ML19344F301
| ML19344F301 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 06/29/1978 |
| From: | Crossman W, Renee Taylor NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19344F268 | List:
|
| References | |
| 50-445-78-11, 50-466-78-11, NUDOCS 8009150105 | |
| Download: ML19344F301 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000445/1978011
Text
r
O
.
..
9
p
n
~
'
'
U. S. ilUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO!!
'
0FFICE OF IfiSPECT10ft Afl0 EtiFORCEMEtiT
REGI0ti IV
.
Report 11o. 50-445/78-11; 50-446/78-11
Docket lio. 50-445; 50-446
Category A2
-
Licensee: Texas Utilities Generating Company
2001 Bryan Tower
Dallas, Texas
75201
-
Facility flame:
Comanche Peak, Units 1 & 2
Inspection at:
Comanche . Peak Steam Electric Station, Glen Rose, Texas
Inspection conducted: June 20-23, 1978
A
/[27!lf
Inspector:
// . dt/
/
.
R. G. Taylor Reactor inspector, Projects Section
Date/
-
Approved:
(/ M
e--
-
9!78
W. A.' Crossman, Chief, Projects Section
Date
Inspection Summa.y:
Inspection on June 20-23, 1978 (Report tio. 50-445/78-11: 50-446/78-11)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection related to review of licensee
actions on previously identified inspection findings and potential construction
deficiency reports. The inspection involved twenty-nine inspector-hours by one
t1RC inspector.
Results: Ora item of noncompliaace was identified (infraction - failure to
follow piping installation, procedures - paragraph 3).
i
,
8009150 gg
m
.
..
n
,
__
'
' . . .
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
Principal Licensee Emoloyees
'
- J. B. George, TUSI, Preject General Manager
R. G. Tolson, TUGC, Site QA Supervisor
- R. V. Fleck, TUGC0/G&H, Civil QC Inspection Supervisor
'
- D. E. Deviney, TUGCO, QA Technician
J. V. Hawkins, TUGC0/G&H, QA Product Assurance Supervisor
Other Personnel
t
-
- U. D. Douglas, B&R, Project Manager
J. P. Clark, B&R, QC Site Supervisor
P. Van Teslear, Westinghouse, Site Representative
The IE inspector interviewed other contractor employees during the
course of the inspection.
- denotes those attending the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Insoection Findings
ceca
pummuur
a.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-445/78-04; 50-446/78-04):
Procedures
for Storage and Maintenance of Equipment. - The IE inspector re-
viewed the below listed procedures and found that the confusing
and conflicting requirerents had been resolved so as to provide a
clear, cohesive set of instructions.
1)
35-1195-ACP-3, " Material Receiving, Storage and Handling,"
Revision 6, dated May 6,1978.
(2) ~35-1195-MCP-10, " Storage and Storage Maintenance of Mechani' cal
and Electrical Equipment," as revised by Interim Change Notice
4, dated April 12, 1978.
(3)
35-1195-CP-CPM 10.4, " Cleanliness Control," dated April 18',
'
1978, which supersedes 35-1195-SCP-2 of the samt ti tl e.
(4)
35-1195-PCI-001, " Pipe Department Cleanliness Control Guide-
lines," dated April 25,1978. (See paragraph 3 of this report
for further information relative to this procedure)
b.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-445/78-05):
Potential Construction
Deficiency Regarding Possible DamaSe to the Unit 1 Pressurizer.
The licensee determined that the pressurizer had not been damaged
i
t,.
N
-2-
l
..
.
.. -
.
__ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _
--
)
'
,
-
.
. .
..
n
n
,
.e
by the derailment of the transporting railroad car as reported
in earlier inspection report (50-445/78-05).
This determination
f
was based upon extensive visual examination of the vessel as it
was received.
The shipping skid and pressurizer were reported
,
by the licensee personnel as showing no evidence of movement or
distress during the incident.
Subsequent visual examination of
the vessel after o#f-loading and electrical tests of the heater
elements also indicated no significant damage had occurred. The
IE inspector visually examined the vessel and reviewed the report
i
-
of the electrical tests and had no further questions.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-445/78-07; 50-446/78-07):
Storage
I
c.
of Electrical Components.
Procedure 35-1195-MEI-10-511, " Storage
.
and Maintenance Requirements of Diesel Engine," has been modified
by revision 2, dated April 20, 1978, to include requirements for
plugging and/or capping all openings.
The IE inspector examined
one of the two~ diesels presently on site and found all openings
plugged or capped as appropriate.
The IE inspector also reviewed
procedure 35-1195-MEI-10-514, revision 1.
The revision changed
the reference basis from attachment 205K to 205L of the Westing-
house Nuclear Service Division (WNS0), Vol 1 storage recommendations.
Attachment 205L requires essentially the same storage and maintenance
--
requirements as 205K but does not require measurement and recording
of stator winding and ambient air temperatures.
The IE inspector
....
interviewed the Westinghouse site representative who indicated the
~~
,
somewhat more severe storage requirements were f or plants where
significant (up to several years) of construction delay had
occurred rather than a normal storage period such as at CPSES. The
IE inspector also interviewed the craft personnel charged with doing
the storage maintenance work and was assured that he always checks
space heater power input and verifies by hand feel that the motor
is above ambient temperature.
The IE inspector had no further
questions on this matter.
d.
(Closed) Unresolved 'cea (50-445/78-05, 50-446/78-09):
Potential
-
Reactivity of Concr: te Fine Aggregate
Information relative to
this item is contained in. paragraph 4 of this report.
3.
Site Tour
'
The IE inspector walked through various areas of the site to observe
construction activities in progress and to inspect housekeeping and
equipment storage.
Of particular interest was the lay-down area for the upper two contain-
ment dome sections where piping and supports for the containment spray
system were being installed on the prefabricated dome sections.
The
'E inspector observed that the two spray ring headers were completely
.
V
-3-
. . - - -
-
_
.
-
.
e
n
,
s
,
~"
installed except for a final closure " pup".about twelve inches long
in each header.
The open ends of the installed pipe spools at the
" pups" were noted to be capped and taped with silver colored tape
in two cases while the other two were only capped.
During a subsequent review of procedure 35-1195-CP-CPM 10.4, "Clecc-
liness Control," the IE inspector noted a general requirement regard-
ing cleanliness control relative to installed piping and inquired as
-
to the existence of a procedure containing the specific requirerents.
'
The Brown and Root QC Supervisor produced a procedure, 35-1195-?CI-001,
'
" Pipe Department Cleanliness Control Guidelines," dated April 25, 1978.
This procedure requires that the unwelded, open end of pipe spools
installed and welded in at the other end be examined by a pipe fitter
"
foreman af ter completion of welding.
If satisfactory, the open end is
to be capped and taped with red tape and tagged per the parent pro-
cedure.
The IE inspector verified his original observation relative to the
'
containment spray header installation and inquired as to why the.
procedure was not being followed.
The B&R QC Supervisor ascertained
that neither the pipe fitters nor the QC inspectors who work on the
spray piping were aware of the existence of procedure 35-1195-PCI-001.
This situation is considered to be in noncompliance with Appendix B
and is further considered to have generic implications relative to
the Brown & Root QA program. Specifically, the Brown & Root con-
"
struction procedures allow for the generation of detailed procedures
to fulfill the more generalized requirements of higher level pro-
cedures.
The detailed procedures reference the higher level pro-
cedures but not vise versa, nor is there any commonality in the
numbering system. As an example 35-1195-PCI-001 references 35-1195-
CP-CPM 10.4 and WES-22 and provides detailed instructions required
by general statements of the latter documents. A given craft labor
employee or QC inspector has no mechanism of determining what or how
many detailed procedures may be in existence to govern his activities.
4.
Potentially Reactive Fine Aggregate
The licensee has continued the investigation of problems with recently
detected fine aggregate containing potentially reactive arounts of
silica.31 The licensee utilized the services of Erlin, Hime Associates
__i/ Inspection Report 50-445/ 78-09;5C-446/ 78-09
'
.
i
P
_4_
.
O
.-.
-
_
-
-.
-
_ . - _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _
e
..
..
- ,;
i.* :.
g
q
'
'
.
.
.
+
rp
of fiorthbrook, Illinois- to investigate the matter. Erlin, Hime
-
~ Associates' report,' dated June 6,1978, contains , in summary, the
following conclusions:
'
a.'
The fine ~ aggregate used on the project has always contained
moderately deleterious amounts of silica.
b.
The entire series of ASTM C289, " Potential Reactivity 'of
Aggregates," tests performed by R. W. Hunt Company, both off-
-
,
sits and on-site, 'and recent tests by Southwestern Laboratories
Hunt testsp/roneous results. With the exception of recent R. W.- , all te
provided e
.
