IR 05000445/1986021

Insp Repts 50-445/86-21 & 50-446/86-18 on 860701-31.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Actions on Previous Insp Findings,Calibr Source Recovery,Plant Tours & Preoperational Test Procedure Review

ML20210V344
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	09/29/1986
From:	Barnes I, Kelley D, Spessard R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To:
Shared Package
ML20210V274	List: IR 05000445/1986021 ML20210V270
References
50-445-86-21, 50-446-86-18, NUDOCS 8610100672
Download: ML20210V344 (6)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:. c- . . . APPENDIX U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

*

REGION IV

NRC Inspection Report: 50-445/86-21 Permits: CPPR-126 50-446/86-18 CPPR-127 Dockets: 50-445 Category: A2 50-446 Applicant: Texas Utilities Electric Company (TUEC) Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street Lock Box 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Facility Name: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES), Units 1 & 2 (nspection At: Glen Rose, Texas Irspection Conducted: July 1-31, 1986

   /

Inspector: b D. L. Kelley, 3enidr/Residegy Reactor Inspector 94Jk Dats (SRRI), Region IV CPSES G Mup

    , Z2- [[

R. L. Spessard, Dgputy Director, Division of Date Inspection Progfams, Office of Inspection and Enforcement Approved:  % ?M7!N I. Barnes, Chief, Region IV CPSES Group Date , Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted: July 1 31, 1986 (Report 50-445/86-21; 50-446/86-18) Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of (1) applicant actions on previous inspection findings; (2) calibration source recovery; (3) Unit 2 preoperational test procedure review; (4) plant tours; and (5) plant statu ~ 8610100672 e60930 POR ADOCK 05000445 G PDR ,

     -. -,

. . .
  -2-Results: Within the five areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.

I ! r i i k

 - -  ,

. ..
  -3-DETAILS Persons Contacted Applicant Personnel
*A. B. Scott, Vice President, Nuclear Operations
*M. R. Blevins, Maintenance Superintendent C. Killough, Quality Surveillance Supervisor, Operations J. T. Merritt, Director, Construction / Director, Startup R. R. Wistrand, Operations Superintendent
*J. C. Smith, Operations Quality Assurance C. Cragg, STA/0perations Performance Evaluation Group
*M. J. Riggs, Operations Support Engineer F. L. Powers, Assistant Project Manager - Unit 1 B. T. Lancaster, Administrative Superintendent  .
*G. M. McGrath, Special Project and Technical Support Lead
*T. L. Gosdin, Support Services
*E. Alercon TUGCo Results Engineer
* I. Melton, TUGCo, Administrative Assistant to the Vice President, Nuclear Operations
*J. W. Audas. TUGCo Licensing
* Denotes applicant representatives present during exit interview of August 4, 198 The NRC inspector also interviewed other applicant employees during this inspection perio . Applicant Actions on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved Item (445/8431-06): Maintenance Action Re, >t processing deficiencies. During a followup inspection of this unresolved item in NRC Inspection 50-445/85-08, the SRRI verified that a part of the unresolved item had been corrected. The part that had not been corrected was the uninitialled crossouts in Startup Work Authorization (SWA) No. 21269. During this inspection period,

' the SRRI reviewed the SWA and noted that the crossouts had been initialled. No further applicant action is required on this ite This item is close (Closed) Open Item (445/8508-02): During inspection 50-445/84-31,a practice on mock maintenance activity was performed. During the parts requisition for maintenance drill, the site QA inspector noted l a discrepancy between component (motor) nameplate horsepower rating l and the drawing horsepower rating. The specific discrepancy was i resolved; however, the NRC inspect.or was uncertain what actions were l taken to insure that no other similar discrepancies existed. It was noted during further followup that a comparison was being made between all motor operated valve nameplates and the drawings, in !

  .- - . -.

a . .

  .
    -4-accordance with CPSES Problem Report PR 84-283 dated August 27, 198 The comparison yielded 39 valve nameplates and the drawings. During inspection 50-445/85-08, the RRI noted that the corrective action had not been completed. Therefore, the item was not close During this inspection, the SRRI again reviewed the applicant's corrective action and noted that the drawings have been revised to reflect the correct nameplate horsepower ratings. This item is close . Calibration Source Recovery On May 27, 1986, while attempting to raise the 5,000 curies source to

perform instrument calibration, the source elevator chain broke leaving the source at the bottom of it's thirty foot well. Since the source elevator failed in the storage position, no radiological hazard existe A plan was devised to recover the source, repair the elevator, and re-install the source. A procedure was written for the retrieval and re-installation of the source. The procedure was reviewad and approved by the Station Operating Review Comittee on July 10, 1986. Prior'to the actual recovery, the SRRI reviewed the procedure (HPA-TP-86-1, " Retrieval > and Loading of C 137 Well Source"). ! As a prerequisite, several dry runs were made in the maintenance building where a-mock-up_had been constructe On July 19, 1986, after a briefing, the source recovery was started. The SRRI witnessed the recovery. Briefly, the recovery method was to ' re-attach a cover to the source module and disengage it from the elevator platform using a thirty foot rod with a television camera to assist.

' Attachment and release were effected and the rod was pulled through the ' transfer pig until the _ source was fully housed. The access port in the pig was then plugged and the pig stored until the elevator could be repaired. The actual recovery process took approximately one hour. No problems were encountered during the recovery. At the conclusion of the recovery, the pocket dosimeters of all personnel in the recovery area were checked. The dosimeters showed no radiation exposur No violations or deviations were identifie . Preoperational Test Procedure Review The NRC inspector reviewed and comented on one draft preoperational test procedure, 2 CP-PT-55-01, " Reactor Coolant System Hydrostatic Test." The procedure will be reviewed in its final form after approval by the Joint Test Group. When the preoperational test is performed, a brief review rill be conducted of the latest revisions to note any changes that may affect the test result _ _ ___ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

. . . . .
    -5-The procedure was reviewed with specific emphasis on the following: Management revie Format clearly defines testing to be performe Test objectives are clearly state Prerequisites are identified, Special conditions (if any) are specifie Acceptance criteria are identified and requirements are specified for comparison of results with tLa acceptance criteri Source of acceptance criterion is identifie Initial test conditions are specifie . Reference to appropriate FSAR sections, drawings, specifications, and codes are include j Step-by-step instructions of sufficient detail are included to ensure that conduct of the test will result in valid conclusion Provisions for documenting that required steps have been performed and space for recording data are included.

I Temporary circuit changes, installation of jumpers, and restoration of circuits after testing are pr9perly documente Independent verification of critical steps or pt ameters is e addressed.

! No violations or deviations were identified.

i Plant Tours , During this reporting period, the SRRI conducted inspection tours of Unit 1. In addition to the general housekeeping activities and general cleanliness of the facility, specific attention was given to areas where

safety-related equipment was installed and where activities were in

' progress involving safety-related equipment. These areas were inspected to ensure that: o Work in progress was being accomplished using approved procedures, o Special precautions for protection of equipment were implemented, and I additional cleanliness requirements were being adhered to for maintenance and welding activities, and

       .
-, , - , , , . , - . - - . + , - ., - . . - - - - - - - _ - . - - .,--m.--m-,_-- ,m --

     . .- -

. . . .

  -6-o Installed safety-related equipment and components were being protected and maintained to prevent damage and deterioratio Also during these tours, the SRRI reviewed the control room and shift supervisor's log books. Key items in the log review were:

o Plant status, o Changes in plant status, o Tests in progress, and o Documentation of problems which arise during operating shift No violations or deviations were identified. Plant Status as of July 31, 1986 Unit No. I remains at 99% complet Replacement of condenser tubing is in progress. A significant amount of pipe support rework is in progress and/or in the planning stag Unit No. 2 is now 80% complete. Preoperational testing of safety-related systems has not comenced; however, test procedures are being generated. Exit Interview An exit interview was conducted August 4, 1986, with the applicant representatives identified in paragraph 1 of this appendix. During this interview, the operations SRRI sumarized the scope and findings of the inspection. The applicant acknowledged the findings. }}