ML20212P801

Const Insp Repts 50-445/86-01 & 50-446/86-01 on 851101-860131.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Pipe Supports/Restraints & Previous Insp Findings

ML20212P801
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	08/26/1986
From:	Barnes I, Michaud P, Phillips H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20212P745	List: ML20212P742 ML20212P755 ML20212P761 ML20212P783 ML20212P801 ML20212P837
References
50-445-86-01-01, 50-445-86-1-1, 50-446-86-01, 50-446-86-1, NUDOCS 8609030286
Download: ML20212P801 (5)

See also: IR 05000445/1986001

Text

.,

APPENDIX D

CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION REPORT

U.S.' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION IV

NRC Inspection Report:

'

50-445/86-01 Permits: CPPR-126

-_

50-446/86-01 CPPR-127

Dockets: 50-445 Category: A2

50-446

Applicant: Texas Utilities Electric Company (TUEC)

Skyway Tower

400' North Olive Street

Lock Box al

Dallas, Texas 75201

. Facility Name: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES), Units 1 & 2

Inspection At: Glen Rose, Texas

Inspection Conducted: January 1-31, 1986

..

,

Inspectors: ' -

h/Z /v

H. S. Phillips, Senior Resident Reactor

I h4

Date

Inspector (SRRI), Construction, Region IV

CPSES Group

(paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6)

v b c m <3 5'/2 g /gf

[eP.W.Michaud,ReactorInspector,RegionIV Date

(paragraph 5)

Consultant: EG&G - J. H. McCleskey

Approved: I8wo &'/26 /EP'6

I. Barnes, Chief, Region IV CPSES Group Date

8609030286 860829

PDR ADOCK 05000445

O PDR

L

..

_2

Inspection Summary

Inspection Conducted: January 1-31, 1986-(Report 50-445/86-01)

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspections of Unit I which included

inspection of pipe supports / restraints, and previous NRC inspection findings.

Results: Within the two areas inspected, no violations or deviations were

identified.

Inspection Conducted: January 1-31, 1986 (Report 50-446/86-01)

Areas Inspected: Routine, announced and unannounced inspections of Unit 2

.which included plant tours, containment liner and structural steel, pipe

supports / restraints, and applicant actions on previous NRC inspection findings.

Results: Within the four areas-inspect'ed, no violations or deviations were

identified.

.

h

, ,

d.,.

'

'

. ,

h

'y -' , f

c a

.' e, %p

v

A>

8L

e1 f

C.

t

i

-3-

DETAILS

.

1. Persons Contacted

Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCo)

K. Anger, Site Design Engineer

R. Babb, Engineer and Site Fire Protection Leader, TUGCo Nuclear

Engineering (TNE)

G. Creamer, TNE

8. Dacko, Licensing Engineer

P. Halstead, Manager, Quality Control (QC)

J. Hicks, Licensing

R. Hooton, Civil Structural Engineer

J. Merritt, Assistant Project General Manager, Unit 2

T. Summers, Records Management Specialist

C. Welch, QC Services Sepervisor

Contractor Personnel

W. Baker, Engineer, Brown & Root (B&R)

R. Moller, Site Project Manager, Westinghouse

The NRC inspectors also interviewed other applicant employees during this

inspection period.

2. Applicant Actions on Previous NRC Inspection Findings

a. (0 pen) Unresolved Item (445/8516-U-08; 446/8513-U-08): Repair and

rework of electrical penetration seals. On January 17, 1986, the NRC

inspector met with TUGCo representatives to discuss the corrective

-action taken on Design Deficiency Report No. FP-85-063 which required

.

Brand Industrial Services Inc., (BISCO) to assure the quality of.

their seals.

TUGCo had identified eight electrical penetration seals which were to

be rew:orked. This item will remain open until TUGCo complotes their

l review of this matter and any corrective action which is necessary. "

b. (Closed) Violation (445/8434-V-02): Failure to report alleged

falsified records per 10 CFR 50.55(e). The NRC inspector found that

TUGCo had conducted an investigation of this matter to validate the

signatures of QC inspectors and found no other similar occurrences.

