ML20135E034

Errata to Insp Repts 50-445/96-12 & 50-446/96-12.Page Inadvertently Omitted

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: ML20135D869 ML20135E034
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

PDR

ADOCK 05000445

i

G

PDR

L