ML20149F342
| 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: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8802170081 | |
| Download: ML20149F342 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000498/1988001
Text
'
(
,
.,
.
-
,
.
,
.FEB l 01988
.
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 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
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,
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
$EO \\
- see previous concurrence
'
\\
8802170081 880210
ADOCK 05000498
0
,
__
_
___ _ _
_
.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
h'
RIF:
- 0RS
n Dj0RS
C:hp
0: V)
JPJa 'on/tw JTLMilhoan
GLQRistable
LJ illan
d
g /88
b/$/88
1/f/88
2 /K) /88
l
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
l
Houston, Texas
77001
,
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
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
7
6
-
W. F. Smith
J. E. Whittemore
"w/766
i
.
i
l
!
I
b
?
i
.
.
.
_^' ^- '
, - - - . , . . .
_ , - -
.-
,
,
.
.-
'
.
,
.
' APPENDIX A
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
f
I
The NRC Inspection Team performed an operational readiness inspection of the
'
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.
'
.
-
The NRC Inspection Team determihed overage, commercial grade Agastat
1
4
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
license experience.
,
-
.
J
l
i
- , _ - _ .
9
1
.-
.
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
j
-
l
i
4
- - -
.
-
-
.