IR 05000445/1988053

Insp Repts 50-445/88-53 & 50-446/88-49 on 880707-0802.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected: 10CFR50.55(e) Deficiencies,Assessment of Allegations, Corrective Action Program & General Plant Tours

ML20151U634
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	08/10/1988
From:	Livermore H, Wagner P NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS
To:
Shared Package
ML20151U631	List: IR 05000445/1988053 ML20151U626
References
50-445-88-53, 50-446-88-49, NUDOCS 8808190198
Download: ML20151U634 (7)

Text

.

. .

.

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS NRC Inspection Report: 50-445/88-53 Permits: CPPR-126 50-446/88-49 CPPR-127 Dockets: 50-445 Category: A2 50-446 Construction Permit Expiration Dates:

Unit 1: Extension request submitte Unit 2: Extension request submitte Applicant: TU Electric Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street Lock Box 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Facility Name: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES),

Units 1 & 2 Inspection At: Comanche Peak Site, Glen Rose, Texas Inspection Conducted: July 7 ':hrough August 2, 1988 Inspector: l f> Lt44tvLL Y-10-EP Date-7[a P.C. Wagner, Reactor Inspector (paragraphs 2.a, 2.b, and 2.c)

Consultant: J. L. Taylor - Parameter (paragraphs 2.d, 3, and 4-8)

Reviewed by: PA WQIf Y- 10- Yk" H H. Livermore, Lead Senior Ins, rector Date i

'

pg'ROS190199 880810 a ADOCK 05000445 PDC

. . _ _ ____-_ -

.

i

'

Inspection Summary:

Inspection Conducted: July 7 through August 2, 1988 (Report 50-445/88-53; 50-446/88-49)

Areas Inspected: Unannounced, resident safety inspectiota of applicant's actions on 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) deficiencies, assessment of allegations,1 Corrective Action Program (CAP), and general plant areas (tours).

Resultr: Within the areas inspected, no cignificant strengths or weaknesses were identified. During the inspection, no significant safety matters, violations, or deviations were identifie One unresolved item was identified regarding implementation of Field Verification Method (FVM)-EE/ME/IC/CS-89, attachment 5, flexible conduits (paragraph 4). One open item resulted from closure of SDAR CP-86-69 (paragraph 2b).

,

1 i

.

N l

!

,

r I

!

- __

m

.

'

1 3 DETAILS Persons Contacted

• R. P. Baker, Licensing Compliance Manager, TU Electric

• J. L. Barker, Manager, Engineerir.g Assurance, TU Electric

• M. R. Blevins,. Manager, Technical Support, TU Electric

• W. J. Cahill, Consultant, TU Electric

• J. T. Conly, APE-Licensing, SWEC

• W. G. Counsil, Executive Vice President, TU Electric

• Crnich, Project General Manager, Ebasco

• G. G. Davis, Nuclear Operations Inspection Report Item Coordinator, TU Electric

• Donahue, Operati1ns Manager, TU Electric

• E. Deviney, Deputy Director, Quality Assurance (QA),

TU Electric

• Frantz, Attorney, Newman & Holtzinger, * D. Gaden, CPRT, IT Corporation

• P. Garde, Attorney, CASE

• G. Guldemond, Executive Assistant, TU Electric

• E. Halstead, Manager, Quality Control (QC), TU Electric

• L. Heatherly, Licensing Compliance Engineer, TU Electric i

• T. Jenkins, Manager, Mechanical Engineering, TU Electric

• W. Lowe, Director of Engineering, TU Electric

• R. Martin, Manager, Ebasco

• M. Matthews, Chief Inspector, State of Texas

• M. McAfee, Manager, QA, TU Electric

• W. Muffett, Manager of Civil Engineering, TU Electric

• Ottney, Representative, CASE ,

• Palmer, Project Manager, TU Electric '

• M. Reynerson, Director of Construction, TU Electric

• B. Scott, Vice President, Nuclear Operations, TU Electric

• E. Scott, Manager, Startup, TU Electric

• S. Smith, Plant Operations Staff, TU Electric

• L. Stamm, Project Engineering Manager, SWEC

• .

F. Streeter, Director, QA, TU Electric

• L. Terry, Unit 1 Project Manager, TU Electric

• G. Tyler, Director of Projects, TU Electric

• Walker, Senior Inspection Specialist, Texas Department of

,

Labor and Standards

• K. C. Warapius, Project Director, Impell

*J. R. Waters, Licensing Compliance Engineer, TU Electric

• C. S. Weary, Engineering, E&C, TU Electric

• D. R. Woodlan, Docket Licensing M& nager, TU Electric The NRC inspectors also interviewed other applicant employees during this inspection perio * Denotes personnel present at the August 2, 1988, exit meetin l l

_ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _

-

-

.

- *

4 l

! Action on 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) Deficiencies Identified by the  !

Applicant (92700) '(Closed) SDAR'CP-86-25, "Breaker / Fuse Coordination": The NRC initial inspection of this SDAR was documented in NRC'

Inspection Report.(IR) 50-445/88-25. The NRC inspector's questions were discussed with the applicant and NRC technical staff and all' items were resolved. The  !

majority of the questions / concerns resulted from differing interpretations of the report and its implication 'The breaker / fuse coordination problem reported in this SDAR was discovered in the performance of a pipe whip and jet study and resolved as part of that study. Additional studies have been or are being conducted to resolve other issues c ' coordinatio Since the' specific problem has been resolved and the generic implications are being addressed, the NRC inspector considers this SDAR close (Closed) SDAR CP-86-69, "Support of Class 1E Wiring": t The applicant reported a potential problem with the ,

support of wiring inside control panels. The industry

'

guidelines had not been incorporated in the facility specifications and, as such, were not always implemente On further evaluation, the applicant determined that seven cabinets did not meet the standard, in that the supports were spaced at 26 versus 24 inches. The applicant determined this spacing was acceptable, and therefore, the applicant also determined that this subject was not reportabl While the NRC inspector found the applicant's evaluation of the cable tie spacing to be acceptable, he questioned why the subject of the cable tie mounts had not been addressed. The inspector had been aware of a concern over the qualification of adhesive-backed plastic mounts  !

inside some cabinets and had assumed that the subject- t would be evaluated by.the SDAR. In addition, the inspector was aware that the Electrical Erection Specification (ES-100) had been revised to require bolted type mounting bases. The inspector discussed his concerns with applicant personnel and was informed that they were being inspected for the existence of adhesive base mounts and those found were being replaced; however, i there was no documented program for this replacemen '

Following a discussion on July 14, 1988, the applicant personnel committed to further evaluate-this subject and initiated deficiency report (DR) C88-0358 The NRC inspector determined that the SDAR can be closed; however, the subject of the mounting bases is an open t

i i

r

- - - - - , ,, , - s --- - ,, , -- w ~ - . - + ~n - -,- ,

.

item pending completion of the applicant's actions (445/8853-O-01; 446/8849-0-01), (Closed) SDAR CP-87-110, "Inoperable Safeguard Sequencer Relay": A potential problem with underrated electrical relays in the safeguard's sequencar was discovered during the third-party inspections of electrical panel This problem was discussed in NRC IR 50-445/87-04; 50-446/87-04 and was made an open item, 445/8704-0-0 The open item was later closed in NRC IR 50-445/88-2 While the NRC inspector did not question the results of the testing program which was conducted to show that the relays would function under the required service, he

ntinued to question the advisability of allowing n.ameplate rated relays of a size less than the required load to remain in place. This condition was discussed with applicant personnel, who agreed to consider the inspector's concern The inspector will continue to follow this concer This SDAR is considered close (Open) SDAR-CP-86-71, lE Cable Pull Tension Calculations:

The NRC inspector requested that rupporting documentation referenced by the closure analysis be added to the package for review. This SDAR will remain open for further NRC inspector revie . A_llegation Follow-up (99014)

In order to ensure that some older allegations had been fully considered and completely addressed, the staff requested that TU Electric provide an assessment of some open items from previously discussed allegation The response to NRC's January 21, 1988, request was provided by TU Electric lo'ter e

TXX-88-294 dated March 25, 1988. The following allegation and the TU Electric assessment of it was evaluated by the NRC inspecto (Partial closure) Allegation (OSP-84-A-0022): The portion of this allegation related to wire gage specified for printed circuit boards (PCB) interconnections in Specification 2323-ES-17 Contrary to Criterion VII of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, the actual equipment PCB wiring size did not conform to the specificatio The applicant's assessment determined that, in addition to other documentation, DCA 7211, Revision 5, was posted against Specification 2323-ES-17B, Revision 1, and includes the actual wire gage size for the PCB interconnection wirin _

I

-

.

'

Based on a review of Specification 2323-EF,-17B, Revision 1, and DCA 7211, Revision 5 approved January 7, 1988, the NRC inspector agrees that no further corrective action is needed and that this portion of the allegation can be close (Open) Allegation (OSP-88-A-0050): The NRC inspector initiated research of documentation regarding allegation OSP-88-A-0050. Further investigation will continue in the next reporting perio . Corr ctive Action Plan (CAP)

The NRC inspector continued to accompany Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) engineers during performance walkdowns of FVM procedures and also performed separate evaluations of completed FVM Details of inspections are as follows:

Electrical Components (51053 and 51063)

The NRC inspector accompanied SWEC engineers during performance of several Raychem splice walkdowns (FVM-64).

Packages will be further reviewed after completion (document searches, issuance of applicable NCRs) in the next reporting perio A room surveillance walkdown evaluation was conducted by the NRC inspector for Rooms 150A and 151A for all completed SWEC electrical FVM In Room 150A, several potential discrepancies were found on FVM-89, attachment 5, it. regard to flexible conduits: three missed flexible conduits, one misidentified conduit, one erroneously noted conduit, and three damaged conduits. Several of these items were out-of-scope observations. These discrepancies were forwarded to the applicable supervisor who had the discrepancies investigated and in turn initiated DR C88-03735. This is an unresolved item pending further surveillance and disposition of the DR (445/8853-U-02).

Additional surveillances accompanying SWEC walkdown engi sers were performed on FVM-89, attachment 5, for Rooms 005, 006, 007A, 007D, 42, and DG/SG/AE building roofs. The NRC i inspector also performed surveillances in Room 214 of l completed FVM-89, attachment 4, "Cchle Grips." l No violations or deviations were identifie l 5. Plant Tours (92700)

The NRC inspectors made frequent tours of Unit 1 and common areas of the facility to observe items such as housekeeping,

/r ,

.

- '

/ 7 l

equipment protection, and in-process work activities. No violations or deviations were identified and no items of significance were observe . Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, violations, or deviation One unresolved item disclosed during the~ inspection is discussed in paragraph . 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. An open. item disclosed during the inspection is discussed in paragraph 2 . Exit Meeting (30703)

An exit meeting was conducted August 2, 1988, with the ;

applicant's representatives identified in paragraph 1 of this report. No written material was provided to the applicant by the inspectors during this reporting period. The applicant '

did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspectors during this inspectio During this meeting, the NRC inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspectio (

,

_ . - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _