ML20246L527
| ML20246L527 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 07/10/1989 |
| From: | Warnick R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | William Cahill TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20246L530 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8907180459 | |
| Download: ML20246L527 (9) | |
See also: IR 05000445/1989030
Text
-
_ _ _ _ _
S
4..
.c
JUL 101989
In Reply Refer To:
Dockets:
50-445/89-30
50-446/89-30
Mr. W. J. Cahill, Jr.
Executive Vice President
TU Electric
400 North Olive Street, Lock Box 81
1
Dallas, Texas
75201
Dear Mr. Cahill:
This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. H. Livermore and
other members of the Augmented Inspection Team during the period
May 15 through June 16, 1989, concerning the check valve failures
which allowed backflow through the auxiliary feedwater system during
hot functional testing of Unit 1 at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric
Station.
The team's findings as described in this report were
presented to you and other members of your staff at the conclusion
of the inspection.
The enclosed copy of our AIT inspection report identifies areas
examined during the inspection.
Within these areas, the inspection
consisted of selective examination of procedures and representative
records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the
inspectors.
As a result of this inspection, the AIT has identified a number of
weaknesses in your procedures for evaluating and correcting
equipment failures and malfunctions, and weaknesses in your
organizational communications.
Further, while your subsequent
assessment of the check valve failures has been comprehensive, the
AIT has identified a number of recommendations which should be
'
addressed in your corrective action efforts.
Accordingly, we
request that you submit a report summarizing the lessons learned
from these events and the corrective actions you plan to take,
concurrently addressing the weaknesses and recommendations
identified by the AIT.
This report should also distinguish between
those actions which need to be completed before the plant is ready
to load fuel and the longer-term programmatic enhancements.
Please
notify us, within two weeks following your receipt of this letter,
of your schedule for the submittal of such a report.
IP:CPPD:NR
IP:CPPD:NRR
CPPD
IP:CPPD:N
CPPD:NRR
HLivermore
SBitter%
EFields
RLatta [4
MMalloy
I
7/ 3/89
7/go/89
7/ A9/89
7/ /v/89
7/Jo/89
pF..,<4i<m ~3/sel?
CPPD:NRR
IP:CPPD:NRR
IP:CPPD:NRR g/ P fPPD:NRR AD:IP:CPPD:NRR
JRajan
WRichinsU Q MRunyan W WPStanish
RWarnick RFW
7/10/89
7//o /89
7 /10 / 8 9
7/10 /89
7//0/89
0
8907190459 890710
ADOCK 05000445
i .I
O
FDC
_
m.
,
,
,gv W
.. ;
o
.
W.lJ.'Cahill,'Jr.-
- 2
JtJL 101989
In accordance with 10 CPR'2.790'of-the Commission's regulations, a
~
copy of this-letter and the enclosed * inspection report will be
placed:in the NRC Public' Document Room.
Should you.have any further questions concerning this inspection, we
will.be. pleased.to discuss them with you.
,
TSincerely,
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY R. F. ?!ARNTCit
R. F. Warnick, Assit: ant Director
for: Inspection Programs.
Comanche Peak Project Division
Office of' Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Inspection Report 50-445/89-30; 50-446/89-30
,
cc w/ enclosure:
See next.page
,.
'
l
_ -____---__-_____-_____ _ _ _ _ _
_- _ _ - - -
py
-
-
-;
=-
-
,
,
-
.
n. 4 -
- p
,
'
.,
![ ;
's
t
2
L. :- _ ,
,
j.w;
'9
,
.
J'
!'
'
L
50-445/89-30;[50-446/89-30
'
.t
' DISTRIBUTION:
..
Aachet?FikesM 50-4457~44dMi"
NRC' PDR""'"#"*"W~;~
LPDR-
CPPD-LA'
CPPD Reading!(HQ).
-ADSP Reading'
- Site Reading' File
- R.~Warnick'
- J.'Wiebe
- H,
Livermore
- MIS System, RIV-
- RSTS-Operator,'RIV
RPB,-RIV:
RIV DocketJFile
- L.-'Shea,. ARM /LFMB,
- J. Taylor
C. Grimes..
P. McKee
J.'Lyons
J. H. Wilson.
M. Malloy-
J.. Moore, OGC-WF
M.. Fields:
J. Gilliland, RIV
.D.
