IR 05000498/1988014

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Insp Repts 50-498/88-14 & 50-499/88-14 on 880216-19.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Startup Program,Preoperational Procedure Review & Surveillance Procedure Review
ML20196H732
Person / Time
Site: South Texas  STP Nuclear Operating Company icon.png
Issue date: 03/03/1988
From: Andrea Johnson, Mckernon T, Seidle W
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20196H730 List:
References
50-498-88-14, 50-499-88-14, NUDOCS 8803140043
Download: ML20196H732 (5)


Text

.. .

. 1

,

.. s .

l

l

' l APPENDIX U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY _ COMMISSION l

'

REGION IV

'

NRC Inspection Report: 50-498/88-14 Operating License: NPF-71 50-499/88-14 Construction Permit: CPPR-129 .

i Dockets: 50-498  ;

50-499  !

l Licensee: Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P) l P.O. Box 1700 t Houston, Texa3 77001  ;

Facility Name: South Texas Project (STP), Unit 1 and 2 Inspection At: STP, Matagorda County, Texas Inspection Conducted: February 16-19, 1988 Inspectors: -

// - 6/? 8 T. O. KcKernon, Reactor Inspector. Test Date l Programs Section, Division of Reactor Safety l

[

YbY 9/7/GT Date'

A

/~g A. R. Johnson, Reactor Inspector, PlantSystems Section, Division of Reac Accompanying Personnel: W. C. Seidle, Chief. Test Programs Section ,

Division of Reactor Safety, on February 18-19, '

1988 Approved: [_ A 3///tf W. C. Seidigd Chief, Test Programs Section Date Division of Reactor Safety Inspection Sumary Inspection Conducted February 16-19, 1988 (Report 50-498/88-14;50-499/88-14)

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of startup program, preoperational procedure review, and surveillance procedure revie !

!

Results: Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified. This inspection was concentrated upon the STP Unit 2 facility, no inspection of Unit I was conducted, l

8803140043 880308 I PDR ADOCK 05000499 Q DCD

-

.

.: . ,

-

,

g DETAILS Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Employees

  • J. T. Westormeier, Project Manager

! *D. C. King, Construction Manager, Unit 2

  • L. Parkey, Plant Superintendent, Unit 2
  • D. Phillips, Project Compliance Engineer '
  • J. A. Slabinski, Operations Quality Control
  • K. M. O'Gara, Project Compliance Engineer ,
  • J. E. Geiger, General Manager, Nuclear Assurance i
  • J. S. Phelps, Supervisor, Project Compliance i *W. G. We11 born, Supervising Engineer
  • J. R. Broadwater, Startup Manager
  • D. Parker, Startup Engineer
  • A. R. Mikus, General Supervisor, Construction
  • S. M. Head, Licensing Engineer P. Walker, Licensing Engineer M. Carnley, Instrumentation & Control Manager, Unit 1 EBASCO
  • . Abel, Quality Control Site Supervisor
  • Pardee, Quality Assurance Site Supervisor ,

j * D. White, Construction Manager  ;

"

Bechtel

  • R. H. Medina, Quality Assurance
*R. W. Miller, Project Quality Assurance Manager
  • R. P. bryan, Field Construction Manager i

NRC

  • C. Seidle, Chief, Test Programs Section
  • A. R. Johnson, Reactor Inspector I *J. P. Clausner, French Atomic Energy Commission f
  • L. Garrison, Resident Inspector
*

In addition to the above, the NRC inspectors also held discussions with '

i various licensee personnel during the inspectio ;

'

  • Denotes those individuals that attended the exit interview on February 19, ,

1988.

,

t

.

,

. . . . .

I

'

,

2. Preoperational Test Program, Unit 2

!

The purpose of this inspection activity was to review preoperational test

'

<

a procedures to determine whether the licensee has developed administrative

,

controls consistent with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B. These controls are

,

considered necessary to assure that startup testing is performed and evaluated in accordance with the licensee requirements and test results satisfy stated objectives. The procedures reviewed were examined for  ;

inclusion of the applicable operating limits, acceptance criteria, and l l conformance with the general guidance of ANSI N18.7.- The following l

preoperational procedures were reviewed:

Procedure 2-RS-P-03, "Reactor Trip Switchgear," Revision 0, dated November 23, 198 *

Procedure 2-RC-P-10, "Remote Shutdown," Revision 0, dated October 12, 198 *

.

Procedure 2-MS-P-02, "Main Steam Isolation Valves Logic Test,"

Revision 0, dated December 8, 198 '

  • '

Procedure 2-CM-P-01, "Containment Hydrogen Monitoring System,"

Revision 0, dated December 31, 198 !

A review of the above referenced documents and discussions with STP personnel resulted in the following observations and conclusions: l Procedure 2-RS-P-03, "Reactor Trip Switchgear," Revision 0 The objective of this procedure is to verify the operability of the reactor trip switches and safety injection actuation switches in the .

main control roo The procedure should verify the automatic trip i signal's ability to trip each breaker. It should also demonstrate that opening a reactor trip breaker, with its respective bypass l

breaker closed, does not cause a loss of voltage to the rod control !

power cabinet l 1 i The NRC inspectors found this test procedure to be adequat l Procedure 2-RC-P-10, "Remote Shutdown," Revision 0

,

!

l The objective of this procedure is to demonstrate the ability to J perform a cold shutdown from outside the control room. During the

'

,

review the NRC inspectors made the following observations: i

Action Statement 6.1.1.3 states, in part, ". . . pressurizer !

temperature not available at the Auxiliary Shutdown Panel so it

, will be monitored from the Control Room." The NRC inspectors

<

noted that the Technical Specifications limit the pressurizer j cooldown rate to 200 F/hr. The surveillance requirements

,

l

_ _ . - _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - - _ - - - _ - _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _

-

.

, . .

. 4

.

specify that pressurizer temperature be monitored minimally every 30 minute The NRC inspectors noted that the action statement did not caution the operators at the auxiliary shutdown panei of this requirement. It was further noted that indirect monit) ring of the pressurizer temperature at the ,

auxiliary shutdown panel is available from the plant process computer (QDPS).

Action Statement 7.1.7.4 requires the operator at the auxiliary shutdown panel to establish a boric acid flow rate of 30 gpm as measured locally on a flow mete The NRC inspectors noted that Technical Specification 3/4.1.1 states, in part, ". . . greater than or equal to 30 gpm." The omission of a quantitative flow tolerance in the procedure was discussed with the licensee. The NRC inspectors related to the licensee that the acceptance criteria stated in the Technical Specifications were established to preclude an inadvertent positive reactivity addition due to boric acid dilutio *

Action Statement 7.2.30 required the throttling of Conponent Cooling Water Valve 2CC0215 to control residual heat remova The NRC inspectors noted that the action statement did not contain a caution statement to alert the operator to the safety significance of closing the valve (i.e., possibility of water hammer). In addition, the action statement did not quantify the

"Throttle" statement to preclude the operator from throttling the valve fully closed.

,

According to the licensee, the NRC inspectors' observations will be reviewed and evaluated by the licensee's technical staff prior to scheduled preoperational testing of the above procedure The NRC inspectors found this test procedure to be adequat c. Procedure 2-MS-P-02, "Main Steam Isolation Valve Logic Test,"

Revision 0

>

The objectives of this procedure are to assure that each main steam isolation valve (MSIV) will close on a solid state protection system (SSPS) actuation signal and will close in <5 seconds and open in 5 minutes. Further, that the system's main steam bypass valves and the above seat drain valves will close on a SSPS actuation signal in 110 seconds and 15 seconds, respectivel The NRC inspectors noted that the procedure made good use of Quality j Notification Point (QNP) signoffs and stated the adequate acceptance criteri The NRC inspector found t'nis test procedure to be adequate, i

'

.

. . .

'

..- 5

Procedure 2-CM-P-01, "Containment Hydrogen Monitoring System," ,

Revision 0 4 The objectives of this procedure are as follows: (1) verify that the

! containment hydrogen monitors adequately measure the containment j hydrogen concentration; (2) the containment hydrogen monitoring

'

system closes containment isolation valves within an allowable ,

minimum time period, and (3) flow rates to the hydrogen monitoring system are verified to meet minimum acceptance criteri ;

The NRC inspectors found this test procedure to be adequat The NRC inspectors reviewed the licensee's program for receiving,

, reviewing, incorporating into specific procedures, and responding to NRC

! bulletins and vendor information bulletins regarding reactor trip 1 breaker The NRC inspectors reviewed the following:

Procedure PSP-02-RS-0001, "SSPS Logic Train R Functional Test,"

Revision 0, dated February 4,198 '

,

'

Procedure PSP-03-RS-0002, "Manual Reactor Trip TA00T," Revision 0, dated September 4, 1987.

1 *

Westinghouse Technical Bulletin No. 84-0 * Westinghouse Technical Bulletin No. 83-0 ;

'

Westinghouse Technical Bulletin No. 84-0 !

The NRC inspectors found that the licensee provided evidence of a '

comprehensive and complete program for the receipt, review, and j implementation of NRC bulletins and vendor-related information bulletins j regarding reactor trip breakers. The licensee has an ongoing program to

incorporate modifications and adjustments to breakers in their maintenance

and surveillance program. Further, the NRC inspectors verified the I licensee's receipt of the recently issued IE Bulletin 88-01, "Defects in Westinghouse Circuit Breakers," dated February 8, 1988. The IE Bulletin l! is applicable to Westinghouse 05-416 breakers in Class 1E application ;

These breakers are in use at the STP facility, j i

The NRC inspectors found the program to be adequat . Exit Interview The NRC inspectors conducted an exit interview on February 19, 1988, with l l the licensee personnel denoted in paragraph 1. The scope and findings of

, the inspection were summarized.

1