ML20134M300

Insp Repts 50-498/85-03 & 50-499/85-03 on 850301-0430.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Site Tours,Licensee Response to Selected Safety Issues,Nuclear Operator Training & Preoperational Procedure 1-DJ-P-01

ML20134M300
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	08/05/1985
From:	Carpenter D, Constable G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20134M292	List: ML20134M290 ML20134M300
References
50-498-85-03, 50-498-85-3, 50-499-85-03, 50-499-85-3, NUDOCS 8509040074
Download: ML20134M300 (8)

See also: IR 05000301/2004030

Text

..

l

I

-

.

l

!

APPENDIX ,

b.'S'.NUCLEARREGdLATORYCOMMISSION

REGION IV

,

NRC Inspection Report: 50-498/85-03 Construction Permit: 'CPPR-128 and

50-499/85-03 CPPR-129

, .

Docket: 50-498 and 50-499

Licensee: Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P) -

P. O. Box 1700

Houston, Texas 77001

Facility Name: South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 , ,,

Inspection At: South Texas Project, Matagorda County, Texas  ;

Inspection Conducted: March 1-April 30, 1985

Inspecte : zu/

R. Carpenter, Resident Inspector

~

h6~.5'

06td

g D~.

Approved: __

G. L. Constable, Chief

s/r/ff

Date~

Project Section C, Reactor Projects Branch

Inspection Summary

'

Inspection Conducted March 1-April 30, 1985 (Report 50-498/85-03;

50-499/85-03)

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection included: (1) Site Tours;

(2) Survey of Licensee's Response to Selected Safety Issues; (3) Nuclear

Operator Training; (4) Review of Draft Properational. Procedure 1-DJ-P-01,

"125V DC Battery System (Channel 1)"; and (5) Review of Generic Prerequisite

! Test Procedure SG-E-04, " Batteries and Battery Chargers." The inspection '

involved 255 inspector-hours onsite by the NRC inspector. ,

Results: Within the scope of this inspection, no violations or deviations-

,

were identified. '

8509040074 850829

DR ADOCK 05 y8

- .

.

.

_2_

DETAILS

1. Persons Contacted

Principal Licensee Employees

R. Balcom, Reactor Operations Supervisor

• G. Parkey, Technical Support Superintendent

J. Hughes, Construction Superintendent

D. Cody, Training Manager

• R. Daly, Startup Manager

• S. Dew, Deputy Project Manager

L. Fotter, Startup Training Supervisor

• J. Goldberg, Vice President,-Nuclear

• J. Green, Operations QA Manager

G. Jarvela, Health / Safety Service Manager

T. Jordan, Site QA Manager.

• W. Kinsey, Plant Manager

4 M. Ludwig, Maintenance Manager

• M. McBurnett, Licensing Supervisor

A..Peterson, Startup Engineer Special Projects

• J. Westermeier, Project Manager

• F. White,' Site Licensing

• J. Williams, Site Manager

• B.-Franta, Manager, Staff Training

Other Personnel

Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel)

• J. Downs, D?puty Manager of Construction

• L. Hurst, Project'QA Manager .

A. Priest, Site Manager

! Ebasco' Services, Inc.'(Ebasco)

• C. Hawn, Quality Program Site Manager

Westinghouse Electric Company (Westinghouse)

I .

• A. Hograth,'_ Site Manager

-

The NRC inspector also interviewed additional licensee personnel,

Bechtel personnel, and other contractor personnel during this

inspection.

• Denotes those individuals attending one or more exit meetings

during the inspection period.

.

'

.

-3-

2. Site Tours

During this reporting period, routine tours of the site were conducted

by the NRC inspector to observe ongoing work activities.

The general plant cleanliness was acceptable. Areas of concern were noted

to the licensee. Plant cleanliness at South Texas Project (STP) appears

to be cyclic in nature as opposed to steady, consistent. Continued

attention needs to be paid to areas off the beaten path.

The NRC inspector observed construction and material handling

,

activities at the essential cooling pond pumphouse to be orderly and

acceptable. Equipment and material movement and storage was observed

at the warehouse and laydown complex. All activities were being

conducted in a safe, effective manner.

The NRC inspector toured various warehouses and laydown areas and found

that material was being stored in accordance with site procedures.

No violations or deviations were identified.

3. Survey of Licensee's Response to Selected Safety Issues

The NRC inspector reviewed the licensee's actions _and commitments to

selected safety issues. Specifically, IE Information Notices (IN) 83-75

and 84-06 dealing with steam binding of auxiliary. feed pumps and misposi-

tioned control rods. Since STP is approximately 20 months from scheduled

fuel load, no actual hardware or_ approved procedure changes have been made.

• Steam binding of auxiliary feed pumps - The complete train

separation feature and separate auxiliarj feedwater (AFW) line to

the steam generators.(separate from main feedwater) provide added

protection for STP beyond~the interconnected (H. B. Robinson, IN

84-06) design, so that the likelihood of a' common mode failure, as

described in IN 84-06 should be much less. .Also, STP hot

water / steam would have to leak through two containment isolation

valves and one autocirculation valve. Despite the above STP, with

Westinghouse support, decided to issue a design! change approval

request (DCAR) to install a dual element temperature sensor (TE)

immediately upstream of each AFW system isolation valve. The~TEs

will be monitored and alarm on the ERFDADs system in the control

room. Procedure changes required ~before issuing the-approved

procedures are being tracked ~on the STP commitment tracking and

control report with assigned responsibility and due' dates. All the

above information and documentation was reviewed by the NRC inspector

and found acceptable.

.

, .s --- , + - , , -

. _

c

.

w

,

-4-

• 'Mispositioned control rods - IN 83-75 were reviewed by the licensee

i and actions were assigned and monitored under the STP-commitment

.

-

tracking and control report with assigned responsibility and due

dates for procedure review.~ STP plans on addressing the misposi-

tioning of control rods by. strict adherence to procedures. The NRC

. inspector has reviewed the above document for inclusion of commit-

ments.

,

The NRC inspector also reviewed STP Interdepartmental Procedure ,

IP-2.2Q, Rev. 1, " Operating Experience Review," under which various

information sources are reviewed for application or impact on STP. The

system appears to be effective and acceptable.

~

1 No violations or deviations were identified.

s4. Nuclear Operator Training

The NRC inspector attended several sessions of cold license training

for nuclear operators. The sessions attended were randomly selected in

such areas'as plant electrical (IE and non-IE), instrument air, various

chemical control systems, main circulating water, and.various theory

classes. The sessions attended were well controlled with good

instructor-student communcation. All questions asked were answered or

the information was looked up for the-following session. Training aids

(audio-visual) were acceptable. The lesson plans and handouts are

still a little rough; however, the training manual will be published in

4 to 6 months and all trainees will be provided with a copy.

The inspector observed, on several occasions,' groups of trainees in the

plant tracing out systems and locating equipment. In conversations-

with the students, the consensus was that they were receiving adequate

instructions, both in quality and quantity.

The NRC inspector reviewed the STP nuclear training program and determined

that there was no requirement presently in the program for previously

licensed operators to complete the short simulator training session. Due

to unique designs of the STP facility, HL&P determined that the previously

qualified operators should go through, as a minimum, the 2-week short

course simulator training in normal and off normal commercial power plant

operation. HL&P intends to include this commitment in the next FSAR

ammendment submitted for Chapter'13.2.

No violations or deviations were identified.

,

v

v

F

. ,. .

.. . . . .- - -

_

$

.

.

-5-

5. Draft Preoperational Procedure 1-DJ-P-01, "11'5V DC Battery

System (Channel. 1)"

The draft'Preoperation Test Procedure 1-DJ-P-01, "125V DC Battery System

(Channel 1)," a safety system,.was transmitted to the NRC inspector for

review at the same time it was sent to the joint test group (JTG) for

review and approval. .This procedure was the first draft safety system

test procedure to be issued. The following NRC inspectors' comments were

provided verbally to the electrical startup supervisor.

• 1.1 This test is composed of parts of the tests described in test

summaries 20 and 21 in Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR),

Section 14.2.12.2. Since this test is a combination of parts

of the two test summaries, the objectives should be clearly-

stated.

• 2.0 Same comment as Section 1.1. Additionally, the licensee should

be sensitive as to when the rest of the requirements of test

summaries 20 and 21 will be performed.

• 2.1.1 Incomplete. Test summary 21.b.4) also requires a cell

temperature limit not be exceeded.

• 2.1.2 Mislabeled. The test calls it "Section 2.2.2."

• 2.2.2 Test summary 20.b.1) requires " . . . that each battery

charger . . ." while this section states " . . . both battery

i

chargers together . . ."

+3.1.5 The battery technical manual referenced is incorrect. It is

for a 1200 AH battery, not the 1800 AH battery installed.

• 3.1.6 The. technical manual referenced would be for Pittsburgh-Des

Moines Steel, not Power Conversion. Note: the only two

technical manuals referencedzin this procedure are both

incorrect.

' *4.1 It is not clear how revisions are going'to be handled. Is

one startup engineer going to be able to review this

with'no other concurrences?

~

+4.2 Sugge'st including a , list in ,the test package of outstanding '

titems on~the startup master completion list for this system

at the start of the test.

' ~

~*4.3 - Suggest'listingthhprerequisitetest'thatwasreviewed.

'

+4.4.11  : This stepi does not belong under 4.4. Should be labeled 4.5. -

.

9

I

• 1

. . _ _ _ . _ . . __

l

-

i

. .

'

-6 -

• 4.4.11 LAdd " corrected for electrolyte level."

• 4.5. Normal' battery room ventilation will not be available so

,

temporary' ventilation will be required. If temporary

'

ventilation is used, the battery room should be periodically

checked during charge and discharge periods to ensure H 2

4 concentration remains less than 2%.

