IR 05000498/1988053
| ML20154B673 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1988 |
| From: | Clay Johnson, Stetka T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154B671 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-498-88-53, NUDOCS 8809140076 | |
| Download: ML20154B673 (7) | |
Text
.
.
.
,
,
APPENDIX U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
NRC Inspection Report:
50-498/88-53 Operating License:
NPF-76 50-499/88-53 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, Units 1 and 2 (STP)
Inspection At:
STP, Matagorda County, Texas Inspection Conducted:
July 25-29, 1988 Inspector:
bonb b.
f-87 If C. E. Johnson, ReaqtJr Inspector, Plant Date Systems Section, Division of Reactor Safety Approved:
O.
Y"'bl-N t
-
T. F. Stetk Q Chief, PlantiSystems Section Date Division of Reactor Safety Inspection Summary Inspect. ion Conducted July 25-29, 1988 (Report 50-498/88-53; 50-499/88-53)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection including followup of previously identified findings, review of the onsite and offsite safety review committees, and review of the licensee's program for audits and implementation, hesults:
Within the three areas inspected, no violations or deviations were Identified.
8809140076 Geo902 PDR ADOCK 05000498 O
.
.
.
,
,
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted HL&P
- J. T. Westermeier, Project General Manager R. J. Rehkugler, Audit Supervisor
- M. Polishak, Project Compliance Supervisor
- K. O'Gara, Project Compliance Engineer M. E. Powell, Project Compliance / Licensing Supervisor
- M. Wisenburg, Plant Superintendent Unit 1
- S. M. Head Supervising Project Engineer
- A. W. Harrison, Supervising Project Engineer
- J. Bailey, Manager, Engineering and Licensing
- G. L. Parkey, Plant Superintendent, Unit 2
- S. L. Rosen, General Manager, Operations Support
- J. E. Geiger, General Manager, Nuclear Assurance
- T. J. Jordan, Project Quality Assurance (QA)(Manager, Unit 2
- J. A. Slabinski, Operations Quality Control QC) Supervisor
- M. Duke. Staff Engineer
- A. R. Mikus, General Supervisor, Construction
- W. G. Wellborn, fupervising Project Engineer
- D. Parker, $tartup Engineer T. Millsap, Auditor Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel)
- L. W. Hurst, Assistant Project Manager
- K P. McNeal, Project QA Engineer Ebasco Service Inc. (Ebasco)
- E. P. Rosol Site Manager
- R. A. Moore, Assistant QC Site Supervisor
- R. C. Sisson, Site Resident Engineer
- P. E. Phelon, QC Supervisor NRC
- J. E. Bess, Resident Inspector, Operations
- D. L. Garrison, Resident Inspector, Construction
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved item (499/8826-01) - Revision of paragraph S.6.6.8 of Standard Site Procedure (55P) 9. Revision 4, "Pipe Support Installation,"
.
i
'
.
,
,
\\
l by Interim Change Notice (ICN) No. 31, dated April 7, 1988.
This revision changed the requirements for travel stop installation from "shall be installed to should be installed."
!
Based upon the NRC inspector concerns that failure to add travel stops
'
might cause additional piping system stresses, the licensee revised SSP 9 with ICN No. 34 on May 23, 1988, to return to the original wording.
,
Review of this issue indicated that ICN No. 31 was only in effeM for a i
few days which resulted in no change in QC inspections.
This itdn is considered closed.
(Closed) Violation (498/8740-01; 499/8740-01) - Failure to maintain the cold position of spring hangers after balancing of the piping system by not assuring the line was filled with water prior to verifying the cold
,
load position. The licensee's corrective actions as documented in a letter
dated October 16, 1988, were reviewed and found to be adequate.
This item is considered closed.
3.
A_udit Program (40702,40704)
[
The purpose of this inspection was to ascertain whether the licensee has
,
Meveloped a quality assurance (QA) program relating to audits and if t
gialified personnel are conducting routine audits to ensure that I
activities are in conformance with Technical Specifications (TSs),
I rewlatory requirements, licensee comitments, and industry guides and l
s W dards.
i
,rocedures
a, Tne NRC inspector reviewed the documents listed below which i
established the following:
!
!
Requirements for planning, preparation, performance, reporting, I
followup and closecut of the plant and vendor audits.
l Methods for training, qualifying and certifying Nuclear
!
Assurance audit personnel.
}
'
Requirements and responsibilities for documenting and resolving
deficiencies identified by Nuclear Assurance personnel.
This i
review indicates that admir.istrative controls exist, provide l
measures to assure that audits are performed by qualified
personnel, and scheduled as required by TS. This review
!
verified that mechanisms required for correcting deficiencies
identified during the audits are established and that
'
responsibilities for implementing the audit program are delineated in writing.
l t
k (
!
t
- - - - -
..
... -.
. -.
-
-
-
__
.- -
__
-.
t
.
.
'r
-,>.
.
Documents Reviewed:
t QAP-2.1, "Training, Qualification and Certification of Aedi*
,
Personnel " Revision 0, dated November 30, 1987;
]
QAP-1.5, "Deficiency Reporting," Revision 2, dated April 2
!
1988;
'
QAP-2.8, "Plant and Vendor Audits," Revision 1 dated April 6, j
1988; and
)
!
!
b.
Responsibility
!
The NRC inspector >^rified that responsibilities have been assigned i
in writing for the rverall management of the audit program, which include the followly:
f
Determining independence of audit personnel; Determining the adequa(.y of the qualifications of audit
j personnel; Preparing short and long-range audit plans and schedulas;
)
Issuing audit reports to manegement;
Ensuring corrective actions are taken for deficiencies
identified during audits; and j
Determining the need for special training of audit personnel and
-
inclusion of special expertise.