1
-it undoubtedly was.not. The report indicates that the test is
-
very technique sensitive without any' recognized. standardization
method being available.
.
- The' fine aggregate is acceptable for use, provided a cement
c.
with a . nominal .5% alkali content is used and recommends that .
a low alkali cement in accordance with ASTM C150 be used. ASTM
' C150 specifies a maximum of .6% alkali content when low alkali
cement is specified.
While the project specification has not until recently specified a
low alkali . cement, it appears that the ceT.ent supplier, Gifford-Hill
-
. . . _ . . .
Portland Cement Company, has consistently supplied such cement as
~ " "
part of its normal manufacturing process.
Test data made available
-
to the_ IE inspector indicated the following: '
,
a.
1976 Average alkali .44% maximum .50%
b.
1977 Average alkali .44% maximum .53%
c.
1978 Average alkali .49% maximum .54%
The IE inspector noted that the Erlin, Hime Associates' recommendations
~
and.the materials furnished by Gifford-Hill are consistent with para-
graph 5.3 of ASTM C33,'" Concrete Aggregates," which requires that a
'
cement with a maximum of. 6% alkalies be used when the fine aggregate
.contains dele.teriously reactive substances.
The licensee's engineer has revised project specification SS-9, " Concrete,"
effective on June 1,1978, to require that all future cement delivered
for project use have an alkali content of .6% or less.
The IE inspector had no. further questions regarding this matter.
I
t
Z/ Inspection- Report 50-445/78-09;.50-446/78-09
-
.
.
-5-
- - -
.
_
,
.
. - .
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
-
,g --
.
-
-
r
-
=-r.
- m
_
.
5
,q x -
-
-
.
'
p~
. &
v ~.
3
.c. s 4
- ,
>
. _ , -
.
- .
.
,w
-
,
.
- .-
u- t_.a. . ;.. .
.
_
.
-
- ' 5
'
X
Exit Interview'-
.
-
. .
..
_
-
The:IExinspector met with: licensee ~ representatives (denoted in para-
,
.
-
,,
graph 1)-lat: the conclusion of the inspection on June.:23,1978.
The-
-
zIEjinspector. summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
.
- f.
<
i
The licensee representatives. indicated understanding both the specific
-
~
,
.
item cf noncompliance and its generic implications.
.
e
,
, i
I
i
.1
1
.
..
-
,
i
e
e
...
e'.712.,
1
'
.
t
[
.
4
e
'.
.
l .
.
~
t
.
-4
Os
I ..
'q::
. . . . .
.
N'
!'
-6 -
E
I
- b
- '
.
,
A 4 m ,,
'
.
.
.
5
4
5
-
,
,
.
'
.
p
9
.,_.,3
- . ,
=
1Y
^1w.e=--W
f'***~
d***
- '
'1*
"#
""'
'"'"#~
' ' ' '
'
'
7
,,
,
ff., g
- . -
( &//W/
D/c*g
ug e
."
.
,,
- * , [ p .,*c
UNI TED S TATES
,
,
q
(
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- * *
o
. .)
$
R E GION IV
3
,
8
611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE.SUtTE 1000
ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76011
' %;.7
d
- ..'
February 27, 1979
In Reply Refer To:
RIV
Docket flo. %N/Rpt. 79-04
50-446/Rpt. 79-04
.
Texas Utilities Generating Company
ATTil:
Mr. R. J. Gary, Executive Vice
President and General Manager
2001 Bryan Tower
Dallas, Texas
7S201
Gentlemen:
members of our staff during the period FebruaryThis refers
ties authorized by flRC Construction Permit flos. CPPR-126 and 127 for
5-8, 1979, of activi-
our findings with Mr. R. G. Tolson and other members
C
the conclusion of the inspection.
,
,
Areas examined during the inspection and our findings are discussed in
the enclosed inspection report.
sisted of selective examination of procedures and representative
interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspectors
,
.
During the inspection, it was found that certain activities under your
license appear to be in noncompliance with Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 of
the ilRC Regula'tions, " Quality Assurance Criteria for fluclear Power
Pl an ts . "
requirements are identified in the enclosed flotice of Violation
7
This notice is sent to you pursuant to the provisions of Section 2 201
of the llRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, cme of Federal
.
Regulations.