Need to add an electrolyte-level tester.

'

e5.1

• 5.1.1 Other range scales are used during the test. What are their

, range accuracy requirements? (See 7.4.12 for example.)

'

• 5.4 Does this mean that.the test doesn't start till section 7.0

isistarted? If so, how far in advance can you perform Steps

1-6?

• 6.0 There should be a precaution on-use of= metal l tools.

• 6.2- What constitutes " appropriate protective clothing?" Why not

i state what the technical manual required: rubber apron,

gloves, safety goggles or face shield?

~

~

- *6.4 Add

" insure H 2

concentration level less than 2%."

• 6.6 All-specific gravities should be corrected for electrolyte

! , level.

,*7.1.4

Incorrecy.[Shouldbe"QIR-onMCCEIA1."

+7.1. 5 Incorrect. Should be "A2L on MCCE1A2."

!

• 7.2.2 Which local'and remote meters?

4

. *7.2.4 lShould be EIA1, not E1A2'.

i *7.2.9 Inconsistent in format.

. *7.2.11 Inconsistent in format.

• 7.3.4- What is the meaning of AC in "AC battery charger DC output

]. breaker?"-

'

• 7.4 Throughout this procedure;there is'no connection to specific

1 gravity for electrolyte ^1evel. This is contrary to IEEE 450.

1

Std.' .1980. Revise all areas'throughout the procedure to

,

account for variations in electrolyte levels.

! *7.'4. 7 Breaker already.open in' step 7.2.14.

I

t

t

e

- - . , - - , _ _ . - - , __ _ , . . , - . . . -

'

.

'

-7-

• 7.4.9 Typo "416 KV" should be "4.16 KV."

• 7.4.9.3 ~ Typo "4 KV" should be "4.16 KV."

• 7.4.12 Typo." slowing" should be " slowly."

• 7.4.12 Scale not listed in Section 5.1.1.

• 7.4.17 Electrolyte levels?

• Note: lhe review of the remainder of the test procedure was termi-

nated after 7.4.17.

• Figure 1 is poor figure. No points are labeled. How is test

recorder set up?

• Data sheet 1 typo - acceptance criteria "X85MV" should be less than

"85MV."

Data sheet 2 - Acceptance should also include a rejection of all

~

cell specific gravities greater than plus/minus 0.010 of average

(IEEE 450, Std. 1980). 'Also, any and all' cells.with an ICV 10.040

VDC from average should be listed.

Although this is a draft. procedure, it was transmitted to the NRC inspector

~

at the same time it was sent to the JTG for review and approval. The JTG

is the management level review and the procedure,Lat time of submittal,

should be technically adequate. This procedure, as reviewed, was viewed

as unacceptable for performance of this safety test. ~It appeared to have

had no technical or supervisory review. Since'this was a draft test

procedure, no violations have occurred; however, the NRC inspector con-

siders the test procedure generation process to be a matter of conern.

This is an open item (50-498/499/8503-01).

No violations or deviations were identified.

6. Review of Generic Prerequisite Test Procedure SG ~.-04

The_NRC inspector reviewed Generic Prerequisite Test Procedure SG-E-04,

" Batteries and Battery Chargers," Rev. O, in support of Preoperational

Test Procedure 1-DJ-P-01, "125V DC 1E Battery System (Channel 1),"

Rev. O. While prerequisite tests are, in actuality, component tests

and are not classified as safety-related tests at STP, this test would

test functions of the safety-related battery charger that will not be

checked as part of the safety-related preoperational test of the 1E

battery system. Therefore, the NRC inspector considers this a

safety-related test.

,

.

-8-

Generic Prerequisite Test Procedure SG-E-04, as most generic prerequisite

test procedures reviewed by'the NRC inspector, is not like a normal how-to

procedure, but rather is more like a basic guide. The attached data

sheets, when filled out by the startup engineer, documents the results of

the test. The responsible startup engineer determines the appropriate

references, acceptance criteria, test equipment, etc. Then he performs

the test with no other review or approval until the completed test results

are reviewed and approved. Total reliance is made on the ability of

the startup engineer to use the vendor technical manual to perform the

steps.

The data sheets for this particular procedure, SG-E-04, are incomplete

in that no values are recorded on the data sheets for various " test and

adjust" requirements, only "yes" or "no" boxes.

The NRC inspector raised this concern to the licensee. The licensee

responded by rewriting the battery charger preoperational test to

incorporate testing of all safety-related functions and will review the

inspector's concern on using component test results for other safety-

related components. The NRC inspector will continue to follow this

matter.

No violations or deviations were identified.

7. Open Items

One new open item was identified in this report in paragraph 5.

8503-01 Preoperational Test Procedure Generation.

8. Exit Interviews

Exit interviews were held periodically with the licensee management

personnel during the course of this inspection. Those attending one or

more of the meetings are denoted in paragraph 1. At these meetings,

the scope and findings of the inspection were presented.

I

l

l

.