Text

Forwards Operational Readiness Insp Repts 50-498/88-01 & 50-499/88-01 & Notice of Violation.Five Significant Concerns Identified & Ref in Paragraph 2 of Encl Rept
	ML20149F342
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	02/10/1988
From:	Callan L; NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Goldberg J; HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO.
Shared Package
ML20149F344	List: IR 05000498/1988001; ML20149F342; ML20149F348;
References
	NUDOCS 8802170081
	Download: ML20149F342 (6)
	v • d • e

'

( , .,

, . -

.

,

t

.

.FEB l 01988

In Reply Refer To:

Dockets: 50-498/88-01

50-499/88-01

Houston Lighting & Power Company -

ATTN: J. H. Goldberg, Group Vice

President, Nuclear

P.O. Box 1700

Houston, Texas 77001

Gentlemen:

This refers to the operational readiness inspection performed by an NRC team -

during the period January 4-8, 1988, of activities authorized by NRC Operating

License NPF-71 and Construction Permit CPPR-129 for the South Texas Project,

Units 1 and 2, and to the discussion of our findings with you and members of

your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.

Areas examined during the inspection included 9perations, operations training,

maintenance, surveillance, fire prevention and protection, and quality assurance

and management controls to assure quality. Three areas were not assessed.

These areas were physical security, radtological protection, and emergency .

preparedness. The readiness of the physical security area was addressed in a

concurrent inspection (50-498/88-03; 50-499/88-03).

This inspection identified five significant concerns. These are summarized

in Appendix A, Executive Summary, to the enclosed inspection report. Resolution

of these concerns must be completed before an increase in power above 5 percent

can be supported. Accordingly, you are urged to keep us closely informed of

your actions, both planned and completed, in addressing these concerns. Other '

than these concerns, the inspection did not reveal any areas which would lead

the staff to conclude that you were not ready to operate at power. Several !

areas of strength were also identified that are also summarized in l

Appendix A. j

During this inspection, it was also found that certain of your activities were

in violation of NRC requirements. The violations are described in the enclosed

Appendix B, Notice of Violation, to the enclosed report. Consequently, you are

required to respond to this violation, in writing, in accordance with the ,

provisions of Section 2.201 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," hrt 2. Title 10, l

Code of Federal Regulations. Your response should be based on ae specifics '

contained in the Notice of Violation enclosed with this letter. '

i

The response directed by this letter and the accompanying Notice is not subject

'

to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required ;

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511. ,

RIV:DD:DRS* 0:DRS* C:DRP/D" D:DRP*

,

JPJaudon/tw JLMilhoan GLConstable LJCallan

/ /88 / /88 / /88 / /88

see previous concurrence $EO \

8802170081 880210

'

\

PDR ADOCK 05000498

0 DCD ___ _ _ _

, __ _

, .

.u

(

'

, t

, * -

, .

-

.

-In Reply Refer To:

Dockets: 50-498/88-01

50-499/88-01

.

Houston Lighting & Power Company .

ATTN: J. H. Goldberg, Group Vice

President,' Nuclear ,

P.O. Box 1700 ;

'

Houston, Texas 77001

Gentlemen:

.

~

This refers to the operational readiness inspection performed by an NRC team

during the period January 4-8, 1988, of activities authorized by NRC Operating' -

License NPF-71 and Construction Permit CPpR-129 for the South Texas Project,

Units 1 and 2, and to the discussion of our findings with you and members of

your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.

Areas examined during the inspection included operations, operations training, i

maintenance, surveillance, fire prevention and protection, and quality assurance

and management controls to' assure quality. Three areas were not assessed.

These areas were physical security, radiological protection, and emergency

preparedness. The readiness of the physical security area was addressed in a .

concurrent inspection (50-498/88-03; 50-499/88-03).

During this inspection, it was found that certain of your activities were in ;

violation of NRC requirements. Consequently, you are required to respond to

this violation, in writing, in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.201 '

of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations.

Your response should be based on the specifics contained in the Notice of

Violation enclosed with this letter.

This inspection also identified five significant concerns. These are summarized

in paragraph 2 of the enclosed inspection report. Resolution of these concerns

must be completed before an increase in power above 5 percent can be supported.

Accordingly, you are urged to keep us closely informed of your actions, both .

planned and completed, in addressing these concerns. Other than these concerns,

the inspection did not reveal any areas which would lead us to conclude that you

were not ready to operate at power.

The response directed by this letter and the accompanying Notice is not subject

to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required

by the Paperwork Re etion Act of 1980, PL 96-511.

e

RIF:

0RS

h'

n Dj0RS C:hp 0: V)

JPJa d'on/tw JTLMilhoan GLQRistable LJ illan *

g /88 l

b/$/88 1/f/88 2 /K) /88

i

- -"

, :i

., * .

<

,

- -

.

Houston Lighting & Power Company -

2- '

Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased to-

discuss them with you.

.