Section 2.201 requires you to submit to this office, with-
in 30 days of your receipt of this notice, a written statement or expla-
nation in reply including:
you, and the results achieved; (2) corrective steps which will be
to avoid further noncompliance; and (3) the date when full compliance
will be achieved.
~
.
.
Lf
790411o;;g
.
.
-
'G
_
_
_ _ - _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
'
y
,
_
A
~
-
- ; - . -...
.
r.
-
.
.
. .
..
-
,-
,
.
'" (
jexas" Utilities Generating
.
,
Company-
-2-
February 27, 1979
.
.
, During _ the inspection, 'it was found that certain of your activities
= appeared to deviate from commitments in the FSAR.
This item and ref-
.
crences to the specific comitments are identified in'the enclosed
Notice of Deviation.
In your reply, please include your comments
-
concerning' this item, a description of any steps that have been or will
.
be taken to correct it, a description of any steps that have been or
will be taken'to prevent recurrence, and the date all corrective
.
actions or preventive measures were or will be completed.
~
One new unresolved item is identified in paragraph 6 of the enclosed
report..
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part
2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the
enclosed inspection repor_t will be placed in the NRC's Public Document
Room.
If the report contains any information that you believe to be
proprietary, it is necessary that you submit a written application to
this office, within 20 days of the date of this letter, requesting that
such information~be withheld.from public disclosure.
The application
must include a full statement of the reasons why it is claimed that the
information is proprietary.
The application should be prepared so that
any proprietary information identified is cqntained in an enclosure to
,
the application, since the application without the enclosure will also
be placed in the Public Document Room.
If we do not hear from you in
this regard within the specified period, the report will be placed in
the Public Document Room.
Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be
. pleased to discuss them with you.
.
Sincerely,
..
c'
o
.
.
W.C.Seid)e, Chief
Reactor (phstruction and
Engineering Support Branch
-
,
-
Enclosures:
1.
Appendix A, Notice of Violation
2.
Appendix B, Notice of Deviation
3.
IE Inspection Report No. 50-445/79-04
.
50-446/79-04
,
,
_ / enclosures
w
cc:
. Texas Utilities Generating Company
' '
i ATTN: Mr. H. C. Schmidt, Project Manager
-2001 -Bryan Tower
Dallas,' Texas
-75201-
.
"
I
l'
I
1-
m
.-
_ _ . ____ _,_ _ _.
..u
fW.'-
..
,
-
--
--
ga ; . :.
..
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.-
Ey
'50-445/79-04
'
'
te., v' 7-7 Y/77
.
,
'
. . . .
~
s{
S0-446/79-04
-
/
u
-
Appendix A
7
7
.
- . .
p.
~ ~ ~ -
- -
Based on the results of 'the NRC inspection conducted on February 5-8,
1979,-it appears that certain of your activities were not conducted in
full- compliance with the conditions of your NRC Construction Permit No.
.
,
CPPR-126 as indicated below:
..
Failure. to Follow Equipment Maintenance Instructions
.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, T -iterion V requires that activities
.affecting quality shall be accomplished in accordance with the
.
- prescribed . instructions, procedures or drawings.
i
'
Brown & Root Storage and Maintenance Requirement No. 35-1195-MEI-
10-783 requires that the shaft on Fan CPX-VAFNAV-37 be rotated
. sufficiently to Llubricate the bearings every thirty days.
. Brown & Root Storage and Maintenance Requirement No. 35-1195-MEI-
10-473 establishes requirements for the storage and r..aintenance
,
.
of the Positive-Displacement = Charging Pump TCX-CSAPPD-01. This
l
procedure specifically requires that " unpainted carbon steel
surfaces shall be maintained with preservative for duration of
- .
s
i
storage.">
.
-
'
L
Contrary to the above:
1.
On February 7,1979, the maintenance records for Ventilation
Fan CPX-VAFNAV-37 indicated that the shaft had only been
.
!
rotated twice (on September 1.2, 1978, and November 13,1978)
!
during the five month period 'from September 12, 1978, through
'
February 7,1979.
,
..
=2.
On February 8,1979, the underside of the Positive Displacement
Charging Pump TCX-CSAPPD-01 was observed to be oxidized due to
lack of preservative.
.
_This is an infraction.
.
(.
.
.
.
O
-
-
- .
!?'
nv
r
~
(bt'!
)
-
C
790411DA7f
,
.
9
, , _ - . - . -
L9
.
. .
,-
.
~.
a1
--
'~
50-44S/79-04
"
-
J Lj
'. ,( '
O
.50-446/79-04
3
- j.