Crutchfield
E. Jordan-
B..: Grimes.
.B.{ Hayes
=C. Haughney,
R.- Martin,.RIV
J. Milhoan, RIV-
s'
'E.IFields, NRR
J. Rajan
M..Reardon, NRR
O.
- w/766
..
.
___-a?
eA. . _ _ . _
..am-m____a__m__.m
.__-__
___-_.1-._.__m.__m_m._m-
_
__.___.__._2
_m_i
_.-..
___mm.m.a
--
_a
um_m.__-_.m---
._uma.____.____u-.mm________-
_ _ - _ _ . _ _ _
2a_.____
<,
. n>" **n
n{o
.
[y-
UNITED $ TATE $
g
g,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
L
E
WASHING TON, D. C. 20666
%
% . . . . .
JUL I O 1989
In Reply Refer To:
Dockets:
50-445/89-30
50-446/89-30
Mr. W. J. Cahill, Jr.
Executive Vice President
TU Electric
400 North Olive Street, Lock Box 81
Dallas, Texas
75201
Dear Mr. Cahill:
This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. H. Livermore and
other members of the Augmented Inspection Team during the period
May 15 through June 16, 1989, concerning the check valve failures
which allowed backflow through the auxiliary feedwater system during
hot functional testing of Unit 1 at-the Comanche Peak Steam Electric
Station.
The team's findings as described in this report were
presented to you and other members of your staff at the conclusion
of the inspection.
The enclosed copy of our AIT inspection report identifies areas
examined during the inspection.
Within these areas, the inspection
consisted of selective examination of procedurer and representative
records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the
inspectors.
As a result of this inspection, the AIT has identified a number of
weaknesses in your procedures for evaluating and correcting
equipment failures and malfunctions, and weaknesses in your
organizational communications.
Further, while your subsequent
assessment of the check valve failures has been comprehensive, the
AIT has identified a number of recommendations which should be
addressed in your corrective action efforts.
Accordingly, we.
request that ycu submit a report summarizing the lessons learned
from these events and the corrective actions you plan to take,
concurrently addressing the weaknesses and recommendations
identified by the AIT.
This report should also distinguish between
those actions which need to be completed before the plant is ready
to load fuel and the longer-term programmatic enhancements.
Please
notify us, within two weeks following your receipt of this'1etter,
of your schedule for the submittal of such a report.
!
I
I
l
I
,
-
-
.
- _ _ .
_ _ - _ -
-a e
, ,
.. .
W. J. Cahill,..Jr.
2
JUL I 01989
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a
copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be
placed in the NRC Public' Document Room.
Should you have any further questions concerning this' inspection, we
will.be pleased to discuss them with you.
Sincerely,
R FIDd
R. F. Warnick, Assistant Director
for Inspection Programs
Comanche Peak Project Division
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
.
Enclosure:
L
Inspection Report 50-445/89-30; 50-446/89-30
cc w/ enclosure:
See next page.
.
I
!
)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
__
_
_
_ - - _ _ _ - _ _
i
,g,
- *a-
.-
W. J. Cchill
.
cc.w/ enclosure:
)
l
Roger D. Walker
TU Electric
'
l-
Manager, Nuclear Licensing
c/o Bethesda Licensing
TU Electric
3 Metro Center, Suite 610
Skyway Tower
Bethesda, Maryland
20814
400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81
Dallas, TX 75201
E. F. Ottney
P. O. Box ~1777
Juanita Ellis
Glen Rose, Texas
76043
President - CASE
1426 South Polk Street
Joseph F. Fulbright
Dallas, TX 75224
Full,right & Jaworski
1301 McKinney Street
~ Susan M. Theisen
Houston, Texas
77010
' Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Protection Division
George.A. Parker, Chairman
P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station
Public Utility Committee
Austin, TX 78711-1548
Senior Citizens' Alliance of
Tarrant County, Inc.
GDS Associates, Inc.
6048 Wonder Drive
1850 Parkway Place', Suite 720
Fort. Worth, Texas
76133
Marietta, GA 30067-8237
Jack R. Newman, Esq.