This problem arose when two inspectors (one B&R and one Ebasco

employee who works for TUGCo) participated in an inspection, one

inspector lef t before the inspection was completed and the other

inspector signed for him. The signature and notes added to the

traveler by the second inspector were misleading and he received a

written reprimand. The inspection was a valid inspection of anchor

-4-

bolts used to secure a. stairway in the Unit 1 Safeguards Building.

Training was conducted to emphasize correct documentation and

preclude repetition.

3. General Plant Inspections (Unit 2)

! At'various times during the inspection period, the NRC inspectors

conducted general tours of the reactor building and safeguards building.

During the tours, the NRC inspector observed housekeeping practices,

preventive maintenance on installed equipment, ongoing construction work,

and discussed various subjects with personnel engaged in work activities.

No violations or deviations were identified.

4. Reactor Building Containment Steel Liner and Penetration (Unit 2)

The NRC inspector reviewed the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR),

Sections 3.1.5 and 3.8 to identify the design and structural requirements.

Gibbs & Hill Inc., Specification 2323-55-14 implements FSAR requirements

and describes how the containment liner steel is anchored into the

structural concrete which must withstand the pressures and temperatures -

resulting from a spectrum of loss of coolant accidents and secondary

system ruptures. The welded leak-tight liner wall is 3/8 inch, while that

in the dome and foundation mat is 1/2 and 1/4 inches, respectively. A

review of the contents of the specification indicated that it was-in

compliance with the requirements of the American Society of Mechanical

Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III for design

and ACI-359 for fabrication and construction. The specification also

referenced NRC Regulatory Guide No.1.19, American National, Standards

Institute (ANSI) N45.2.9, Revision 0, and N45.2.11, Revision 2. Chicago

Bridge & Iron (CB&I) Contract 74-2428 and associated file folders-

(Nos. 4.1.2, 4.1.5, 4.1.5.2, 5.2, 5.5, 6.1, 7.2.1, 7.3, 7.4, 7.6.3,_7.7.1,

7.7.2, 7.7.3, 7.10, 8.9, 8.10, 8.13, and 8.19) were. reviewed to determine

whether work installation for liner plate and mechanical penetrations MV-1: *

and 2 were accomplished as required. The liner plates were receipt. '

inspected, stored, installed, nondestructively' tested, and inspected by

qualified inspectors using appropriate test equipment; ~

The required manufacturing and construction records included chemical'and

. physical test certifications by offsite vendors,-and onsite welder-

qualifications, weld metal tests, and installation records which were

appropriately verified by contractur QC personnel. However, all NDE

,

' records were not located onsite. Ultrasonic testing Procedures UTP-1813

4

and UTP-25B were not onsite and notes in the CB&I QA manual indicated that

these two sections of procedures were not received from CB&I. This item

is open pending the receipt of the records (446/8601-0-01).

Four identical structural steel supports inside containment that are part

of the Safety Injection Support (SIS) system structure were visually

inspected. The SIS plate (1.5 inches X 80 inches X 34 inches) located at

, _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ , _ _ _ _

,

-5- 4

elevation 816 feet 10 inches, N. Centerline 13 feet 10.5' inches in

Room 27, was visually inspected to determine acceptable installation.

'

-

,_ . . . .. .

No violations or deviations were identified. -

- 1 ~" '

, ,; . ,

.~ .

.'

5. Safety-Related Pipe Supports / Restraints (Units 1 and 2) _ -

>,

_

The NRC inspector reviewed audits of the installation of pipe'-supports and

restraints. TUGCo audits TCP-85-14, TCP-85-115, TCP-85-79, TCP-85-51 and

TCP-85-39 were performed in accordance with Procedures"DQP-AG-2, DQP-A6-4,

and DQP-QA-15.

Audit report TCP-51 dated September 1982 contained a deficiency (No. 1)

concerning operational work travelers that were transmitted to the vault

without routing them through the site Document Review Group (DRG). B&R

letters dated January 3,1983, and February 4,1983, documented the

corrective action; however, the audit group did not verify that corrective

action was taken as stated prior to their close out. This item is open

pending the review of the travelers (446/8601-0-02).

.

No violations or deviations were identified.

6. Exit Interview

An exit interview was conducted February 6, 1986, with the applicant's

representatives identified in paragraph 1 of Appendix E of this report.

During this interview, the NRC inspectors summarized the scope and

findings of the inspection. The applicant acknowledged the findings.

.

!

- - - - - _ _ -

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