ML20127G947
| ML20127G947 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 01/15/1993 |
| From: | Beach A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Hall D HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127G949 | List:
|
| References | |
| EA-92-175, NUDOCS 9301220126 | |
| Download: ML20127G947 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000498/1992017
Text
Ulel11 D ST All 5
4
e
c 8'# 6
\\
NUCLEAR HCGULATORY COMMISSION
f
Hi cioN iv
i %,fgjQ 'r F
t.11 H Y AN 11 Al A oHIVI suli t 400
W4
AWNG T ON. M W As H.011 IW.4
"
y
/
JM l 51993
,
Docket flos 50-498
50-499
license fios, f4PI-76
fiPT-80
LA 92-175
llouston Lighting & Power Company
A11N:
Donald P. Hall, Group
Vice President, fluclear
P.O. Box 1700
llouston, Texas 77251
SUBJECT:
f4RC 1NSPICT10f4 RLPOR1 50-498/92-17: 50-499/92-17
1his refers to the special inspection conducted by Messrs
J. 1. Tapia,
W. f. Smith, and R. A. Kopriva of this offico during the periods May 26-29 and
August 28 through September 15, 1992.
The inspection included a review of
activities authorized for your South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2.
At the
conclusion of the inspection, the findings were discussed with those members
of your staff identified in the enclosed report.
Areas examined during the inspection are identified in tne report.
Within
these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures
and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observation of
activitles in progress.
Based on the results of this inspection, five apparent violations were
identified and are being considered for escalated enforcement action in
accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC
Enforcement Actions" ([nforcement policy), 10 CfR 2, Appendix C.
Accordingly,
no Notice of Violation is presently being issued f or these inspection
findings.
The first apparent violation involved a failure to perform an independent test
of the-manual reactor trip shunt trip feature.
This surveillance had not been
performed since the licensing of each unit.
The second apparent violation involved the failure of cognirant licensee
personnel to inform the shift supervisor, both verbally and by the timely
l
init iation of a station problem report (SPR), of the manual reactor trip
surveillance deficiency in accordance with the SPR procedure.
An SPR was not
initiated for almost 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after the potential surveillance f.est deficiency
was identified on May 18, 1992.
From the afternoon of May 18, 1992, until
approximately 2:30 p.m., on May 19, 1992, approximately 20 peoph nad become
1
aware of the issue; however, no one initiated an SPR.
Given the number of
I
individuals involved, we are particularly concerned tnat an SPR was not
i
!
initiated, nor were the onshif t shif t supervisors otherwise formally notified
of the condition in a timely manner,
in order to gain a better understanding
)
9301220126 930115
{g
ADOCK 05000496 -
'
G
9
e
.
. - - - - - - -
. ~ . . _ _ - - .
- -
_ - -
- --
- .-
_.-.
I
e
i
(
!
!
Houston t.ighting & power Company
-2-
j
of this apparent violation, we expect you to specifically address why each of
the involved individuals did not initiate an SpR prior to 2:30 p.m. or, May 19,
'
1992
>
'
The third apparent violation involved the failure to implement adequate
corrective action for the perceived adverse impact associated with initiating
SPRs.
This perceived adverse impact appeared to be one of the causes f or the
untimely initiation of an SPR for the manual reactor trip shunt trip feature
surveillance deficiency.
The fourth apparent violation involved a failure on
two occasions to follow station procedures for the issuance of guidance
pertaining to Technical Specifications.
The fifth apparent violation involved
two examples of a-failure to provide accurate information to NRC during, and
subsequent to, an August 28, 1992, management meeting that was conducted to-
discuss the circumstances surrounding the manual reactor trip shunt trip
feature surveillance deficiency.
Please be advised that the number and
characterization of the apparent violations described in the enclosed
inspection report may change as a result of further MC review,
An enforcement conference to discuss these apparent violations has been
scheduled for 10 a.m. on February 4, 1993, in the Region IV office.
1he
purposes of this conference are to discuss the examples of apparent
violations, their causes and safety significance, to provide you the
opportunity to point out any errors in our inspection report, to provide an
opportunity to present your proposed corrective actions, and to discuss any
other information that will 1elp us determine the appropriate enforcement
action in accordance with the Enforcement policy.
In particular, we expect
you to address those actions that you have taken or. plan to take to ensure
that appropriate personnel within the Plant Operations Department are involved
in resolving problems resulting in degraded or inoperable safet.y-related
systems and components.
You will be-advised by separate correspondence of the
results of our deliberations on this matter,
No response regarding the
apparent violations is required at this time.
As part of this inspection, a management meeting was conducted on August 28,
1992, in the Region IV office to gain additional information relative to the
May 19, 1992, event, which is discussed in the enclosed inspection report.
L
Appendix B is a copy of the material that was provided by your staff at the
_
management meeting.
As a result-_of this meeting, additional information was
'
requested by NRC.
Appendix C is a copy of your_ response to the supplemental
information that was requested,
Appendix 0 is a copy of the information that-
you provided after NRC-informed you at the September 15, 1992, exit meeting of
apparent inconsistencies between some of the information provided in
Appendix C and the information that was provided by your staff at the
August 28,.1992, management meeting.
On slanuary 4,-1993, a conference call-was conducted between Mr. A. T.-Howell
of Region IV and members of your staff.