Lanny A. Sinkin
Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.
Christic Institute
Suite 1000
1324 N. Capitol Street
1615 L. Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20002
Washington, D.C.
20036
Ms.- Billie Pirner Garde, Esq.
Garde Law Office
104 East Wisconsin Avenue
Appleton, WI
54911
Regional Administrator, Region IV
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000
Arlington, Texas
76011
William A. Burchette, Esq.
Counsel for Tex-La Electric
Cooperative of Texas
Heron, Burchette, Ruckert & Rothwell
1025 Thomas Jefferson St. , NW
Washington, DC 20007
,
_
__ _
':
t.
,7
.
,-
,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
1.0
General Background Information
1.1
Description of Events
1.2
Augmented Inspection Team (AIT) Tasks
2.0
AIT Inspection
.
2.1
April 23, 1989, Event Description (PIR-89-110)
2.1.1
Conditions Preceding Event
2.1.2
Event Chronology
2.2
May 5, 1989, Event Description (PIR-89-129)
2.2.1
Conditions Preceding Event
2.2.2
Event Chronology
2.3
Precursor Events
2.3.1
Historical Failure of Valves 1MS-142 and 1MS-143
2.3.2
Check Valve Failures of April 5, 1989
2.3.3
Failure of Valve 1AF-069
2.4
Equipment Performance and Analysis
2.4.1
2.4.1.1
Component Description
2.4.1.2
Equipment History
2.4.1.3
Check Valve Investigative Action
2.4.1.4
Root Cause
2.4.1.5
Corrective Action
2.4.1.5.1
Review of Retainer Ring
Calculations
2.4.1.5.2
Corrective Action Plan
2.4.1.5.3
Post Modification Testing
2.4.2
Feedwater Isolation Bypass Valves
l-
2.4.2.1
Valve Description and Design Function.
2.4.2.2
Plant Backleakage Simulation and Valve
Leak Tests 2.4.2.3
Applicant Intent and Corrective Action
l
E -
_
- - - - - - -
- . - - -
__
- _ - - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
[].
Y. ,1
-
'
.
k'
.ii
>
,
2.4.3 Analysis of. Auxiliary Feedwater Piping, Hangers,
and Penetrations
'
2.4.3.1
Evaluation of Event.Effect on Piping
,
2.4.3.2- Evaluation of Event Effect'on Pipe
'
.
Supports / Restraints
'
.2.4.3.3
. Evaluation of AFW Event' Effect on
'
n
2.5
Personnel Action / Human Factors
2.5.1
Operator Actions
2.5.2 -Management Involvement / Oversight
2.5.3
Procedural / Human Factors Deficiencies
- 2. 6
Quality Assurance Considerations
27
. Applicant Evaluation
2.7.1
Evaluation of Applicant's Timeliness and!
Accuracy in. Reporting the AFW Incidents to the
.NRC
2.7.2
Evaluation-of the Implications on Other Equipment
in Other-Safety Systems at Comanche Peak
2.7.3
Applicant Action on EPRI' Guidelines and INPO
Significant Operating Experience. Report
2.7.4
Applicant Action on Other Site Failures a'nd
Generic Communications
2.8
Safety Significance of the Identified Check' Valve
Failures
2.9
Potential for Recurrence
2 10
Radiological Consequences
3.0
Findings of Fact
4.0'
Conclusions and Recommendations
4.1
Conclusions
4.2
Recommendations
5.0
Persons Contacted
6.0
Figures
6.1
Figure 1, Flow Path for the April 23, 1989 Event
6.2
Figure 2, Flow Path for the May 5, 1989 Event, Part 1
6.3
Figure 3, Flow Path for the May 5, 1989 Event, Part 2
<
- _ _ _ _ _
__- _ __ _ ___ _ ---_ _ -____ - _ _-_____ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ - - _ __ _
- - _ _
-
_ _ _ _ .
- ,
,;
...
111
6.4
Figure 4, Typical Borg-Warner Check Valve Assembly
6.5
Figure 5, CAD Model of Valve 1AF-106 As Found
6.6
Figure 6, Matrix of Unit 1 Borg-Warner Check Valve (As
Found Conditions)
7.0 . Table of. Acronyms
i
_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _