IR 05000298/1978020
| ML19289C966 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 12/15/1978 |
| From: | Boyter N, Johnson E, Madsen G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19289C964 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-298-78-20, NUDOCS 7901290048 | |
| Download: ML19289C966 (7) | |
Text
.
.
U. S. fluCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTIOil AND EliFORCEMEf1T
REGION IV
Report flo. 50-298/78-20 Docket No. 50-298 License No. DPR-46 Licensee:
Nebraska Public Power District P. O. Box 499 Columbus, flebraska 68601 Facility Name:
Cooper Nuclear Station Inspection At:
Cooper Nuclear Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska Inspection Conducted: November 28 - December 1, 1978 n ector:
d/
- d'*
/ 2 /< S /~7f'
"
E. H. Johnson, Reactor Inspector Date Accompanying b, pM:. _
12/w/n c
Personnel:
N. C. Boyter, Beactor Inspector Date 6Y,
- T&M ki Tl I
G. H. Verduzco,M eactor Inspector Date
/[
(~
/z/es/#
Approved By:
./
'G. L. Madsen, CE ef, Reactor Operations and Date Nuclear Support Branch Inspection Summary Inspection on flovember 28 - December 1,1978 (Report No. 50-298/78-20)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of:
(1) review of plant operations; (2) design changes and modifications; (3) spent fuel rack modifi-cations; (4) follow up on licensee event reports; and (5) follow up on unresolved items and inspector-identified open items. The inspectica involved seventy-nine (79) hours on-site by three (3) NRC inspectors.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were noted in the areas inspected.
7 9 012 9 0 0 f8
-
.
.y.
-
_2-DETAILS Persons Contacted G. K. Adkins, Shift Supervisor P. L. Ballinger, Reactor Engineer C. S. Barrus, Mechanical Engineer L. F. Bednar, Electrical Engineer P. J. Borer, Technical Assistant to the Station Superintendent M. E. Cashatt, Shift Supervisor P. F. Doan, Mechanical Engineer W. E. Fitzsimmons, Maintenance Planner & Scheduler
- L. C. Lessor, Station Superintendent C. R. Noyes, Engineering Supervisor R. W. Seier, Quality Assurance Supervisor P. V. Thomason, Assistant to the Station Superintendent M. G. Williams, Operations Supervisor NPPD Corporate Office Personnel L. K. Barnes, Engineering Supervisor of Mechanical & Civil Engineering
- Present at the exit interview.
In addition to the above technical and supervisory personnel, the inspector held discussions with various maintenance, operations, technical support and administrative members of the licensee's staff.
1.
Plant Status During the period of this inspection, the plant was in routine p wer operation at approximately 95% power.
The inspectors conducted a walk-through of accessible areas of the plant.
Several minor naterial discrepancies were noted and brought to the attention of the Shift Supervisor.
During the period of this inspection, the inspector observed the control room activities involved with the replacement of a linear variable differential transformer on the number 3 governor valve of the main turbine.
The activity was well coordinated and controlled.
2.
_ Review of Plant Operations The inspector reviewed the below listed plant log records, held discussions with shift personnel, observed control room and plant process instrumentation, toured accessible areas of the plant and observed routine operation, including routine radiclogical controls
-3-to determine that no abnormal conditions were in existence and that operations were being conducted in accordance with license conditions and other NRC requirements.
The following is a list of the records reviewed:
Night Order Book, August 30, 1978 through November 30, 1978 Shift Supervisor's Log, August 29, 1978 through November 26, 1978 Control Room Operator's Narrative, August 29, 1978 through November 1,1978 Jumper Log, all outstanding entries Control Room Log Sheets, October 1,1978 through October 10, 1978 Auxiliary Patrol Log Sheets, October 1,1978 through October 10, 1978 Special Instruction Log and Special Order Log, all outstanding entries Nonconformance Reports, August 20, 1978 through November 21, 1978 This area of the inspection included a tour of accessible areas of the plant and drop-in inspections of the control room to determine that shift manning was in accordance with Technical Specifications.
During the tour, the inspectors noted two items which were brought to the attention of the plant staff for investigation.
It was noted on the 958' level of the reactor building that the 'B' RHR head spray line had experienced a violent upward thrust of some 2 to 3 inches as evidenced by the damage to the floor penetration. The Station Super-intendent indicated that this item would be investigated.
On the 903'
level of the reactor building, the inspectors noted that a torus area access plug had been removed from the deck and placed next to the hatch on some round pipes. The inspectors expressed their concern that such an arrangement might allow the heavy access plug to move during a seismic event.
During the exit interview, the Station Super-intendent indicated his intention to have the access plug removed from tLa reactor building.
'
No items of noncompliance or deviations were noted in this area.
3.
Design, Design Changes, and Modific~tions The purpose of this inspection was to verify that design changes and modifications are being performed in conformance with the requirements of the Technical Specifications and 10 CFR 50.59.
The inspector reviewed the records of ten safety related design changes and found that the system provides a means of adequate documentation of the justification, safety review, implementation, and subsequent revisions to drawings, manuals, and procedure Adequate documentation of the required review of design changes and recommendations of the Station Ooerations Review Connittee (SORC) was not clearly evident to the inspector.
Technical Specification sections 6.2.1. A.4.d and 6.2.1. A.5.b requires that the SORC review proposed changes or modifications and make recommendations for approval or disapproval to the Station Superintendent.
Each design change narrative has the statement, "SORC review and appro' val of the MDC indicates that individual members of SORC concur that this MDC does not present a safety problem nor create an unreviewed safety question...." The reviewed design changes had no indication that SORC as a body made any review of the changes or any recommendations to the Station Superintendent.
A review of the SORC neeting minutes from January 27, 1977 to November 9,1978 produced a record of only one design change (MDC-77-100) that had been reviewed and approved by the SORC.
A licensee representative stated that the minor design change cover letter (Appendix B to Administrative Procedure 1.13)
provides the documentation of the 50RC review and approval.
However, this form provides for eight signatures of approval of which only one is specifically designated as requiring the signature of a member of SORC.
The other signatures are designated as representatives of various departments such as Operations or QA. Therefore, this form does not provide requirements or assurances of the required SORC reviews and approvals. A review of these cover letters for the ten design changes inspected did verify that, even though not requi ri by the form, the required signatures of members of the SORC were p.. ent.
Since the 50RC meeting minutes contain the record of only one 50RC review of a design change and the design change packages show no record of the SORC as a committee reviewing the changes, there appears to be either a lack of adequate review by the SORC or a lack of adequate documentation of the review. This deficiency was discussed at the exit interview and the Station Superintendent has agreed to review the problem.
This item will remain unresolved pending completion of the licensee's review.
(Unresolved Item 7820-1)
4.
Spent Fuel Rack Modifications The purpone of this inspection effort was to verify that expansion of spent fuel storage capacity by the licensee is being done in accordance with regulatory requirements.
Storage capacity is being increased by replacing existing fuel storage racks with high density ones.
Verification of compliance was accom-plished by direct visual inspection of newly fabricated high density storage racks and review of the following documents:
Procurement Contract (Number 76-38A)
Material Certifications of Various Vendors Certification of Chemical Composition of Boron Carbide Report of Rack Dimensional Checks (cells in place)
.
-5-Report of Boral Curtain Dimensional Checks Report of Leak Testing of Boral Curtains Report of Liquid Dye Penetrant (LDP) Examination of Welds Welder Qualification Program and Certificates of Qualification The inspector noted that the licensee had identified numerous welds with crater cracking during the receipt inspection of the high density racks.
The affected welds included structural welds on the upper grid and base structure. Although crater cracking is generally not subject to crack propogation, the affected welds are important to the integrity of the rack. The licensee is perfonning dye penetrant examination of all upper grid base structure welds and visually inspecting all remaining welds.
All defects identified will be ground out and weld repaired where less than minimum weld increment remains.
Such welds will be re-examined by dye penetrant methods.
A licensee representative has been in contact with the fuel rack vendor representative on site and has discussed the reportability of this item under existing regulations.
The licensee representative indicated to the inspector that this item will be reported under 10 CFR 21.
The inspector had no questions on the work accomplished thus far, how-ever indicated that this modification would receive further review dur;ng subsequent inspections.