Sincerely,

Original Sigtnd By

AL B. Beach

(

L. J. Callan, Director

/ Division of Reactor Projects

Enclosures: -

1. Appendix A - Executive Summary

2. Appendix B - Notice of Violation

3. Appendix C - NRC Inspection. Report >

50-498/88-01 !

50-499/88-01 '

cc w/dnclosures:

Houston Lighting & Power Company

ATTN: M. Wisenberg, Manager '

Nuclear Licensing

,

!

P.O. Box 1700

Houston, Texas 77001 I

, .

Houston Lighting & Power Company

ATTN: Gerald E. Vaughn, Vice President

Nuclear Operations <

P.O. Box 1700

Houston, Texas 77001 l

,

Central Power & Light Company

ATTN: R. L. Range /R. P. Verret

P.O. Box 2121

Corpus Christi, Texas 78403

City Public Service Board

ATTN: R. J. Costello/M. T. Hardt

P.O. Box 1771

San Antonio, Texas 78296 .

City of Austin

ATTN: M. B. Lee /J. E. Malaski

P.O. Box 1088

Austin, Texas 78767-8814

Texas Radiation Control Program Director

-. .

, ,

,

. .

_ ,

. .

Houston Lighting & Power Company -3-

bec to DMB (IE01)

hec distrib. by RIV:

DRP *RRI OPS -

R. D. Martin, RA *RRI-CONST. *

Section Chief (DRP/0) RPSB-DRSS

MIS System *RIV File !

Lisa Shea, RM/ALF *RSTS Operator i

R. Bachmann, OGC *H. Bundy i

P. Kadambi, NRR Project Manager *R. Taylor

TSS *R. Hall l

DRS -

D. Powers -

!

J. R. Boardman D. D. Chamberlain

'

R. E. Farrell R. C. Haag -

W. D. Johnson M. E. Murphy 6

7

-

W. F. Smith J. E. Whittemore

"w/766 i

.

i l

!

I

b

?

l

i

l

.

!

l

I

.

_^' ^- ' , - - - . , . . . _ , - -

,

.- .

,

.-

'

*

. .

,

' APPENDIX A

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY f;

The NRC Inspection Team performed an operational readiness inspection of the I

licensee during the period January 4-8, 1988. The inspection was an assessment

'

,

of licensee operational performance since the licensing of the South Texas '

Project, Unit 1 in August 1987. The NRC Inspection Team, which included five

NRC Senior Resident Inspectors from other Region IV facilities and seven NRR '

and Region IV inspectors, was very experienced in reactor operation.

'

>

A total of eight violations were identified. These eight violations, however,

did not form a pattern that indicated serious weaknesses in licensee performance

1 or programs. Considering the experience and size of the inspection team, the

violations would be what would normally be expected of a team of this size and - i

experience. These are described in the enclosed Notice of Violation in

Appendix B to this report.

There were also five issues identified wnich require resolution prior to power

,

escalation above five percent. Although'these five issues did not constitute !

l a serious management control weakness, they are considered important to affect

the safe operation of the facility. These issues are as follows- -

The NRC Inspection Team concluded that the licensee had not

i demonstrated the ability to conduct a remote shutdown and cooldown

of the plant. All shifts s,hould be able to demonstrate this skill.

1

The NRC Inspection Team conciuded that an increased knowledge of l

plant status, especially during mode changes was required. Lineup ;

and mode change procedures also did not necessarily mesh correctly.

The NRC Inspection Team found that the licensee's system for assuring I

, that Technical Specification changes were identified and implemented

! in procedures was not effectively implemented. Licensee review of

J the mechanisms which converts Technical Specifications into procedural

requirements is required.

'

The NRC Inspection Team found that the resolution of outstanding and )

, overdue problems as identified in station problem reports should be

complete because of large number of problem report investigations

'

that are overdue. .

-

l

4

The NRC Inspection Team determihed overage, commercial grade Agastat 1

relays performing safety functions were installed, had exceeded

their design life, and should be replaced.

<

The NRC Inspection Team determined that licensee performance was within

the expected range for a licensee with four and a half months operations I

,

license experience. *

!

-

l

.

J

l

i

1

- , _ - _ .

1

9

.-

. i

,

2 i

,

4

The NRC Inspection Team also identified several areas of strength in

licensee performance. Significant examples are: >

The NRC Inspection Team monitored a simulator training session. The

training session was well conducted. The students related positions

and the use of procedures was excellent. The simulator training was

considered to be an area of strength. ,

, .

The NRC Inspection Team found the preventative maintenance program

was comprehensive and thorough. Maintenance Work Instructions

reviewed were well written and were of an appropriate level of

details.

,

The NRC Inspection Team found surveillance test procedures were well

written and were considered excellent for a relatively new plant.

,

t

I +

'k

,

-

.:

i

e

>

f

1

'

1

i

1

j

i

l l

j -

l

1

l

I

4 i

ML20149F342

Text

Navigation menu

Search