IR 05000498/1988069

Insp Repts 50-498/88-69 & 50-499/88-69 on 881017-21.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected: Preoperational Testing

ML20206A224
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	11/04/1988
From:	Murphy M, Seidle W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20206A202	List: IR 05000498/1988069 ML20206A199
References
50-498-88-69, 50-499-88-69, NUDOCS 8811150020
Download: ML20206A224 (4)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____ __ ._

 '

l . I

 . .

j t i APPENDIX  :

       !

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C099115510N l REGION !Y  : I I NRC Inspection Report: 50-498/88-69 Operating License: NPF-76 I 50-499/88-69 Construction Permit: CPPR-129 l l Dockets: 50-498 50-499 Licensee: Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P)  ! P.O. Box 1700 f Houston, Texas 77001 t i i Facility Name: South Texas Project (STP), Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: STP, Matagorda County, Texas . j Inspection Conducted: October 17-21, 1988 {

       ,

Inspector: _ Au // [[ f

  /E.furphf, Reactor Inspector, Test  Datt ' (
  (Prggram[Section,DivisionofReactorSafety  j r
       !

l Approved: I . d4 ef, Test Programs Section

      //

ae

Div(C. isionKidle, Ch of Reactor Safety Inspection Suwury Inspection Coi: ducted October 17-21, 1988 (Report 50-498/88 69) - Areas Inspected: No inspection of Unit I was conducte Results: Not applicabl Inspection Conducted October 17-21, 1988 (Report 50 499/88-69) Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection to witness preoperatienal testing and review corrpleted preoperational test procedure Results: Within the areas inspected, no violations or devietions were j identified, i

 $%ftlSooRo  n itvQ    ,

P4R V cocle epyaoWy S I

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

,
  -  .
           !
    ,
           '

r i 2  ! i DETAILS j i L Persons Contacted j t HL&P  ; I

    *A. Harrison. Supervisor. Engineering

           !

K. O'Gara, Project. Compliance Engineer S. Phillips. Project Compliance Engineer l'

    *M. Polishak. Staff Engineer R. Thoria. Systems Test Engineer     '
    'J. Westermeier. Project Manager
           !

NOVA Power l l L

           '
    *D. Parker. Startup Engineer

! I } NRC J

!     *R. Evans. Resident inspecter      [

l l l

    * Indicates personnel who attended the exit intervie }
           - Preoperctional Test Witnessing (70312)     )

, l This portion of the inspection was to verify that preoperational testing  ! was being conducted in accordance with approved procedures and to verify l the adoquacy of test program records, including the preliminary evaluation i

)     of test result l t

The hRC inspector witnessed the conduct of Retest No. 8 of 2-HE-P-01, i

'

Revision O. "Electrical Auxiliary Building HVAC System." This retest was  ; run to verify operebility of Flow Switch 2-NE-FSL-9799. vhich failed to i allow Air Heater HX-010 to come on. The systen flow condition was not i i; established to actuate the switch in the basic test and this retest was  !

'

run to satisfy test exception report No. 9 with a system lineup that  ! I , provided adequate flow to actuate the flow switc i l: Overall test personnel perfonnanc.e was acceptable. The latest revision of L

the test procedure was used for n.arkup to establish the retest conditions I

! and perfonnance. Test prerequisites were met. the proper plant systems ( l were in service, and the test was perfonned as required by the approved , I ' procedure. The NRC inspector observed that the test acceptance criteria were me [ ' i There were no violations or deviations identified in this area of the [ f inspectie ! l I L !  !

t 4 3 I [

c

-.  . _ _ _ -

_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ____ ___ ___-__-_____ __. . _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

 '
 ' *
 - .

t l , 3 I < t

           ;

3. Preoperational Test Result Evaluation (70400) [ i The NRC inspector reyfewed the following completed test procedures:

           '
  '

2-RC-P-02 "Hot functional Test," Revision 0, dated November 24, 198 . l

  *

2-St-P-03, "Safety Injection System Check Valve Testing," Revision 0, I dated February 19, 198 (

  *          I 2-RS-P-02 "Control Rod Drive Mechaniste Operation," Revision 0, dated    ,

March 28, 198 [

  *

2-CH-P-01, "Essential Chilled Water System," Revision 1. dated June 27, 198 * 2-MS P-01, "Main Steam HFT." Revision 1, dated April 22, 198 * 2-SP-P-02 "Solid State Piotection System Reactor Protection Master Relay Test," Revisirn. O, dated September 25, 1987.