5.
Follog 2 Licensee Event Reports
.a inspector reviewad the events reported on the below listed licensee event reports.
Based on a review of facility internal reports and log books, the inspector mada a determination that the events occurred as reported.
Each event was discussed with the licensee's staff. The corrective actions indicated in each report were verified to have been completed by review of surveillance test data sheets, completed work request fonns and discussions with licensee personnel.
The status of each licensee event report is given below:
LER flo.
Description Status 78-25 Failure to take a primary coolant Closed sample within four hours of a power change.
78-26 Trip of battery charger.
Closed 78-28 Abnormal wear on inboard motor bear-Closed ing for 10 service water booster pump caused by improper maintenanc.
-6-The inspector reviewed minor Design Change 78-47 (Replace CS-TDR-K16A
& B).
This minor Design Change will replace the core spray time delay relay with an improved version.
The parts have been placed on order for this change but have not been received.
This item will be reviewed during a future inspection.
The below listed report was reviewed by the inspector in-office.
Based on the 100% review by the inspector of all licensee internal nonconfor-mance reports, discussions with licensee personnel during the course of inspections, and periodic review of station logs, this report was closed with no further on-site follow up.
LER 78-30, Failure to Test Drywell Penetration during Type B CILRT.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were noted in this area.
6.
Follow Up on Unresolved Items and Inspector Identified Ooen Items (0 pen) Reference IE Repor!. 77-07, paragraph 2.
Licensee's ISI program for verification of snubber and hanger settings has been submitted and is under review by flRR.
Program delineating inspection procedures and acceptance criteria is forthcoming from NSS. This remains an open item pending finalization of inspection program.
(Closed) Reference IE Report 78-18, paragraph 4.
Testing of Diesel Generator trip lockout solenoid (20 SLO) has been incorporated into surveillance procedure 6.3.12.6.
Annual inspection of number one DG conducted November 9,.1978, included a satisfactory test of 20 SLO.
(Resolved) Unresolved Item 7817-1, Annotations on SRM Recorder Charts.
General operating procedure 2.1.1 has been revised (11/9/78) to include the requirement that operators annotate on SRM recorder charts the time of criticality and the reactor period.
(Resolved) Unresolved Item 7817-2, Verification of SRM Recorder Chart Operability.
General Operating Procedure 2.1.1 has been revised (9/4/78)
to include the requirement that operators verify that applicable control room recorders are turned on and operable.
7.
Loss of Reactor Recirculation MG Set Speed Control The purpose of this inspection effort was to review a reportable occurrence involving the loss of speed control on a reactor recirc-ulation MG set.
On November 24, 1978, during the performance of routine maintenance on reactor recirculation MG set B, the licensee noted noted that the unit wouid not respond to speed increase signal. Trouble shooting of the scoop tube amplifier circuit was undertaken in accordance
..
_7_
with vendor's instruction manual.
One step of the instructions required the removal of the scoop tube position amplifier fuse to check for fuse integrity.
Only one fuse was shown on the circuit diagram for the amplifier circuit.
However, two fuses were located in the er. closure at the machine.
Upon removal of one of the fuses, an uncontrollable speed increase occurred on the recirc MG set. This speed increase was terminated by tripping the MG set from the control room, or by replacement of the fuse by the technician doing the trouble shooting.
Both actions were taken almost simultaneously. Reactor power increase from 27% to 75% during this event.
No reactor protection parameters were exceeded during the event.
The inspector discussed this event with the station engineering personnel and operations personnel. The second fuse not shown on the circuit diagram may be on the output of the scoop tube position indicator which provides a follow up signal to the scoop tube position amplifier.
Loss of this signal would cause the scoop tube to drive to the full speed position.
The licensee is still evaluating this event.
The inspector had no further questions on this event at this time and will follow up on the licensee's corrective action during a future inspection.
8.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is requried to ascertain whe ther they are acceptable, items of noncompliance or deviations.
The following unresolved item was identified during this inspection.
7820-1 - S0RC Approval of Minor Design Changes (paragraph 3)
9.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with the Station Superintendent at the conclusion of the inspection.
The scope of the inspection and the findings above were discussed.