The purpose of the conference call
was to inform you of an apparent violation of 10 CFR 50.9 that is documented
in the enclosed report, but was not discussed at the exit' meeting that was
,
s
_..
.
.
.
-
!
Houston Lighting & Power Company
-3-
[
,
Y
i
conducted on September 15,.1992.
On January 12,=1993, we received your letter
(S1-HL-AE-4304) to Mr. J. L. Milhoan that apparently contested this apparent
'
violation.
NRC has not reached a conclusion involving any-enforcement action
relative to the apparent violation of 10 CFR 50,9 that was discussed with your
i
staff on January 4, 1993.
One of the purposes of the enforcement conference
'
is to provide you an opportunity to discuss the examples of apparent
violations.
Therefore, it would be inappropriate for NRC to respond to or
.
discuss this letter outside of the enforcement conference. - In accordance with
-
the Enforcement Policy, NRC will review and consider any information that you
may provide at the february 4, 1993, enforcement conference relative to this
' ,
apparent violation.
in accordance with 10 CfR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of
,
this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
Should you have sny questions concerning this inspection, we would be pleased
to discuss them with you.
Sincerely,
,
O
f
l
/ w
a L;
!
A. Bill Beach, Director
Division of. Reactor Projects
'
Enclosures:
1.
Appendix-A - NRC Inspection Report
50-498/92-17
50-499/92-17 w/ attachments -
- 2,
Appendix B - Licensee Material
~
presented at August 28, 1992,
j
management meeting
-
3.
Appendix C - Houston Lighting & Power
Company letter (ST-HL-AE-4208),
dated September 11, 1992-
_
4. -Appendix D - Houston Lighting & Power
-Company letter (ST-HL-AE-4217),
dated September 18, 1992
,
cc w/ enclosures:
Houston Lighting & Power Company
ATTN:- William J.-Jump, Manager
Nuclear Licensing
P,0. Box-289
~
Wadsworthc Texas 77483:
City'of Austin
Electric Utility Department =
ATIN:'
J. C1 Lanier/M. B. Lee
P.O. Box 1088-
..
--@WwW T -ur v
terw g
yw wwegw 3'
w ye wa 4,e w w
m h t ---rw
meswm 4 -
\\
,
i
Houston Lighting.& Power Company
-4-
!
City Public Service Board
A11N:
R. J. Costello/M. T. Hardt
P.O. Box 1771
,
San Antonio, Texas 78296
i
Newman & Holtzinger, P. C.
A11N:
Jack R. Newman, Esq.
1615 L Street, NW
Washington, D.C.
20036
Central Power and Light Company
A11N:
D. E. Ward /T. M. Puckett
6
P.O. Box 2121
'
Corpus Christi, Texas 78403
Records Center
1100 Circle 75 Parkway
Atlanta, Georgia 30339-3064
-
i
Mr. Joseph M. Hendrie
'
50 Bellport Lane
+
Be11 port, New York 11713
Bureau of Radiation Control
State of Texas
,
1101 West 49th Street
Judge, Matagorda County
Matagorda County Courthouse
1700 Seventh Street
'
Bay City,1 Texas 77414
Licensing Representative
Houston Lighting _&. Power Company
.
Suite 610
Three Metro Center
Bethesda, Maryland 2081."
i
Houston Lighting & power Company
L
ATTN:
Rufus S. Scott, Associate
General Counsel-
-
P.O. Box 61867
t
Houston. Texas 77208
!
l'
l~
,
p
'
h
.
4
'
'
.
.
- . - ,
. a.
.. . ;
-.....,.,_..,:,,
.__..--..-,-.-.:....
.,.s,-.,-,.
~
,
,.
.=-
- . -
_
-
-
- - . . . - _ .
.
. - .
- . - -
. _ _ - ..
.
9
J
,
Houston Lighting & Power Company
-5-
[bectoDMB-(IE01)L
bcc distrib, by RIV:
J. L. Milhoan
Resident inspector
Section Chief (DRP/D)
Lisa Shea, RM/ALF, MS: MNBB 4503
MIS System
DRSS-flPS
RIV file
Project Engineer (DRP/D)
R. Bachmann, OGC, MS: 15-B-18
Section Chief (DRP/ISS)
RIV:SRl:DRP/0
C:DRP/Dwu
[
D:EPP
JITapia;dfb/ATHowelb
GKSlaborn
Afbe)ch
-1/$/93
5
1/th93
1)/5/93
1/l$/93
,
210010
c
--
.
I
. - _ . - . .
. _ .
.
. . - . - . - -
,
,
Houston Lighting & Power company
-5-
bec to DMB (IE01)
bec distrib. by RIV:
J. L. Hilhoan
Resident inspector
Section Chief (DRP/D)
Lisa Shea, RH/Alf, MS: HNBB 4503
HIS System
DRSS-f!PS
RIV file
Project Engineer (DRP/0)
R. Bachmann, OGC, MS: 15-B 18
SectionChief(DRP/TSS)
n
RIV:SRl:DRP/p
C:DRP/D %f
[b.d
D:JG)P
,JITapia:dfhke/ATHowellh
Cf % born
Albbch
1/$/93
1/th93
1//5/93
1/I's /93
-
.-
. .