ML20135E034
| ML20135E034 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 12/04/1996 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20135D872 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-445-96-12, 50-446-96-12, NUDOCS 9612100309 | |
| Download: ML20135E034 (1) | |
See also: IR 05000445/1996012
Text
.
e
-11-
trained on the apparatus. The inspector also found that the system engineer had
been present during only two of the five relief valve tests performed on-site. The
inspector was concerned that corrective actions recommended in ONE
Form 96-0306 had not been implemented and that the test data could be
inconsistent. Licensee management stated that mechanics very carefully and
slowly raised the test stand pressure to relieve entrapped air and did not cycle the
'
valve. However, the inspector found that the procedure step which directed the
mechanics to " cycle the valve as necessary to remove entrapped air," was not
sufficiently detailed to ensure mechanics performed the step as described. The
inspector reviewed the Unit 1 sefueling outage work packages which documented
the licensee's testing of five relief valves and noted that all four of the relief valves
that passed their as-found lift setpoint tests were cycled to rerr.ove entrapped air.
The inspector found that the procedure was not in compliance with Code
requirements and was therefore inadequate. This was a violation of Technical Specification 4.0.5 (VIO 50-445/9612-03).
During the review of completed work packages, the inspector noted that mechanics
had identified that the setpoint pressure specified for Component Cooling Water
Relief Valve 1CC-0618 was incorrectly specified at 150 psig rather than 165 psig.
The problem was corrected prior to testing. In the case of Valve 1CC-0618,the
.
inspector found that, while the master equipment list specified the proper setpoint,
it did not reference Design Change Authorization 83254/2. This change raised the
set pressure to 165 psig. The planner concluded that, since the master equipment
list did not icterence a design change, the code data report contained the correct
value and specified a setpoint of 150 psig in the work package. The inspector
reviewed the master equipment list for other relief valves affected by the design
change and found that all setpoints had been changed to the new value. When
questioned, the planners stated that they could not rely on the master equipment
list because of problems they had experienced in the past. The inspector found that
the lack of confidence in the master equipment list was a potential program
weakness. The inspectors planned on reviewing the licensee's control of setpo;nts
in the master equipment list as an inspection followup item (IFl 50-445(446)/9612-
04).
The inspector also found that four of the relief valve work packages listed the
setpoint pressure tolerance as a percentage of the setpoint rather than in psig as the
procedure step required. This required the mechanics to calculate the actual
setraoint tolerance in the field and the inspector concluded that this practice was an
unnecessary burden to mechanics.
l
(
c.
Conclusions
1
The licensee's relief valve testing procedure did not meet the ASME Code
1
requirements for relief valve testing. The master equipment list did not provide
planners with the necessary information to verify the setpoint data for relief valves
modified by a design change authorization and, as a result, one work package
9612100309 961204
I
ADOCK 05000445
i
G
L