}
c.
Qualification j
!
The NRC inspector reviewed the qualifications of seven auditors.
The records indicated that the seven auditors were qualified and certified in accordance with Quality Assurance Procedure (QAP) 2.1 American National Standards Institute (ANSI) N45.2.23 1978, and j
Regulatory Guide 1.146. The NRC inspector also witnessed portions of a security audit conducted by a QA auditor.
It was verified that this QA auditor met the minimum education, experience, and qualification requirements for the audited activity. lne auditor was knowledileable, professional, and conducted verificatic" to ensure that items examined were in conformance with TS req errents and cormitments in implementing procedure __. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ ___
.
,
d.
Audit Plan / Audit Reports
,
The NRC inspector reviewed the licensee's Nuclear Assurance 1988 Audit Plan (long-range), and the Nuclear Assurance, 3rd Quarter 1988 Pla9s(short-range).
The hRC inspector reviewed audit reports (listed below) for Units I and 2.
Unit 2 does not have a large number of audits performed as of yet because of the construction phase; however, the areas of pers.onnel training, corrective action, and organization and staffing were audited.
Review of the audit reports indicated the following:
The audit frequency is commensurate with the safety significance
,
of the related activity.
The content of the audit report clearly defined the scope of the
audit and results.
Appropriate followup actions were taken or scheduled for
!
imp'ementation.
Corrective action, preventive action, and root cause were stated
on the majority of responses tu deficiencies.
Checklists were comprehensive, relevant, and contained
significant items and inspection criteria.
,
Checklists were prepared, used, and covered the Areas designated
in the audit schedule.
The long-term audit schedule and frequency of audits is in
conformance with TS and the approved QA program.
The audit organization's response to the audit findings was in
writing, and adequately addressed the findings and recommendations.
Audit Reports / Audit Plant Reviewed:
88-06(D8) "STPEGS Startup Prerequisite /Preoperatioral Test
Controls" (February 15-26,1988)
.
88-05(C) "Nonconformance Control / Corrective Action"
(February 8-12,1988)
4.
~
.__--____-- _ _ _.
.*
...
-
87-11(K2) "Physical Security" (May 11-15,1987)
87-18(C1)"CorrectiveActio0"(August 10-14,1987)
88-13(D10)"SpecialNuclearMaterial"(March 17-29,1988)
,,
88-11(I) "Process Control Program /Radwaste" (March 741,1988)
g 88-23(A) "Compliance to Technical Specifications and t.icense
Conditions"(May 2-22,1938)
88-28(06) "I'nstructions and Procedures" (May 31 through June 9, l
1988)
88-21(B2) "Personnel Training and Qualifcations" (April 25 through May 9, 1988)
,
a
?
88-14(B1)"OrganizationandStaffing"(February 15-26,1988)
88-36(K) "Physical Security Program" (in-process audit)
Nuclear Assurance 1988 Audit Plan, dated July 22, 1988
Revision 2
!
Nuclear Assurance, 3rd Quarter 1988
{
!
No violations or deviations were identified.
!
I e.
Conclusion
t The NRC inspector concluded that the licensee has established a i
comprehensive aadit program utilizing qualified personnel to
!
implement cnd perform the audits.
It is also concluded that the l
Unit 2 audit program will be essentially the same as Unit 1.
4.
Safety Comittee Activity (403018)
!
The purpose of this inspection was to verify that the onsite and offsite
!
safety review comittees or their equivalents have been established and
i are functioning in conformance with Technical Specifications, requirements
[
and commitments in the application.
!
'
,
a.
Program Review The onsite review group is the Plant Operations Review I
l Committee (PORC).
This committee is composed of plant m sonnel
[
whose function is to provide onsite review of matters SOted to
?
'
l nuclear safety and advise the plant manager accordinr:
,
The Nuclear Safety Review Board (NSRB) is considered ue offsite I
i safety review committee.
It is composed of corporate management, t
L
_,.. -. - _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. -.. _, _, - _ _ _ _ _. -.. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _.. _ _ __
U
-
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
. '....
'
plant management, and other personnel whose function is to provide independent review and audit of significant activities related to nuclear safety.
The Independent Safety Engineering Group (ISEG) is another review group which reports to NSRB.
The principle function of the ISEG is to examine plant operating characteristics, NRC issuances, and other sources of experience information that may indicate areas for improving plant safety.
The NRC inspector determined by review of the site manuals and procedures, listed below, that a written program and/or charter has been prepared for the safety review committees and contain the
'
following:
Meeting frequency;
Review group membership;
Responsibility and authority for conducting independent reviews;
Quorum;
Method for designating alternate members; and Requirements for maintaining and distributing minutes and
records of review group activities.
Implementation of these comittees were not verified during this
!
inspectici.
Implementation will be verified on a subsequent inspection, j
Site Manuals / Procedures Reviewed:
Nuclear Safety Review Board (NSRB)
NSRB Training Program
Independent Safety Engineering Group (ISEG)
Organization Chart, dated June 1, 1988
Nuclear Group Policies (NGP)-820. Revision 4, dated April 25,
1988 No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Exit Interview The NRC inspector met with the licensee personnel denoted in paragr..yh 1 on July 29, 1988, and sumarized the scope and findings of this inspection.
No information was identified as proprietary,
_-.
_.
- _ _ _ _.