-
- i
'
'-
-
-j
Appendix B
NOTICE OF DEVIATION'.
-
_
- aJ
Based on the results of the NRC inspection conducted on February
1979, it. appears that certain of your activities deviate from commit-
.
,
ments made in'your Final -Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) as indicated
7
,
below:
4
$
l
'
Failure to Achieve Adequate! Separation-Between Redundant S
$
Related Wiring-
d'
FSAR, Section 8.3.1.4.10 states, " Separation of redundant devices
and components is-accomplished by mounting them on phys
arated control boards.
Where this mounting is not feasible from a
-
l
plant' operational point of view,- ..., separation is achieved
~ !!
.six inch minimum airspace or by 'a fire retardant barrier " This
15
2323-MS-605, Revision 1, paragraph 3.6.7.2
~
..
I Jj
Boards.
I
esl
Contrary to the above:
Boards where Jhe__.sep_aratipn between redund
b,
r-
_
a n Control
less than sitinches. (two-inches 'in,some cases) iring is significantly
~
This finding-bas been reviewed with and confirmed by the li
'
without barriers.
representatives.
This is a deviation.
.
'
/
l
l
-
.
I
,
?904.11c,pcgz
.
^
.
,-
- - - .
-
-.-
,
. _ - - - _ - - _ - - _ -
-
-
3
c
-
!.'
f
m
'
,
.
t
0FFICE OF IllSPECT10tl At:0
i ;j
3M
REGION IV
Report flo.
2
50-445/79-04; 50-446/79-04
U
Docket flo. 50-445; 50-446
Category A2
'
Licensee:
Texas Utilities Generating Company
2001 Br
'.
Dallas,yan Tower
>
75201
Facility flame:
,
,
\\
Cominche Peak, Units 1 & 2
-
Inspection at:
Comanche Peak Site, Glen Rose, Texas
Inspection conducted:
February 5-8, 1979
4
,f
Inspectors:
'
'
/
L. D. Gi bert', Reactor Inspector, EngineeriMS7[27
Support Section (Paragraph 3)
\\
ng
06te
'
0-a~
1
J. 1.
, pia, Reacto
t Section ( aragraphs 5 & 6) inspector, Engine
zavn
I
Suppt
.
Date
!,
i
id
_
k
i
L. E. Martins Reactor inspector, kngineerin2/27/7'9
- !
i
S,upport S$ction (Paragraphs 1, 2
!
g
Da te / '
, 4, 7 & 8)
i
Other
Accompanying
Personnel:
R. E. Hall, Chief, Engineering Support Se ti
(February 5 & 7, 1979, only)
c on
Reviewed:
M'8
- b
p)R.G. Taylor,ResidentInspector,ProjectsSec_ tion
<
Date
{
Approved:
@,.ffhIMN-
[1 W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Se
'
_
? /'
(
pupLICATE DOCUMENT
R. E. Hall, Chief,
.
Entire docum nt previously
entered into system under:
I
1
.
No. of pages:
9
_ _ _ , , _ _ - - ~ ~ ~ ^
'""
~
- -
~
~
_
- _ _ _
_ . -
-
.
'
g
. ._
.
.
m
n
.
,
. . . -
.
a
. . -
-
.::<
.{.
,
-)
V
- Inspection Summary:
3
1j
' j
-
. Inspection on February 5-8,1979 (_ Report flo. 50-445/79-04; 50-446/79-04)
,
Areas-Inspected:
Routine, unanntiinced inspection of- construction activi-
ties-including site tour; ~ review of procedures and records; and observation
-
e
of workein progress' for Reactor- C)olant Pressure Boundary Piping, Unit 1,
electrical ~ components and systems , and structural concrete. ' The~ inspection
'
involved 'eighty-seven inspector-hours by three f1RC inspectors.
Results:
3
- 0f.the'seven areas insp!cted, one' apparent item of noncompliance
'
was identified in one ' area (infraction - failure to follow approved proce-
.
dures-for raaintenance of equipmert in' storage - paragraph 5); one apparent
deviation in another. area (FSAR -- failure to. achieve adequate wiring sep-
.
y
aration - paragraph 2); and one unresolved item-(concrete mix-design
requirements
. paragraph 6).
.
e
e
.
.
%
e
t '.
5
4
f
,
9
.g
e
e
.
-2-
.
.
-
s
.
. ..-
u
. -
-
.
-
. -