ML20149G626

Insp Rept 50-445/88-06 on 880106-0202.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Preoperational Testing & Plant Tours.Program Controls Are Being Reviewed to Provide More Structured & Useable Format

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: ML20149G609 ML20149G626
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

Inspector: 2 N

S. P. Burris, Senior Resident Inspector, 'D&te

Preoperational Test Program

Reviewed by: N. A A Ps [

. 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

PDR ADOCK 05000445

G PDR

.-. . . _ _ _ _ _ _

9

.

2

l

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

• l

.

.

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.