IR 05000498/1989027
| ML19324B450 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 10/06/1989 |
| From: | Gagliardo J, Hunter D, Kelley D, Vickrey R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19324B448 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-498-89-27, 50-499-89-27, NUDOCS 8911060350 | |
| Download: ML19324B450 (15) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:-- - q- ,m .,. ., n, . ,r , ' , a, s . I, , , .f j y j(>. ) [' t
i ,
j r
- ils
, , , , . - a ,, , .. > . .. , 'u e , . ,
- i
. ,. ,
4 ]
.j
-., . . . s .. , > y . , , , , - ,.. .,, , ,p t . .. .L e 1 1+ ..
.. APPENDIX ' ' > - 9 '" ,. :.?: .g: .. , i .,2.. , ' i n 7,. U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION d .,. , t . , ' ' '., k, .
- REGION IV' '
f .s '; n, , ,.,a,. c . ,J . <, j , , ~
< " .,
> .m
- 9, N?.C' Insp'ectiori. Report 50-498/89-27c Operating Lice ses
- "NPF-76-
' , ' ', 50-499/89-27 NPF-80 i -.) ~ 1 > s h'- Dockets:i 50-498 " ' ' ' ' ' - , 50-499w > i , < , , s , n , -, .- ~ < .. . at ' Licensee: 'H60ston' Lighting & Power;CompanyL(HL&P) ' ~ { ' P.O. Box 1700 h f - m _ ,, p f Houston, Texas 77001 l a..
~ , . o; . "' . Facility Name: South Texas Project:(STP). Electric Generating' Station, Units 1 ! , and 2' ' ' - i '
i f;?'; ^ '
... ' . g-3' LInspection At:. STPW Wadsworth (Matagorda County). Tex'a's, ' ' , .t.
. . L '[[ Inspect 1'on. Conducted:". August 7throaghSeptember8,1989' . y , l(, '
l
< . + , . a ~ ...
' Inspector : hM N I E 89 ' ' f ' Operational Programs Section, Division of" D..R. Hunter, Senior Reactor Inspector .Date A .'- t
^ l F Reactor: Safety s , v, r < - , , .
, ' " )k - luki j - u "A . D. L. Kelley, Reactor f6spector, Operational Date r l ' ~ s , Programs'Section, Division of, Reactor Safety
' R - .. < i 4' 'g - v.
' hh . ., - . jo)(/g ~f ' -- , , ' Si' R. B. Vickrey, Reactor Inspector, Operational Date Programs'Section, Division of Reactor Safety ,, c, 'a , L eui m mM/f h' Approved: -[gU. El Seglfrardo, C11ef, Operational Programs '
Date [ i ' ' l'+ Section.. Division of Reactor Safety
. ll ,, L s i 9911060350 891020 j ADOCK 05000498 ; ,,. . p~ PDR ,G 1 '. i
, b l 4, '
u,
. , l , e i . ..l. .. _____[_...,___..,__'. ,,,~._. _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _. -, _, _,, ... .., _, ' _
(v- > n , , )? i
i
+- '
,. ' ' 2-
- <
- - . i , Inspection ~ Sumary , ' Inspection Conducted August 7 through September 8, 1989 (Report 50-498/89-27; s 3D-499/89-27) ' Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of facility modifications,., training and qualification effectiveness, and followup on previously identified , inspection findings.
' Results: Within the three areas inspected, no violations or deviations were l.. identified..The overall' program for facility modifications. appeared to be.
- acceptable; however, the reviews and evaluations of facility modifications '
related to nuclear. safety by the plant operating review committee and'the plant t
- manager may not have been fully completed prior to implementation of the
l-change. No specific examples of inadequate safety reviews were identified.
l.
The responsibilities assigned to the. plant. safety and analysis (P8SA) groups . '. and'the staffing level (manager.and one engineer) did not-appear to be consistent.
- l t
- In'the area of training and qualification effectiveness, the licensee appeared to be ' ahead of ' schedule for meeting their. !NPO accreditation milestones.
Adequate' training audits were being conducted and, in general, appropriately ' used for program evaluation with satisfactory resolutions to the findings.
Substantial improvements were being made to restore an inadequate chemistry training laboratory to a useful condition.- Event review, training, and tracking systems were up-to-date and adequate. Training course objectives were well~ defined.and discussed; the lessons were well organized a,nd effectively presented.
' .
i
. T , ? ,4#
> ' ,3 - i
e b h, ,
n- -- .- e v .
fa . . c , , , e c .x - - , , , , , i , - ,; , .. gi:,' ' ' .;
fy-3- ' ' ' . ' ' ' e DETAILS ' ' 1.' Personnel Conticted
- G..E. Vaughn, Vice President Nuclear L*R. W. Chewning,'Vice President,' Nuclear Operations
,
- W. H. Kinsey, Plant Manager s'
,' -
- M.'A. McBurnett, Licensing Manager
. ~~ .' . A. C. McIntyre. Manager, Support En31neering. '
o , , T. J. Jordan, Manager, Plant Engineering
- B. A. Franta, Manager, Professional and Support. Services
"' a,
- S. M. Dew, Manager, Nuclear Plant Mechanical Maintenance
- P.'.T. Appleby, Manager, Training
- V. A. Simonis, Manager, Operations Support
'*J. R. Lovell. Manager, Technical Services ' _ L. G. Weldon, Manager, Operations Training-
e
- J. D. Green. Manager,' Inspection and Surveillance J'
M. R. Wisenburg, Chairman, NSRB ,
- W. S. Blair, Manager,. Maintenance Support
, ~M. Powell, Manager Plant Safety.and Analysis - ' . . ,
- J. H. Kubinka, Manager, Staff. Training
o J. A. Constantin, Supervisor Simulator Training Section
- W. H. Humble, Engineer. Plant Engineering Department i
- D. M. Chamberlain Configuration Management Coordinator, Plant Engineering
Department
- A. W.' Harrison, Supervising Licensing Engineer
- C. A. Ayala, Supervising Licensing Engineer
, ,
- A. K. Khosla, Senior Licensing Engineer P. L'., Walker Senior Licensing Engineer i
'
- M. K.' Chakravosty. Administrator.-NSRB
+
J. R. Beers, Modification / Outage Coordinator ' ., D. P. White, Engineering Modification Coordinator .R. J. Rehkugler, Senior Engineering Consultant.
'. . J. H. -Bartlett, Supervisor, Operator Training 'S. R. Basu, PORC' Secretary , J. H. Hodges. Reactor Operator, Operations Support S. B. Patel, Stress Engineer ' - U. Starks, Mechanical Engineer " - M. I. Hutcheson, Engineer, Plant Safety and Analysis ' E. Halpin, Engineer, Plant Engineering Department - .c4
- Denotes those attending the nianagement exit meeting on September 8,1989.
Other licensee personnel were contacted during the inspection.
' , ' 2.. : Followup on Previously Identified Inspection Findings F .The inspector reviewed the actions taken by the licensee regarding the following previously identified inspection findings:
. t ' J , . ..f_
gi l ' <' '
- , c ., .. b f' ' i
- '.
,' - 4 . . r . , , g Emergency Procedure (E0P) 2.1 (Closed) Deviation (498/8805-01;- 499/8805-01) - . ' Upgrade: The licensee reviewed and evaluated certain previously missed conunitments-as nart of the followup to the Deficiency Report-(DR) 89-047, g Revision 1, dated June =21, 1989.
The inspector reviewed the two licensee responses to Deficiency DR 89-047,- dated July 28. 1989 (ST-HS-HS-11928)..and August 18,1989(ST-HS-HS-12040).
The licensee reviewed 17 ideatified items-and detennined the. items to be of no significant safety cc.nsequence. Additional' corrective actions to prevent recurrence included guidance for the issuance of a problem report.
, .if appropriate, when the NRC indicated that1a violation or deviation may.
be-issued. The issuance of the problem report will formally evaluate and.
document the review for safety consequences and reportability of the item.
The inspector had no further questions regarding this matter, and this item , . ". is' considered closed.
, 2.2 (0 pen) Violation (498/8868-02) - Exam)le C: This example of the violation - involved the failure to include a'n "O(" in Substeps 14.1 and 14.2 of.EOP ' ' ' Unit 1/2 Procedure POP 05-E0-EC31, Revision 3/0, " Steam Generator Tube Rupture With Loss of Reactor Coolant Subcooled Recovery Desired."
The inspector reviewed the procedures-and verified that the change - '(addition of the "0R") had been incorporated into the E0Ps.. <
, , - , The inspector had no further questions regarding this specific item; [T ~ - however,, Examples'A and D of the violation, remain open pending the T, LQ completion of.the E0P upgrade program and NRC review of the program and its' implementation.
In!-. No violations or deviations were identified in the review of this program l , ' l.-
- area.
3.
' Facility Modifications (37701) L _ ql< . i The inspector reviewed selected facility modifications made by.the i l
H' licensee pursuant to 10 CFR.50.59 and provided to the NRC in the routine
l annual report of changes to the facility (ST-HL-AE-2809), dated October 21,
o+ l.
1988.
>
, i n' t The changes were reviewed to verify that they were completed in accordance ,. with the requirements and licensee commitments, including the Technical ~ Lk L . Specifications and 10 CFR 50.59.
' ' 3 - No facility or procedure changes, other than amendments to the Technical _ Specifications requiring prior NRC approval were noted to have been reported to the NRC by the licensee.
l ! . l, , l' y lJ 1:
. . m.
. . - _, . -
_.._. ._ _ , , _ I T '\\
, < . & .. 4. . a 't i ' ' ' , ' (. ,
- '
' ' )J ,, , , -5- ' x q x . , , y y /p
, g ,
4. 3.1 Procedures,
' The review included selected design program, administrative directives, ' . . and implementing procedures listed in the attachment. The inspector
, identified e number of. questions and provided comments regarding several i ' , of the procedures reviewed, as discussed below'
. 3.1.1 Procedure NGP-760. "Unifomity of Safety Evaluations and
10 CFR 50.59 Evaluations"
. This procedure assigned a number of responsibilit'ies to the PSAA group, ' . including the initial review and approval of screening and safety c evaluations pe'rforn;ed for modifications, the' initial approval of safety ' Lanalysesconducted'for'nonconformancereports,providingassistance
ito other groups, arid the initial training of the appropriate plant c staff' members regarding safety and.10 CFR 50.59 evaluations.
. .i Document reviews'and int'erviews revealed that the' assignments made to- , , the PS&A group (manager, one engineer,'and two vacancies) were extremely ' ambitious, considering'the apparent'importance and content of this > activity. The PS&A group had recently comenced the review of the " ' safety, evaluations for all new and existing temporary modifications.
' . '. ; The PS&A was also planning a sample review of previously completed , 10 CFR 50.59 applicability, screening and unreviewed safety question evaluations.
' , 3.1.2 Procedure IP-3.240, " Engineering Change Notice Package (Minor . I- - PIdR fication)" , I.
i t.
Step 6.4.8 of this procedure required that the Nuclear Plant Operations - o a l Department (NPOD)cognizantengineercoordinatean.impactassessment s
p4 of NP0D programs and procedures in accordance with l Procedure OPGP03-ZE-0031, " Design Change Implementation After Turnover."
.The inspector noted that the activities required by the design change-l ' ' checklist (0PGP03-ZE-0031-1) for minor modifications ~, and the ~ activities , L required for major plant modifications in accordance with F Procedure IP-3.1Q, " Plant Modifications," were not consistent.
L Procedure IP-3.1Q required (for major modifications) that the following l questions be addressed: ' ... will the design change: "
l "4 Be consistent with existing operations, maintenance, or testing procedures... >- "5.
Be compatible with existing temporary modifications and i: alterations, and not require'that any temporary modifications - and alterations be restored, revised, or incorporated as ' part of the design change...." i p.
l " < i ... .. _, % _4 , ..... -, _,
v .- . . - - - - - -- -
..,, ._ -. -- . .. - , l' ft ' ^ .l ' ^ 'n - <
, , , . j jf ... . ' o ' .
, - . , WC ' ' J - . . ., a p a+ 6- , ., , ' ) Y ' y; ' , . "g.
i i s< l iu1 Procedure IP-3.24Q did not address these two items. Licensee repre-
j ' ' , sentatives stated that the questions regarding procedure consistency.
J s c~
and the compatibility of:the change with existing. temporary modifica- , tions were addressed during the performance of the Return-to-Service-
" j - + i 1 i" Checklist 0PGP03-ZE-0031-4 by the cognizant engineer prior to declaring: ~.j ' '? / the system to be operable.
~
- < , ,. ] &
, i " f~ These procedure weaknesses were discussed with licensee representatives,q-," l N -
- who agreed to consider possible revisions to the procedures. This is i
j' ' an inspector followup item (498/8927-01; 499/8927-01) that will be j . 1,. " reviewed during a. subsequent inspection.
' k 3.1.3 Procedure OPGP03-20-0003 " Temporary Modifications and Alterations,". ! Ee addressed the update of key drawings as appropriate, in the control.
. ' room and the equipment clearance office, - ' . s . ' Document reviews and discussions revealed that the similar controlled drawings in the' records management. system were, not updated when a .I temporary modification was installed. 'Further. key engineering groups'were not provided copies of the temporary modifications in , order to have current documentation to utilize during ongoing design- ' activities. The licensee provided a status of-the temporary o ' ' * . modifications monthly; however, the inspector noted that'a number of temporary modifications were longstanding (1987). This apparent program weakness was brought to the licensee's attention for > e . consideration.
