IR 05000498/1988047

From kanterella
Revision as of 02:03, 24 October 2020 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Insp Repts 50-498/88-47 & 50-499/88-47 on 880701-31. Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Esf Sys Walkdown, Monthly Surveillance Observation & Operational Safety Verification
ML20153E628
Person / Time
Site: South Texas  STP Nuclear Operating Company icon.png
Issue date: 08/29/1988
From: Bess J, Garrison D, Holler E
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20153E606 List:
References
50-498-88-47, 50-499-88-47, NUDOCS 8809060370
Download: ML20153E628 (10)


Text

-- _ _ . -. _ -. . _ _ -_ - _ _~ _- . _ _ _ _- _ ,

,

l

  • .

. '

!

,

i APPENDIX B I U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0hMISSION l REGION IV ,

i i

l NRC Inspection Report: 50-498/88-47 Operating License: NPF-76'

'

50-499/88-47 ConstructionPermit(CP):.CPPR-129 l Dockets: 50-498 -

'

l 50 499

!

] Licensee: Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P) i

) P.O. Box 1700 i Houston, Texas 77001 l

,

j Facility Name: South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 (STP)

1 Inspection At: STP, Matagorda County, Texas l l {

]

Inspection Conducted:  ;

f  !

Inspectors
S/11/99'
Date  !

( f.E. Bess,SeniorResidentInspector, Section D Division of Reactor Projects Project l

}

!

ff'

D. L. Garrison Resident Inspector, Project SfM/t V Date I

! Section D, Division of Reactor Projects j i  !

i F Approved: '^ -

-

7/M/f F l E. Holler, Chief. Project Section Date ~  !

Division of Reactor Projects  !

.

i Inspectior. Summary  ;

j Inspection Conducted July 1-31, 1988 (Report 50-498/88-47) I l

I Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection included onsite followup of  !

j events, engineered safety feature system walkdown, monthly surveillance  !

observation, operational safety verificatio ;

!

'

i I

l

'

.

$

PDC

i

' -- -

. - - , . - - -- - - -- , ,,.,,--- - ,- - n ,-- --,-n - -n --- --- ,_ _n,,,- --- --,..-,_ --- ,,-,-- ;

.

i

l

,

'

,

Results: Within the areas inspected, one violation was identified (failure to perform surveillances in accordance with TS, paragraph 3.a).

Inspection Conducted July 1-31, 1988 (Report 50-499/88-47)

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection included observation of electrical component work and mechanical equipment and process work observatio Results: Within the areas inspected, one violation was identified (failure to implement naintenance requirements in accordance with NRC requirements, paragraph 7).

,

i

i

.

I

1

!

'

_-. . -. . - _ _ .

.____ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - ___ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -

.

. . ,

--3-DETAILS

! Persons Contacted

,

HL&P

!

  • W. P. Evans, Licensing Engineer  :
  • T. J. Jordan, Project Quality Assurance Manager i
  • M. L. Duke, Engineer i
  • D. C. King, Construction Manager, Unit 2  ;
  • A. R. Mikus, General Supervisor, Construction j
  • S. M. Dew, Manager, Operations Support '
  • J. T.. Westermeier, Project Manager )
  • J. N. Bakey, Engineer and Licensing Manager
  • A. C. McIntyre, Manager, Support and Engineering  ;
  • W. A. Randlea, Security Manager  ;
  • W. G. We11 born, Supervising Project Engineer ,
  • S. D. Phillips, Licensing Engineer  !
  • F. Polishak, Licensing Engineer i
  • J. E. Geiger, General Manager, Nuclear Assurance  ;
  • G. L. Parkey, Plant Superintendent, Unit 2  ;
  • M. A. Garcia, ECI Construction l
  • S. M. Head, Supervisor, Licensing Engineer  ;
  • W. H. Kinsey, Plant Manager Bechtel i
  • R. W. Miller, Project Quality Assurance Manager  !
  • K. P. McNeal, Project Quality Assurance Engineer  !
  • R. D. Bryan, Construction Manager  ;

!

Ebasco  !

  • D. D. White Construction Manager  !
  • C P. Rosen Site Manager j In addition to the above, the NRC inspectors also held discussions with '

various licensee, architect engineer (AE), constructor and other contractor personnel during this inspectio ;

!

  • Denotes those individuals attending the exit interview conducted on l August 1, 1988 l Plant Status South "sexas Project (STP), Unit 1, reached 75 percent power on July 6, 1 1988. Following the successful completion of the large load reduction l (75 percent power to 25 percent power) test on July 17, 1988, reactor ,

power was reduced to approximately 6 percent to allow maintenance on the i High Pressure Turbine Generator Governor Valve No.1. The valve indicated l erratic seating position during power escalation. After maintenance and l i

.

.

.

retesting of the valve, the licensee resumed power escalation to 75 percent. On July 19, 1988, at 9:24 a.m., the reactor tripped from 54 percent power, and the plant was brought to Hot Standby. The trip was caused by an !&C Technician resetting the wrong Quality Display Parameter ,

The licensee wili report this incident in greater

'

System (QDPS) trai detail pursuant to 10 CFR 50.73. Following the completion of an investigation as to the cause of the trip, the licensee resumed power operation and reached a power level of 100 percent of rated reactor thennal power on July 27, 1988. On July 28, 1988, the reactor was the ability of the slant ,

manually to sustain tripped from100 a trip from 100 percent percent powerpower reactor to verify (a requirement for tie initial startu) testing at 100 percent power plateau). lne acceptance criteria for t1e test appeared to have been met, and the primary systen functioned as designed. The licensee planned to stay in Hot Standby (Mode 3) for approximately 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> to repair steam leaks and other required maintenance before resuming power operation. At the close of this inspection period Unit 1 was in Hot Standb ,

STP, Unit 2, is 97 percent complete. Hot functional Testing started on July 15, 1988. On July 22, 1988, the plant was brought to cold shutdown to replace the number 1 seal in Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP) 1C. Seal replacement was completed on July 28, 1988. At the c19se of this inspection period, Unit 2 RCS temperature was 250 degrees F and RCS pressure was 350 psi . Onsite Followup of Events - Unit 1 (93702) Failure to Meet Technical Specifications Surveillance Requirements I During this inspection period, there were two instances where TS surveillances were not perfonned at the time required. The Mcensee has previously implemented corrective actions to preclude such i incidents. The two cases are discussed below'

On June 23, 1988, during a review of plant surveillance data-base, the licensee discovered that surveillances pertaining to TS Surveillance Requirements 4.3.1.1 and 4.3.2.1 were scheduled with a method that could result in inappropriate staggering of test intervals. Further reviews by the licensee determined that the surveillance tests for the reactor trip breakers under voltage and shunt trip devices did not meet the staggered test basis requirement !

from June 20-23, 1988. The licensee identified the causes and l corrective actions in Licensee Event Report (LER) 68-04 On July 12, 1988, the licensee discovered that the surveillance test i to verify that fuel oil particulate contamination was within ,

acceptable limits on No. 11 Engineered Safety Feature (ESF) Diesel !

Generator Fuel Oil Storage Tank had been missed. TS Surveillance Requinnent 4.8.1.1.2.d requires this test to be perfonned every *

31 days. The test was due on July 10, 1988. The Shift Supervisor was notified at approximately 9:45 a.m. on July 12, 1988, that the l test had not been performed and the No. 11 ESF Diesel was declared l

_

,

-

. ,

-5-inoperabl Imediate actions were taken to perform the required surveillance. The results of the test were satisfactory and the No.11 Emergency Safety Feature Diesel Generator was declared operable at 11:14 c.m. on July 12, 1988. The licensee intends to identify the causes and corrective actions in LER 88-043, which is due on or about August 11, 198 TS 4.0.1 states, in part, that surveillance requirements shall be met during the operational modes or other conditions specified in individualLimitingConditionsforOperations(LCOs). Contrary to this requirement, the licensee has demonstrated failure to comply with surveillance requiren.ents as illustrated by the examples abov Between March 11 and June 13, 1988, three other examples of the licensee's failure to adequately implement TS surveillance requirements occurred (LER 88-023,88-035,and88-038). Corrective actions implemented to date do not appear to be effective in preventing failure to meet surveillance requirenents. This is an apparent violation (498/8847-01).

l Engineered Safety Feature (ESF) System Walkdown - Unit 1 (71710)

! The NRC inspector conducted a walkdown of the accessible portions of Train

"B" of the Component Cooling Water (CCW) System to independently verify the operability of the system. A review was perfonned to confirm that the licensee's system operating procedure matched plant drawings and the s

as-built configuration. Equipment condition, valve position, housekeeping, labeling, an0 support subsystems essential to actuation of the system were inspecte The NRC inspector identified the following items to licensee management:

i . The label on Breaker ElB2B2 indicated as follows, "CCW to Charging )

] Pump Return." The CCW electrical lineup indicated this breaker ,

supplied power to the CCW Return Header Isolation from Charging Pumps i Cooler, j

.

The label on Breaker E181F1 indicated as follows, "CCW to Charging l J

Pump Supply Valve." The CCW electrical lineup indicated this breaker !

supplied power to the Moter Operated Isolation from CCW Train "B" to i Charging Pumps Cooler.

,

.

The label on Breaker E18281 indicated as follows, "CCW Pump 10 Cubicle Cooler Fan llB." The CCW electrical lineup indicated this breaker supplied power to the CCW Pump 1B Cubicle Cooling Fan 11 .

The label on Breaker ElB4B2 indicated as follows, "CCW Pump Essential Chiller Area Supply Fan Room." The CCW electrical lineup indicated this breaker supplied power to the CCW Pump Essential Chiller Area Supply Fan Coil Unit.

l

'

,

.

-6-The above listed discrepancies did not render the CCW System inoperable; however, they were examples of lack of attention to detail.

No violations or deviations were identified.

'

.

5. Monthly Surveillance Observation - Unit 1 (61726)

The NRC inspector observed selected portions of the surveillances listed below to verify that the activities were being perfonned in accordance with the TS and surveillance procedures. The applicable procedures were reviewed for adequacy, test instrumentation was verified to be in calibra-tion, and test data was reviewed for accuracy and completeness. The inspector ascertained that identified deficiencies were properly reviewed and resolve Procedure 1 PSP 06-DJ-0001. Revision 6. "125 Volt Class 1E Battery ,

7-Day Surveillance Test." The NRC inspector witnessed data ,

acquisition and verified specific gravity checks on Unit 1 Class 1E i i

batteries. The NRC inspector noted that the results were within TS j limits.

J Procedure 1 PSP 03-DG-0001 Revision 5 "Standby Diesel 11 Operability Test." The NRC inspector observed pcrtions of Test Procedure 1 PSP 03-DG-0001 on Standby Diesel Generator 11 and verified that the Diesel Generator performed in accordance with the TS. The NRC inspector verified that data acquired was accurate and complet No discrepancies were identifie Procedure 1 PSP 02-FW-0574. Revision 1. "Steam Generator Narrow Range Level Alarms." The NRC inspector witnessed performance of '

this procedure and verified that the procedure was followed >

sequentially, Data was properly documented. No problems were identifie ,

No violations or deviations were identifie ;

)

6. Operational Safety Verification - Unit 1 (71707) ]

The objectives of this portion of the inspection were to verify that the facility is being operated safely and in confonnance with regulatory requirements, management controls are effective, selected activities of the licensee's radiological protection programs are implemented in compliance with regulatory requirements, and to verify licensee compliance with the approved physical security pla I The hRC inspector observed control room activity on a daily basis to verify that control room staffing, operator behavior, shift turnover, !

adherence to TS LCOs and overall control room decorum were being conducted I in accordance with NRC requirement )

I

f

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

.

,

. .

-7- 1 Inspections were conducted throughout the plant to observe work in progress. Radiological work practices, posting of barriers, and the correct use of dosimetry were observe Four Radiation Work Permits (RWPs) were reviewe A review of the four RWPs was made to detemine whether the work process was cone in a safe manner and under controlled conditions. The NRC inspector also verified that the RWPs contained information which referenced job description, radiation levels, contamination levels, respiratory protect ve equipment, dosimetry, and expiration date i

'

No violations or detiations were identifie f Electrical Component: Unit 2 (51053)

An inspection of various electrical components was performed to assess the i adequacy of the installation and workmanship. The inspection focused on basic installation practices, storage requirements, and an assessment of any damage or deterioratio The following equipment was inspected for installation; cleanliness; damge; termination of cables; condition of terminal boards, fans, motors, 7 closure panels and doors; maintenance; and general overall conditio . Cable and cable tray C2XE6-CT-EAB at elevation 79 feet in the Electrical Auxiliary Building (EAB) - This tray carries "C" train power cables through the plan . High range radiation alam controls in the EAB at elevation 65 feet in lhe electrical penetration room - This panel is designated CMA-R1-8051A and was turned over for startup testin . heutron Flux Amplifier 4Z3522-IP-686 at elevation 65 feet in the CAB - This equipment had components removed for use in Unit 1; however, the status of the unit was in accordance with site placedures. The electronics were subjected to the construction  :

environtrent because an excess of large, nonterminated cable coming

into the equipment prevented closing the door. The licensee took ,

immediate corrective action to protect this piece of equipmen '

. Electrical penetration Nos. 46, 47, 48, 49, 55, 56, 57, and 64 in the EAB penetration room at elevation 60 plus - These units were '

,

inspected for general condition and gas purge. The NRC inspector noted that some penetration cabinets had covers removed for several days which allowed the internals to become covered with construction dust. This condition was immediately corrected by the licensee. The NRC inspector also noted that the nitrogen gas pressure in the penetrations was as follows:

l

.

,'

. .

8-N pressure (psig) N Pressure (psig)

W W

,

'

11 30 47 15 56 0 48 55 57 15 49 5 64 5

The NRC inspector detennined that the' constructor had maintained nitrogen gas pressures in the penetration assemblies between 30 and 65 psig prior to March 1983. These pressures were checked monthly by

, the construction maintenance department. In March 1988 these itcms

'

were turned over to the licensee operations maintenance departmen The operations maintenance department has not picked up these items for continued maintenance and had not written a maintenance procedure to cover the items. (Procedure FM EM-1-PH87016768 "Inspect Electrical Penetrations" has been implemented for the same activity

>

inUnit1.) Thisisanapparentviolation(50/499-8849-02).

. Auxiliary Relay Panel 3E252 ERR 114 and the hydrogen recombiner power

supply at elevation 65 feet in the EAB

. Tennination Cabinets 3E122ETC80 2. -3, -4, and -5 at elevation 65 feet in the cable vault - These units are lacking shields, which preclude the entry of contaminants; however, they are acceptable at ;

{ this tin . 4160 volt switchgear for High Head Safety Injections (HHSI) Pump '

Motor "B" No. 3E152ESGOElB at elevation 32 feet in the EAB - This '

unit was inspected visually on the outside for damage to panels and cable entr . Battery chargers at elevation 32 feet in room 213 - These units were under control of the Nuclear Power Operations Department (NP00). i I This room had been recently painted. All related equipment in the !

] room was in a satisfactory conditio : During the inspection, the NRC inspector noted that the status of the high I radiation alann, 4160V switchgear, and the battery charging equipment were not in accordance with licensee procedures. This is an additional example ofapreviousviolation(50/499-8824-01) for which the licensee is

!

implementing corrective action, Safety-Related Components and Process Work Observations - Unit 2 (50073)

r

! The NRC inspector examined the following rechanical equipment and work processes as a part of general plant inspections concerning standard work practices or conditions of equipment and structure l

'

Essential Cooling Water Auxiliary (ECW) Chillers Building(3V112VCH))at elevation

.

70 feet in the Nechanical (MAB - These three units are York 300 ton capacity units driven by Roliance electric motors. One unit was in operation during the inspection and two were

!

<

.

.

. .

-9-on standby. The NRC inspector observed that the motor bearing temperature sensors were not wired, nor could an ininediate status of this item be determined. The NRC inspector brought this matter to the attention of the license . CCW pumps, motors, and coolers - The "B" train of the three units was operating. Maintenance was being perfonned on the "A" and "C" unit The NRC inspector visually inspected the units for oil levels, external damage, leakage, and general conditio .

. Small bore ECW bronze pipe fabrication - This system has been subject to deterioration and leaking because of the dealuminization of cast materials. The licensee has removed the deficient cast components and is replacing these parts with forged fittings. The NRC inspector reviewed the work in the MAB and materials in the fabrication sho l

. Diesel Generator No. 23 - This unit, which is one of three, is a Cooper KSV Turbocharged V20, 7650 H.P. Diesel Generator. The unit has been the subject of several inspections during this reporting period. After a recent test run, maintenance was perfomed which required removal of two fuel injector lines and turning over of the engine. On turning the engine, water was observed coming out of the injector bosses in two heads. These two heads were removed and found to be cracked. On further investigation, all 20 heads were removed, and a total of 18 were found to be cracke Further review found that the timing chain was two notches off, which ;

represented a timing error of approximately 20 degrees advance. The f licensee has issued a purchase order to the manufacturer, Cooper-Bessirner, to examine the rods, bearings, crankshaft, and other i

'

moving corrponents. The resident inspector will follow the licensee's actions including any licensee reports regarding the matte ,

. Coatings - At this time, the paint / coating activity is at a maxirnum in all areas of Unit 2. The NRC inspector observed the work on the ,

bridge crane, EAB fire doors, and electrical cabinets in the battery charger room (213) at elevation 32 feet. Additionally, the floor preparation in the reactor containment building at elevation -11 feet was inspecte .

Insulation - Insulation installation is progressing in all piping areas. The NRC inspector examined the in-process work at elevation 29 feet in the MAB. The work was checked for condition of pipe, cutting, fit, wiring, and sheathin ,

. Security facilities - Construction of the west gate security i;uilding has been inspected on several occasions. The structure appears to

'

meet standard construction practices for the structural steel portion

_

.

,

  • -

.

,

-10-

.

of the building and specific design engineering drawings for the secured portion. Also, the installation of the ultrasonic detection system within the double fence appears to be satisfactor No violations or deviations were identifie . Exit Interview The NRC inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) on August 1,1988, and summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. Other meetings between NRC inspectors and licensee management were held periodically during the inspection to discuss identified concerns. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of t.)e infornation provided to, or reviewed by, the inspectors during this inspectio .