IR 05000498/1988020
| ML20151S007 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 04/15/1988 |
| From: | Kelley D, Mckernon T, Seidle W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151R998 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-498-88-20, 50-499-88-20, NUDOCS 8804280151 | |
| Download: ML20151S007 (8) | |
Text
_
_
.
.
.
..
+,
.
.
.
.
APPENDIX
<
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
NRC Inspection Repur'
50-498/88-20 Operating License:
NPF-71 50-499/88-20 Construction Permit:
CPPR-129 Dockets:
50-498 50-499 Licensee:
Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P)
P.O. Box 1700 Houston, Texas 77001 Facility Name:
South Texas Project (STP), Units 1 and 2 Inspection At:
' spection Conducted:
March 21-25, 1988 i
)
Inspectors:
omd6
_
//!/5 SO D. L. Kelley, Reactor Jnspect f, Test Programs Daye~
/
Section, Division of Reactor Safety NL 4ltbSR b<?
L4 i. 0. McKernon, Mac".or Inspector, Test D~a'te Programs Sectio'h, Division of Reactor Safety Accompanying Personnel:
R. V. Azua, Reactor Inspector, Test Programs fection, Division of Reactor Safety Approved *
b
/ fbf W. C. Seidl(,) Chief, Test Programs Section Date Division of Reactor Safety 8804280151 880421 L
PDR ADOCK 05000498 O
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
]
-
__.-
-
-
-. -
- -....
.
.-
-.
. _.
.
.
.
.
l
-
-
,
l
'
,
.
4'
i Inspection Sumary i
Inspection Conducted March 21-25, 1988 (Report 50-498/88-20)
~
Areas' Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection to follow up on previous j
j inspection findings.
.
>
Results:
In the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
'
!
Inspection Conducted March 21-25, 1988 (Report 50-499/88-20)
i
!
I i
_ Areas Inspected:
Routine, enannounced inspection to review the licensee's.
electrical cable and cutipanent installation procedures; review the licensee's i
instrument installation procedures; review one preoperational test procedure;
,
and review the licensee's completed instrument installation work packages i
-
i
!
Results:' In the' areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
.!
a
,
i
!
I
!
'
I
.i
!
1 i
!
<
!.
l i
l
}-
l
'
l
'
l
--
-
.
.
-
--
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted HL&P
- S. M. Head, Supervisor, Engineering / Licensing
- K M. O'Gara, Project Compliance
- J. S. Phelps, Supervising Engineer, Project Compliance
- D. R. Valley, Quality Engineering Supervisor
- T. J. Jordan, Project Quality Assurance (QA) Manager, Unit 2
- A. McIntyre, Manager, Support Engineering
- P. L. Walker, Senior Licensing Engineer
- G. L. Parkey, Plant Superintendent, Unit 2
- B. Wellborn, Unit 2 Engineering
- D C. King, Construction Manager i
- H. A. McBurrett, Support Licensing Manager
,
- A. Z. Mikus, Construction St.pervisor
!
Bechtel
- R. H. Medina, QA Supervisor
- R. W. Miller, Project QA Manager
- R. D. Bryan, Field Con;truction Manager Ebasco Services, Inc.
- R. Abel, Quality Program Site Manager
,
Ebasco Construction Inc.
i
- R. C. Sisson, Senior Resident Engineer
'
- Denotes those personnel attending the exit interview.
l The NRC inspectors also interviewed other licensee personnel.
j i
2.
Followup on Previous Inspection Findings (92701)
'
(Closec) Unresolved Item 498/8775-05.
NRC Inspection Report 50-498; j
499/67-75 identified six safety injection pump recirculation orifices as i
being incorrectly sized.
The installed orifices were found to be incompatible with the flow measuring instruments associated with them.
New orifices of the correct size were installed and the proper orifice to flow instrument relationship was established.
The unresolved item relates to the cause for the errors on the Westinghouse design document (Shop Order 325 form).
The NRC inspector reviewed the documentation included in Station Problem Report SPR-870497.
In addition, the NRC inspector examined the licensee's investigation report and the design documents for i
-
-
-
- -
- -
-
-
. -.
--
---
---
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
._.
.
A
-
c
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
the orifice plates and their respective flow measuring instruments.
The investigation conducted by the licensee included a review conducted by l
Westinghouse to determine if any other orifices ~ associated with l
safety-related instrumentation had been mismatched.
In addition, Bechtel
was requested by the licensee to perform the same type of study to.
,
determine if any safety-related orifice / instrument errors in their design
!
'
scope existed. The results of both reviews showed that the only
' safety-related orifice / instrument error was in the Westinghouse design
-document Shop Order 325.
The licensee's investigation concluded that this was an isolated case and no other safety-related instruments were involved. The NRC inspector had no further questions regarding this matter.
This unresolved item is considered closed.
,
(Closed) Open Item 498/8775-06. This open item is associated with the
j unresolved item above. The licensee determined that flow discrepancies of
'
f the same type did not exist in other plant safety-related systems. As
'
stated above, the results of the reviews conducted by Westinghouse and l
Bechtel showed that this was the only safety-related orifice / instrument error that existed.
The NRC inspector had no further questions regarding this item. This open item is considered closed.
No violations or
,
deviations were identified.
.
3.
Procedure Review
,
I j
a.
Preoperational Test Procedure Review (70346)
During the inspection, the NRC inspectors reviewed the preoperational
'
,
test procedure listed below. The procedure was reviewed for
'
technical adequacy and consistency with regulatory requirements,
,
guidance, and licensee comitments.
]
HM-A-01, Mechanical Auxiliary Building (MAB) Supply / Exhaust HVAC
System j
An observation, by the NRC inspectort, was made to the Hl.&P personnel
,
concerning the incorrect fail position for two components listed in
'
theprocedure(i.e.,8V102VDA110and8V102VDA112). Within the scope of this review, no violations or deviations were identified.
b.
Electrical Components and Systems - Procedure Review (51051)
During the inspection, the NRC inspectors reviewed the Electrical
Components and Systems Procedures. These procedures were reviewed to
detennine whether technical comitments contained in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) for safety-related electrical systems
and components were included, with sufficient detail and clarity, for adequate work performance and control.
In addition, the NRC r
\\
-
c
'
-
-
-
-
-.
-
-.
\\
__
l
.
.
.
.
l
!
'
l
inspector reviewed the procedures to determine +hether applicable QA
!
plans, instructions, and procedures have been established. The following procedures were reviewed during the inspection:
i SSP-26, Termination of Electrical Cable;
SSP-27, Installation of Electrical Cable; and
'
'
SSP-28, Installation and Inspection of Electrical Raceways and Supports.
,
L l
The NRC inspector performed this review by comparing these procedures with those from STP-1 which had already been reviewed and approved.
This was made possible by the inherent similarities between the two units.
Within the scope of this review, no violations or deviations were I
identified, c.
Instrument Components and System - Procedure Review (52051)
During the inspection, the NRC inspectors reviewed the licensee's
!
l procedures to verify that technical requirements for safety-related l
instrumentation contained in the FSAR had been translated into
'
construction specifications, drawings, work procedures, and instructions.
'
Additionally, quality assurance (QA) plans were reviewed to confim that the licensee's instructions and procedures are of sufficient
-
detail and clarity for satisfactory work performance and control.
l The following procedures were reviewed during the inspection:
SSP-13, Revision 2. "Material Control," dated February 10, 1988;
,
QCP-12.1, Revision 7. "Control of Measuring & Test Equipnent,"
,
l dated March 7, 1988;
'
ASP-23, Revision 8. "Measuring & Test Equipment Control," dated l
December 11, 1987;
!
SSP-49 Revision 2 "Field Change," dated February 2,1988;
WPP-3.0, Revision 20 "Field Control of Design Document," dated February 20, 1988; l
ASP-22, Revision 5 "Field Fabrication Modifications," dated
December 2, 1987;
ASP-12. Revision 8. "Development of Construction Field Sketches," dated December 7, 1987; and
-
SSP-8, Revision 4, "Nonconformance Reporting " dated February 19, 1988.
i
!
,5.
.
.
.
.
'
-
.
.
-
l
l l
i
-
l The NRC inspectors' review of the above procedures indicated that the licensee's QA prrgram is satisfactory and meets those requirements l
'
set forth in the FSAR. QA audits are performed within the specified frequency..QA documentation to include material certification, test reports, receiving inspection, and environmental qualification is present and readily retrievable. The licensee has established adequate work procedures.for the control and installation of instrument
components.
The work procedures include sufficient measures to
'
ensure that special conditions of testing and calibration of process
!
instruments are described in proper detail.
In addition, procedures
have been established to control design and field changes to ensure retrieval of voided drawings, design control, and incorporation into the as-built records.
l l
Within the scope of this inspection, no violations or deviations were i
identified.
l 4.
Instrument Components and System - Records Review (5205M During the inspection, the NRC inspector reviewed several inhtrument installation records, receiving inspection packages, quality control (QC)
inspector qualification records, nonconformance reports, and observed
'
three instrument installations.
l The instrument component records packages were reviewed to verify that the
l comitments in the FSAR were satisfied.
The records were examined and selected component installations inspected for the following attributes:
The receiving inspection records indicated that applicable
,
I engineering and functional specifications were met; l
Other required instrument component characteristics, material,
{
performance tests, environmental, and seismic qualification tests were properly met; i
The specified instrument components were installed in the location
specified in accordance with configuration drawings;
'
l l
Physical separation and independence requirements were met; Inspection records were complete and satisfied the documentation
requirements; Inspection personnel qualification records met stated requirements,
and evidence of independent authentication by the licensee exists;
?tenconformance and deviation reports were legible, complete and
included the status of corrective actions taken; and
,
l
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
.
. _.. _. _. _ _ _ _ - -
.
.
.
.
.
J
'
.,
!
Audit records were reported in sufficient detail-to permit a
meaningful assessment for corrective action, final disposition, and trending.
The following instrument installation packages were reviewed:
.,
j C2CV-LT-0112, Chemical & Volume Control Level Transmitter;
'
C2CV-TSH-0023B, Chemical & Volunie Control Temperature Switch;
'
,
B2CV-MOV-0133B, Chemical & Volume Control Motor Operated Valve;
'
l
.
!
A2CV-LT-0102, Chemical & Volume Control Level Transmitter;
MINST-C2CV-TSH-0023E, Chemical & Volume Control Temperature Switch; f
MINST-C2CV-FT-0144, Chemical &, Volume Control Flow Transmitter;
'
C2CV-LCV-0468, Chemical & Volume Control Level Control Valve;
!
C2CV-LT-0106, Chemical & Volume Control Level Transmitter;
,
A2CV-LCV-0465, Chemical & Volume Control Level Control Valve;
!
B2CV-TSH-0024A, Chemical & Volume Control Temperature Switch-
B2CV-MOV-0133B, Chemical & Volume Control Motor Operated Yalve;
>
C2CV-LCV-0468, Chemical & Volume Control Level Control Valve; and
HINST-C2CV-FT-0144, Chemical & Volume Control Flow Transmitter.
- The following Nonconformance Reports were reviewed:
,
CS03493;
CJ00043; j
CNO3357; and
,
NO3378.
,
The records review indicated that the commitments set forth in the FSAR were satisfied.
<
,
Within the scope of this inspection, no violations or deviations were
,
'
identified, j
l
!
- -
-.
-
-
-
--
.___ _.
.
. _ - _. _ -. ~
. __
_ _ _...
.
.
. _ _ _ _. _
. _
l-l
.
..
.
.
-.
J
!
l 5.
Exit Interview i
An exit interview was conducted with HL&P personnel on March 25. 1988, at
!
the conclusion of the onsite inspection, during which the inspection findings were sunnarized.
The licensee did not identify as proprietary i
any of'the materials provided to, or reviewed by, the inspectors during
the inspection.
,
i f
,
,
f
{
'
.
L
'
~
i
'
,
I l
I i
I
b J