,

  '

2-SP-P-01, "Solid State Protection System Reactor Protection Logic l Test," Revision 0, dated November 13, 198 j

           .
           .
  *

2-RC-P-01, "Reactor Coolant System Cold Hydrostatic Test "  ! Revision 1, dated February 5,198 l

           -

l ' 2-St.P-01, "Safety injection System Train A," Revision 1. dated  ! February 11, 1988,

  '

2-SI-P-02, "Safety Accumulators " Revision 1, dated April 15, 1988.

l

  '

2-SI-P-04, "Safety injection System Train B," Revtston 1, dated l March 24, 1988.

'

  "

2-HZ-P-04, "Engineered Safety Feature (ESF) Pump Rooms Temperature Surveys " Revision 0, dated April 27, 198 This review was conducted on the as run copy of the test procedures and included the completed data packages, the test surmary and evaluation, the quality assurance (QA) signoffs, all test exception reports, and test change notices. All test deficiencies were tracked from identification through disposition and retests, where require During this review, the following observations were nde on Procedure 2-RC-P-02, "Hot functional Test." Two coments made on the startup review and cocrient form were not dispositioned or incorporate I One coment was that the procedure revisions in the references were not l updated, the disposition was "noted." The second was that a terminal - panel identification in Temporary Change Notice (TCN) #1 was incorrect. A licensee representative agreed that these items should be corrected and a . TCN will be issue I

           '

I . I

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

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _____ i ., ,

,

1 . r 4 ,

t ) The NRC inspector also noted in 2-RC-P-02 that on the reactor coolant

; system water analysis reports, where a special analysis was added, there

] were no specifications noted. A licensee repr,lentative agreed that a .

specificatior; should be added where it applies or "N/A" written in the I i specification column. A TCN will be issued. Also in Attachment 10.1 on  !

! page 1. the dissolved oxygen analysis result is out of specification and  !'

I there is no comment or explanation. The licensee's representative agreed I that a coment or explanation was needed and agreed to issue a TCN. The l j out-of-specification condition was during heating and before oxygen ,

scavenging was complet i f While reviewing procedure 2 St-P-01. "Safety !njection System Train A." i the NRC inspector noted that the test review report conclusion stated that i , the test acceptance criteria were met or exceeded. The JTG reeting

minutes, hewever, identified an open item that required a retest of the  !

! high-head safety injection cold-leg injection flow test because the test i results did not meet the requirements of the Technical Specifications (TS). - i This was discussed with licensee representative, and the NRC inspector was l l advised that the measured flow condition was just at but not greater than  ! a the TS lower limit as required. The condition was correr,ted by enlarging l the ficw orifice to place the flow well within the TS limits. The NRC

! inspector was still concerned that a test acceptance criteria could te  ,

j est)blished and met, that did not meet the TS criteria. Pending a written [ ' response from the licensee on the specific disposition of the safety i

injection flow test and a general discussion of any other areas where the i disparity occurred, this will be considered an *,nresolved ite l

      '

! (499/ % 69-01) l i There were no violations or deviatiuns identified in this area of the j inspection, j j 4 Exit Interview ! An exit interview was held October 21,19M. At the exit interview, the d NRC inspector sumarized the scope and findings of the inspectio The } licensee did not identify. as proprietary, any of the infomation provided 4 to, or reviewed by, the NRC inspector. }}