The temporary modification procedure addressed both temporary . modifications and alterations; however, alterations were no longer , , p utilized.
Interviews revealed that the procedure was presently under
, consideration for revision and the alteration process would be j l-
- eliminated.
- L 3.2" Unreviewed' Safety Question Evaluations (USOE)
'The inspector reviewed selected USOEs submitted to the NRC in the annual ' report. The inspector also reviewed a number of the more recent' USQEs.
The USQEs reviewed are listed in the report attachment. The review of the = ^ USQEs revealed that the independent nuclear safety review board (NSRB) had returned certain modification / safety evaluation packages to the plant for additional information. The information appeared to have been provided as
' , ' requested.
. ~ ' ~ The USQEs wr1tten as input to the 1989 annual report to the NRC appeared to have improved, in that'the infomation being provided to licensing was ^.. more comprehensive.
It was also noted that the safety evaluations for the > changes performed after mid-1989 routinely received a review and approval , ' of the plant safety and analysis groups as required by the nuclear policy.
%
- No violations or deviations were identified in the review of this program
< area.
. - '
< , , l '. j ',T ! , r v.
l' ' ' y
w, - .r; - y , , S_, f? ,.s ' ' ' , y , , "v _ 4, . ,. , C, ' , ',
l-7- ' > , , ' ' ' -
- ,
_ . . - > - . , 4.
, Temporary Modifications ( 7701) t The inspector' reviewed selected temporary modifications that were still l ,' active'to ensure that the review, approval, installation, and testing were
' , performed in accordance with the license and procedure requirements. The . temporary modifications reviewed are listed in the attachment to the
u report. The inspector identified the following issues and:provided , f,< coments regarding the modifications.
~ > , t 4.1. The licensee's compliance review for certain temporary modifications was. i performed in accordance with Procedure OPGP03-ZO-0003; however, it was
LF - < noted that for the three temporary modifications selected for review, the
licensee had determined that the review of the screening and safety
evaluations by the plant operations review comittee (PORC).and the' .; a approval of the~ plant manager was not required. The temporary modifications . (T1-NI-89-09. T1-PH-89-035, and T1-PH-89-038) were associated with items , , ? which may affect nuclear safety. The installed temporary ncdifications A had not been formally reviewed by the PORC and approved by the PN prior to , , . installation to ensure that no unreviewed safety question was involved.
.Although this did not appear to constitute a violation of a regulatory
requirement, it was not apparent when or how. the independent nuclear . , safety review board.(NSRB) would review the screening and safety evaluation ~ [ , ~ for the modification-to verify that no unreviewed safety question was ' ' involved.
l
This apparent' program weakness was discussed with the licensee and provided for consideration. This is considered to be an inspector followup item (498/2701-02; 499/2701-02).
,
4.21 A. temporary modification (T1-PH-89-035) had been issued regarding the ' removal ~of two blind flanges from spare containment electrical penetrations - (3E261Ef.P0003'and 0004) and the installation of modified flanges to allow cables to be routed into the reactor containment building during the refueling outege via scaled penetraticos. The modified flanges were
i installed during Mode 5 on August 9, 1989, prior to entering Mode 6,. requiring containment integrity.
The' adequacy of the installation and testing of th'e flanges was questioned l by the inspector.
Subsequent review by NRC inspectors during NRC Inspection Report,50-498/89-28; 50-499/89-28 resolved this issue.
, No violations or deviations were identified in the review of this program area.
, ~ 5.
Training anc dualification Effectiveness (41500) 5.1 INFO Accreditt. ion Status The inspectors' discussed INP0 accreditation with the licensee and reviewed their INP0 accreditation status. The'11censee representatives stated that tney were on schedul,e to meet all their accreditation milestones. The i l~.. -.. . - . - - . :
+ _
, , . .. . _ . . _.. - . - _ , f l pi_ ' ' , . . , ~., v 'l * i i
. . q% - < < .
f (.i t
, ' ' 7;, . . . _g, , _ . ,0 ! '
p , L,I, , k L licensee had completed the job / task analysis and design phase activities.
1[ . ,p.
They had recently submitted their accreditation self evcluation reports
' . 7' and were scheduled for their first INP0 accreditation visit in-L ' pl January 1990. Other milestones included: '- '
"
to have materials 50 percent d6veloped 'y Lecember 31,.1989, and o I ! to have materials 100 percent developed by December 31, 1990.
- -
S , ' The inspectors reviewed the program development status ~ from' January . through August 1989. The program development status was on or ahead of-
. schedule in all' areas'. Through August 1989, the average program status-t was at 73 percent,.which.is 17 percent ahead of their 56 percent schedule.
Of the 8 program creas being developed 7 were between 62 percent'and . 95 percent complete and 8 at 47 percent. The licensee appeared to be
"" - ahead of schedule fer meeting all of their INP0 accreditation milestones.
' , l 5.2 Review and' Followup of Training Audit - t ' - . The inspectors reviewed the: licensee's Nuclear Assurance Audit 89-21 (B2),
" Personnel Training and' Qualifications." This audit was conducted L April 18.through May 9,1089. The ' audit' identified five concerns and one <
, deficiency. which was corrected during the audit. The inspectors also -
reviewed the training department responses to the various concerns ! addressed in the audit.':The inspectors followed up extensively on a '4
- b.
concern in the chemical' operations and analysis area. identified in the ! -audit.' This concern dealt with:
3' ' Technicians needing improvement when performing analysis under . ' - , N nonroutine conditions;
' Inadequate laboratory facil.t les and the lack of equipment was limiting'the. effectiveness of the training program; and v , l Additional hands-on training was needed and could be obtained in
- '
p.
laboratory condtions.
< U l The training department's response to the above concern was that: L l Equipment previously used in the laboratory was used by the plant to
l. support startup of both units; i The decision to use the laboratory equipment in the plant had been
, .~._ , mutually agreed to by nuclear training and chemical operations and ' L analysis; and ' < , .. l4 The existing method of training personnel, using in-plant equipment,
, ' '. had not adversely affected the quality or quantity of training.
i
.y The inspector toured the chemistry training leboratory and talked with an .c' instructor about its past, present, and future status and plans. Tl.e ..f laboratory was in the process of being restored to use for training with , , e--g-et--c - ,.,sr.--i ,, .r 7-+-.,, ,.--.- ,m--,---m . , - , , m -
y.. j j-3-
' , - c 7, w.
J N g
- g -
y- , e , ,
, Y _ . s , , . ~ i ,~ 9~ ' - , - , , , , < ' l r ~ ; the' recent purchase of rer c' quip 4.nt. 'Its previous lu.k of use had been l
x attributed to a lack of equipment as identified above. Under the present~ i ' budget, the licensee had made several purchases, and future budget plans i
- ' provided for substantial additional purchases. The inspector reviewed the i! " " ,. ,,s present and' proposed training budgets. The present budget and proposed . budget both supported the above improvements in the laboratory. The inspector also noted that the proposed budget also supported substantial-c.
additions of training equipment for the mechanical, electrical, and instrumentation and control training labs.
': O The licensee's audit'of training appeared to be adequate. The resolutions ' ' + to each finding appeared to be satisfactory and had been appropriately a . - , { used for program evaluation.' ' . ' 5.3[TrainingonLERs, Events,andNotices
Tidinspectors reviewed the licensee's methods'of. identification and ' - > , tracking of training.needs based 04 LERs, industry events,znotices, and ' a . . .other areas that might warrant training. The licensee had a system in- " ' effect for processing, reviewing, and assigning the responsibility to' ' 4 i - training in these areas. The napagement action tracking. system"(MATS) was t ~ j'
y" . utilized to keep track of responsibilities and due-dates. 'In, addition to . the. MATS system, the training department.had the option to add items not
L1 specifically assigned to them through the information routing system.
,,. , These items were then' added to a lessons learned lesson plan.' The ' < , inspectors < reviewed the recently closed'and the open training department ' . .' consnitments on the MATS system. There were no: overdue items from training, r and it was noted;that several items that were not.specifically assigned to ' ' training had been covered in lessons learned.
The' licensee appeared to have an effective, systematic system for identifying significant items that required' training. They also had a i tracking system that supported these deadlines.
] q , . , s - ' , . Chemical Operations and Analysis Training 5.4 >, The inspector monitored a. portion of two training classes. The classes s, were CFT 100.36,,"Non-Class 13.8/4.16/480V AC Power Distribution" and CTT 253.01, " Ion Chromatooraphy;" ' The lessons were presented within the allotted time and the students were given ample time for questions. The instructors remained aware of time and allotted for, a planned, controlled . break. The trainees were provided with a meaningful and complete ', ' _
instructional context for the lessons with reference to the overall course ' ' objectives. The'1essons were outlined prior to the presentations and the i ' structure was explained in detail. The instructors kept to the outline of ' , instructions, departing only to satisfy questions. A11 subject areas were covered at a level commensurate with the data presented in the instruction guides and with the objectives of the lessons. The instructors were > l poised and professional and kept the interest of the class throughout the ' E session. They gained and maintcined the confidence and trust of the class. - The instructors were in control of the class and did not allow t - tangential discussions to disrupt the pursuit of the subject at hand. The q . , ' w lY - ,l
. - , . . ,;. ,- ,a .'
- , ,,. , [[y*. ' ' < s , , . , , '
, , ,
y - , , , , , /;. ,
i ,
%:
'
, , y - , .
, respectoftheclassfortheinstructorsallowedthesuccessful. comp 1htion-fM ' of the lessen without~ undue distraction..The instructors exhibited a j 'i ' ;O' s.- complete and thorough grasp of the subject matter'and were confident.
' t enotgh in,this. knowledge to:be able to relate it'in,an understandable i ' ' A . fashion. -Questions ~within the scope of the course were answered correctly:
, y and. completely.' There were no technical errors in the presentations and a.
' ' ' ' t complete picture was presented of the functions and systems including ' s-relating:the-lesson to the overa11' performance of-the functions and ' , , 'systens. The instructor for CTT 253.01, " Ion Chromatography," presented
- ' ' laboratory and study requirements and schedule for completion.
. , , ' ' ,. .
, ' The Ion Chromatography laboratory requirements included cleaning; y c . calibration, preparation of fitting, and troubleshooting of.the L equipment. These extensive laboratory requirements supported the need , ., for the licensee to have a fully operational training laboratory as
,' J addressed in paragraph'5.2.
' > , sThe inspector discussed the training program with several students of the.
l , , Ion Chromatography class. The students supported the quality of training J - and the need for continued. improvement for the chemical training labt V ' , .)h The inspector reviewed.several lesson plans related'to chemica1' operations > n' ' 1 and analysis training. Lesson plans' reviewed included- ., , .CP0'- Chemical Plant Operator Training i
CP0:100.26, Verbal'Connunications , -*' , . ' CP0 100.27. Closure Requirements For Electrical and I&C Equipment
- CPO 100.28,. Water Hammer
. ~* ": , CP0 100.?9, Valve Packing Gland Adjustment j
w - , N
CAT - Chemical Analysis Technical Training ' CAT 300.18. Liquid Weste Processing System 7 7
j CAT 300.26. Regulations, Permits, TS, and Surveillance
f CAT 300.27, Performance of Procedure
, W CFT'- Chemical. Foreman Training
, LCFT 100.36, Non-Class 13.8/4.16/48V AC Power Test,
< _ , CPR - Chemical. Plant Operators Requal
CPR 700.1, Lessons. Learned
e Th'e lessons learned lesson plan was reviewed-just prior-to a training session. The lesson covered two station problem reports and one significant event report. The instructors had reviewed the report: and , prepared'a' lesson plan for cach, which addressed all the course objectises e of Lesson,Plen CPP. 700.01, " Lessons Learned."
i - ,The course objectives were well defined and discussed.. The lesson plans . appeared to be well organized and ' efficiently presented.
. 3.. f % ' }- . ,[q e 't~ ' b ,,. k lf, ',. ' , ' L- " ! - . . . . .
k ' ,. , , ,e n .- - ' ..v . . , , m . . ,
' s a c' . . , < 5.Sl Licer ed Operator Training l' The inspector examined training records, requalification training schedules, event reports, and interviewed training departnent personnel to a, determine the effectiveness and control of the following: Active end inactive operator licenses
' > < . ,' lie teecback of indu*try events into the training program Operator requalfication training
~ The tracking and resolution of identified events'that_did or could "
. have inipact on the plant operation ' The inspector also reviewed the latest licensee audit of personnel training and Qualifications'. ' , 5.5.1 Control of_ Active and inactive Operator Licenses , The inspector selected the names of two licensed personnel who had been moved from inactive to active license status. A review of their , training records indicated that the requirements.for active license ' " status had been met.
During this time frame, the licensee documented U the changes in status via an office memorandum. The memorandum listed the. requirements for activation'of the license and was signed c by the certifying of fictr; however, this memorandum process das no ' ' ' longer being used. The licensee.had procedura11 red the process with the issuance of' Procedure OP0001-ZA-0014. " Licensed Operator License , Maintenance." This procedure, in addition to covering license i activation,also covered operator transfer between units and active ! license maintenance.
, ' ,i ' 5.5.2 Operator Requalificction Cycle - 88-07 j During this poYtion of th' e inspection, the inspector reviewed a
12-month segment of the 2-year requalification cycle. Class ' ' schedules were reviewed for lesson plan content, inclusion of ! ' industry operating experience and simulator schedules, including , proposed training scenarios. This 12-month period included a . requalification exam conducted on the simulator. The final results l r were reviewed to determine if there were any failures. Of the . 84 operators examined, there was one failure noted.' 1he operator was I reexamined and posted a passing grade.
l
The reevalification training cycle schedules reviewed contained ! comprehensive subject matter.
In addition, the inspector selected a .' sample of site and industry events from the licensee's management ' action tracking system to determint if these were included in the ' , operator requalfication where applicable. The inspector noted that the events were included either as separate classroom instruction [
9
&
_ _ _ _. _. . . -. _ _ t a - , j w, . ! f
- 12 - , - < > t E covered by lesson plans or were included in the required reading l assignments of the individual weekly schedules.. The inspector also !
! noted that events not included on the menagement action tracking system ! were also included in lesson plans and schedules. The licensee explained I l ' that all LERs. NRC Notices Bulletins. Generic Letters, and other ( [ infomative docuunts plus industry events and information were sent ! ' to the t, raining cepartment and screened to detemine their relevance ! ' to the operation of the fecility. The material if relevant to the j operation of the facility and if it had not been previously ! addressed, w&s included in the training curricul9m.
l
. i' $.5.3 Audit of Training - Audit Report 89-21 ! ' -i There were several concerns identified in the audit report. The j
inspector noted that concerns number two and three identified computer i modeling~ deficiencies associated with the simulator. Concern number l " two was related to the lack of nedeling of the emergency response
fact ity data accuisition display system (ERFDADS), and concern ! number three identified several other modeling deficiencies. The i overall concern cf the audit team was that the modeling did not
i reflect the actual 'ccotrol reom. The nuclear training department l responded that there was currently an existir's Kodification
l Request (MR-404) on the simulator to correct several modeling ! deficiencies, includini, EkFDADS and radiation monitoring. The ! radiation penitoring was scheduled for completion in 1989 and the
remainder of the modeling deficiencies by the end of 1990.: The ! . completion of this modification should enhance the training received ! ' l-by the operators, especially in emergency response training.
l No violations or deviations were identified in the review of this - i ' i program area.
- <
l 6.
Exit Interview l Theinspectorsmetwiththelicenseerepresentatives(denotedin f , I-paragraph 1) on September 8, 1989. The inspectors sunnarized the- .
inspection purpose, scope, and findings. The licensee acknowledged the ! ' e ' consnents and did not identify any specific proprietary information to the I,R inspectors.
i < ' , I ~
> . ) ,
l t ! i ! ! ! , O -. -. - - . -. . . - - -
p.
- , - , , t- . y , ,
.
- ATTACWENT Documents Reviewed
- < Programs, Policies, and Procedures , FSAR 17.2.3i " Design Control"
f i 00A Plan, Section 6.0, " Design and Modification Control," Revision 4
(June 1,1989) NGP-610. " Licensing Comitments," Revision 4 (April 6,1989)
- '
NGP-760, 'Unifomity of Safety Evaluations and 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluations,"
Revish n 0 (July 18, 1988) IP-3.10. " Plant Modifications," Revision 6 (July 28, 1989)
IP-3.190 " Design Control." Revision 1 (May 21, 1988)
IP-3.200, "10 CFR 50.59 Evaluations," Revision 1 (November 20,1987)
IP-3.24Q, " Engineering Change Notice Package," Revision 3. (July 28,1989)
IP-1,360, " Engineering Respons1bilities," Revision 1 (February 2, 1988)
OPGP03-ZE-0031 " Design Change Implementation " Revision 6 (May 2,1989)
OPGP03-ZO-0003, " Temporary Modifications ed Alterations," Revision 9
(June 15, 1988) OPGP03-ZA-0003, " License Compliance Review," Revision 8 (March 18, 1988)
OPGP03-ZA-0004, " Plant Operations Review Comittee," Revision 11 ' (August 14,1989) OPGP03-ZA-0090, " Work Process Program " Revision 0 (April 10, 1989)
OPGP03-ZE-0034, " Contractor Work Request Program " Revision 0 ' (November 16,1968) OPOP01-ZA-0014. " Licensed Operator License Maintenance," Revision 0
t Unreviewed Safety Question Evaluations 87-007, " Temporary Modification to Allow the Automatic Addition of Sodium
Cromide Into the Essential Cooling Water System" (T0-SH-87-126, dated June 27, 1987) 87-008, 87-009, and 87-010. " Temporary Modification to Provide for
Hydraulically Blocking Certain Essential Cooling Water Valves in the Fully Open Position" (TI-EW-87-174. TI-EW-87-175; and TI-EW-87-176, dated June 27,1987)
s .r - . - - -.-- - - - - - - - - - - --v - - -
-
p- , - i%. ..
-. P .'
- 2-
!
(. ' > , , 87-012, * Temporary Modification to Allow Instrument Air System Operation,
During Cooling Water Outage" (T1-0C-87-182, dated July 10,1987) { c 87-018. " Replacing)of 150 HP Supply Fan Motors With 190 HP Motors"
i (CCP1.E-EM-0826 i 87-023. " Indeterminate Motor Operated Yalve (MOV) Key Material in !
Safety-Felated MOVs" (NCR 87-121, SPR 87-0342, dated September 17,1987) i 88-024, " Modification to the Containment Personnel Air Lock Air Supply
Solenoid Yalves Controls and Test Connections Upgrade" (CCP 1J-FST-0614 SPR-88-0047, dated February 11, 1988; LER 88-017, dated March 11,1986); j l 88-047, "Frocedure Change Regarding the 4.1KY Class 1E Undervoltage Relay l ' Calibration" (1 PSP 06-PK-0001, Revision 0) ! t 87-061, "FSAR Change Addressing the Leak Testing of Safety Injection l
System Accumulator Check Valves" 88-057, " Modification to Provide the Control Power to the Instrument Air
Compressor From the Balance of Plant Emergency Diesel Generator"
(CCP-1E-FST-0868) i ' .
87-042, "FSAR Change Addressing the Pressure in the Electrical
Penetration Areas During Normal and Accident Conditions" (NCR HN 03348,
dated July 21,1987) .. , , ,> , 87-053, " Modifications to Steam Generator Blowdown Piping to Remove l ' Interference" (NCR 87-025?, dated November 3, 1987) ! I '- 89-088, " Modification to Replace the Steam Generator Blowdown Filter i ~ Element with 'Dumy' Elements" (reference temporary modification. ! T1-SB-88-081, and USQE 88-0131, dated August 31. 198C; MD-312.,MD-313, i . ,j . and MD-437) ,
. ' - 89-110, " Engineering Change Notice Package to Add an Alare For Core
r Exit Temperature for Midloop Operations" (ECNP-89-J-0099, Unit I and ECNP-89-J 0100, Unit 2) ! ' t 89-115, " Modification to Dispostion Unit I and 2 Conrnon Alarms," dated i L
June 18, 1989 ! ! ! i 89-116. " Combustible Loads Attributable to Electrical Cables in Conduit, i l - Metal Panels', and Enclosures," dated June 20, 1989
I l 89-117, " Approval of ASME Code Case U-460 for STP " dated June 20, 1989
l - .
' . . gr ... - - _ .. .... -.. -. --
- -. - .-
, i f f r e - .. , I' Ba , _ 3- . . ,
. L Temporery Modif1 cations , i.
T1-PH-89 038 Routed video cable from the 10 foot elevction of EAB to the
41 foot and 60 foot elevaticns of the MAS (approved on August 3, 1989, and , installedonAugust8,1989) - ~ , T1-N1-89-09 Removal (electronically) of one of the two fission chambers
from service on extended range Channel C1-N1-NE-0046 due to a short circuit (approved and installed on March 8,1989)1referenceNCR 89-1-067 and conditional release, dated March 3,1989) . T1-PH-89-035. Removed blind flanges from two spare containment ' * penetrations and replaced with two modified flanges to provide cable penetrations to the reactor containment building (approved on July 21-1989, and installed.on August 4, 1989) . 11-PH-89-028, Residual heat removal pung motor current remote indication
on the control board (reviewed and appro*!ed on Au9ust 2,1989, and ' installed on August 4, 1989) s Modifications Modification Design Package 89074, ' Relocate Loose Parts Monitor System
a
Channels 3 and 4 Sensors to Reactor Yessel Head lifting Studs" (plant manager approval on July 3, 1989) Engineering Change Notice Package 88 J-0215. " Containment Surge Isolation
Yalves Alarms ano Bypass /Inop Indication" (plant manager approval on August 22,1989) Training Documents StatusokNTDMATSItems
Training Schedule for Requalification Cycle.88-07 !
' Audit Report 89-21. " Personnel Training and Qualification"
NTD-890684, NDT Response to Audit Report 89-21 ' "; NTD-871176, Certification of Active License Status i
- Documentation of Requalification Course Completion i
STPEAS Individual Training Record Information l '
l t i
<. ,
i i J A f i >w f - ,... ,,. -. - - e, . _., , __.=y }}