c.ccomplished
.
in accordance with FSAR commitments and the applicable
standards.
system operation had been reviewed and found acceptable
.
in accordance with the applicable requirements and design
basis documents.
The licensee committed to reperform all previously performed
Unit 1 preoperational tests to verify that each meet the
previously identified items except where it can be amply
demonstrated that a specific test need not be repeated or an
.
alternative test method is warranted.
The licensee further agreed to provide the results of their
review and copies of all preoperational test procedures which
will be reperformed prior to the actual test date.
The
inspector informed the licensee that the NRC expects to
receive the test procedures for review in accordance with the
guidance outlined in Regulatory Guide 1.68, "Initial Test
Programs for Water Cooled Nuclear Power Plants."
The inspector will continue to follow completion of these
identified tasks during future inspection periods.
The inspector reviewed the licensees Startup Administrative
Procedures Manual (SAPM) to verify that testing would be
conducted in accordance with an approved program which:
outlined in detail the preoperational test program
.
organization of personnel and responsibilities for each
of the identified positions.
identified and controlled procedures for testing.
.
outlined a method for the acceptance or rejection of test
.
criteria.
__
I
.
4
controlled the identification and resolution of_ system
.
deficiencies and test descrepancies found before, during
and after testing.
provided guidance on establishing and maintaining test
.
review groups for the preoperational test activities.
During this review, the inspector noted that the licensee had
proposed and implemented changes to their SAPM.
These changes
included changing the chairmanship of the Joint Test Group
(JTG) and development of a Test Department Administrative
Manual.
As identified in the current commitments in the FSAR,
the JTG is chaired by the Manager, Plant Operations; however,
the licensee has indicated that the Manager, Startup will be
the chairman of the JTG.
The licensee is in the process of
incorporating both the administrative procedures for initial
startup and startup administrative procedures into one usable
administrative program.
The licensee feels that these changes
will be necessary to accomplish the goals of the
preoperational test program and initial test startup program
requirements.
The licensee has committed to incorporate these
changes into the FSAR in Amendment 69 of the FSAR.
The
inspector informed licensee management that the NRC would
review these changes as delineated in FSAR knendment 69 when
it is issued for review.
This will be identified as an open
item (445/8806-0-01).
No violations or deviations were identified in the areas
inspected.
3.
Plant Tours (71302)
The NRC. inspector performed frequent tours of Unit 1 facility,
common plant areas, and other owner controlled areas during
this inspection period.
The inspector conducted these tours
to verify that the licensees administrative controls governing
general housekeeping activities and general cleanliness of the
overall facility were being implemented.
Verification of
specific activities included:
!
housekeeping activities were being accomplished in
.
accordance with site approved procedures.
areas requiring special cleaning requirements were
.
maintained in accordance with the special orders.
hazardous material was controlled in approved containers
.
and stored in the appropriate location.
During a tour on January 11, 1988, the inspector noticed that
a chain link barrier around the Remote Shutdown Panel (RSP)
did not totally encompass the back of the panel, and left a
small passage to the front of the panel.
The inspector
1
.
.
5
questioned site personnel as to the security requirements
involved in controlling access to and from the panel board,
i
Discussions with security personnel revealed that the room in
which the panel is located will be controlled by room access
requirements when the licensee's security plan is implemented.
The chain link fence is an operations administratively
controlled barrier to prevent causal, routine personnel
contact with the control board.
The chain link access door is
locked and will alarm in the control room upon unauthorized
entry.
Key control is maintained by the on-shift operations
personnel.
4.
Open Items
Open items are matters which have been discussed with the
applicant, which will be reviewed further by the inspector,
and which involve some action on the part of the NRC or
applicant'or both.
Open items identified during the
inspection are discussed in paragraph 2.
5.
Exit Interview (30703)
on January 29, 1988, R. F. Warnick, H. H. Livermore and
J.
S. Wiebe met with L. D. Nace and A.
B. Scott to discuss
January inspection findings and the following items of
interest:
i
a.
Random errors by Ebasco and Impell during walkdowns
documented in recent inspection reports were discussed in
meetings with TU Electric and the contractors on
January 28.
The error rate was reported by TU Electric
!
to be consistent with reinspection programs conducted at
,
other nuclear plants.
b.
Handling of the HVAC gasket material nonconforming
L
'
condition report has progressed satisfactorily since the
stop work was issued.
c.
TU Electric has committed to provide a supplemental
l
response to Inspection Report 50-445/8704; 50-446/8704.
d.
The program for resolution of ASME issues is progressing
satisfactorily.
~
c.
NCRs are being generated faster than they are being
closed out.
The NRC will be monitoring TU Electric's
progress over the next several months.
f.
The NRC thinks the responses to SDAR-CP-83-08 and
Inspection Report 50-445/8434; 50-446/8413 need to be
supplemented.
A meeting to discuss the NRC's views will
be held the first week in February.
_ _ _ - _ -
._
_
---
-
.
.
..
.
6
g.
Response to NRC Compliance Bulletin 87-02 was lacking in
detail.
h.
The TU Electric stop work in the HVAC' area was considered
to be very responsive.
An exit interview was conducted on February 2,
1988, with the
applicant's representatives identified in paragraph 1 of this
~
report.
No written material was provided to the licensee by
the resident inspectors during this reporting period.
The
licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials
provided to or reviewed by the resident inspectors during this
inspection.
During this interview, the NRC inspectors
summarized the scope of the inspection.