IR 05000298/1979005
| ML19261E109 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 04/18/1979 |
| From: | Johnson E, Shafer W, Whitt K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19261E108 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-298-79-05, 50-298-79-5, NUDOCS 7907050140 | |
| Download: ML19261E109 (5) | |
Text
,
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0rTSSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Report No. 50-298/79-05 Docket No. 50-298 License No. DPR-46 Licensee:
Nebraska Public Power District Post Office Box 499
.
Columbus, NE 68601 Facility Name:
Cooper Nuclear Station Inspection At:
Cooper Nuclear Station Site, Nemaha County, NE Inspection Conducted:
February 19-23, 1979
[ds1T 1C
Inspector:
W. D. Sh'fer f-h-7h Performance Appraisal Branch Inspector, IE 9N dilw.
/q#$9 Accompanying Fersonnel:
E. H. Johnson, RIV Principal Inspector f,k GM
$
Approved By:
Keric't Whitt, Chief-I-/Z-79 Performance Appraisal Branch, IE Inspection Summary Inspection on February 19-23, 1979 (Report No. 50-298/79-05)
Arcis Inspected:
Routit.e, anr.ounced inspection to review the licensee's surveillance test program during the time period of June 1977 - June 1978.
The inspection involved 29 inspector-hours ensite by one Performance Appraisal Branch Inspector.
Results: Within the area inspected, no items of noncoupliance or devi-ations were identified.
.
-
' 9nq o s O l'ID.
.)l8
" [j ()
i
-
,
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- L.
C. Lessor, Station Superintendent R. Brungardt, Shift Supervisor, Surveillance Test Coordinator P. F. Doan, Mechanical Engineer J. Harren, Rr diation Chemist
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Surveillance Test Program Review The Performance Appraisal Branch objective is to conduct an indepth, narrowly scoped ieview of the licensee's surveillance program in order to provide information for the appraisal of the licensee's per-tornance from a national perspective.
-
In support of this obj ective, the inspector conducted a review of tha licensee's surveillance test program to determine that the Technical Specification surveillance tests performed by the licensee were covered by properly approved procedures; that the procedures included prerequisites, appropriate identification of calibrated instrumentation, acceptance criteria, and operational checks prior to returning the equipment to service.
The inspector also verified for those tests selected, that test results were properly reviewed and in conformance with the Technical Specifications and procedural requirements.
The Technical Srecification tests as identified in the following table, were reviewed during the.nspection.
The nature and magnitude of the findings did not indicate a need to investigate other areas.
Therefore, the entire inspection was performed within the planned scope.
-2-
a00
,}7
) T le
,
cur
[
i ni c
s g
n r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r i
a a
a a
a a
a a
a a
a a
a a
d e
e e
e e
e e
e e
e e
e e
e n
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l i
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C F
d ro el
8
0
4
4
4
6
5 b p
4
2
8
2
2
3
6, m,,
u Nq
'
l m
s o
y n
e m
r t
t o
t r
t i
s i
s a
n l
e t
y l
o i
T a
r S
A C
b v
ot a
y r
t s s
r l
e r
t t
e i e i
o e
l e
s i
s nT s
t v
b p
e l
b o
y c
e a)
O T
i O
Ml l
a L
rg b
a a
e ei e
e a
d on n
t R
d ps v
~t r
n t o A
n l
n O p l
a e
a i
e e
,
a a
R p
d t e
m v
p f 0 y
V O
g ec l
e e
m u
e o0 t
w n
sn p
r L
u n
r
i d
o e
t i s U u m
i u
a u
%
l n
l v
s pt F
a u
r c
e s
0 e i
a F
l e
i s s
S q
e a
s 1 v b
a T
P e eg l.
e t
V e
o a
p p
V T
h n t
R a
l r
fb r
m m
e e
ci n
W w
r a
P oa e
u u
d t
gw t p a
e o
e w
(
p P
P n
a ro ii l
c w
L t
a r
s O
a R
al wP o
n o
a r
o es y
y hF S
o a
L Wp d
t me p
a a
p w
c e
C l
i h
a i v m
c r
m o
sr eg l
r rr t
l Ti u
p p
u l
i e rr r
i o
oT i
u r
P S
S P
f Dt ua o
.
e t
e t
W m
mD a
sh t
v c
d cp u
a C
e e
I I
t W sc c
r a
n am P
c rd L
r r
C C
n es a
u e
o eu I
c co
o o
P P
ef ri e
S R
C RP T
A SR d
C C
H H
V o PD R
&
.
o
2
&
N
.
.
.
'
3
5
2
1
1 141
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
r
4
1
1
8
3 435
u
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
d
2
2
3
3 333
4
3 e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
c
6
6
1
6
6
666
8 or P
P P
P P
P P
P P
P
P P
P P
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S c
e e
e e
l l
l l
&
b b
b b
.o a
a a
a c
b.
d.
d.
N T
T T
T
.
(
(
(
(
2
l
1 l
2
c
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A.
A.
A.
A.
A.
C.
A.
A.
A.
C.
C.
G.
C.
B.
ep S
2)
2)
2)
2)
3
5
5
5
4
. A.
. A.
. A.
. A.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
h
4
4
4
4
4
4
4 c
2
2 e
S.
S S
S.
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
.
.
T T4 I4 T4 T4 T
T T
T T
T T
T T
T
.
cTsCC
'
'
_un.
. '
sg n
r r
r r
r r
r r
i a
a a
a a
a a
a d
e e
e e
e e
e e
n l
l l
l l
l l
l i
C C
C C
C C
C C
F d
re el
0
2
6
8 b p
0
1
3
0 mm
2
2
2 ua NS e
t r
s u
r e
t o
T a
t r
c
%
t e
a
s p
e e
m R
n T
e
/
a T
r h
y e
t t
s d
b i
t n
m s
l t
s a
as s
i y
.
n e
e h r e
b t
e g
T l
C e l
a i
m a
e k
r l
e k
y v
na n
e i
r a
t e
oe o
p b
i e
i L
i r i
O a
u L
l sB t
l q
i l
s a
r i
e t
b o
em r
o a
R n
a o
r u t
t v
s a
r P
pu n
a A
e e
l e
pc e
r i
c o
p n
ua c
e l
r n
o O
o SV n
n e
e a
C i
o e
u t
l p
s eg C
G f
t l
r m
s rn a
i o
u e
ui n
l l
B e
t P
r sd e
e e
v c
p sl g
s s
t r
a t
p ei y
e e
i u
e e
u ru x
i i
n S
R J
S PB
D D
U
.o J_
125
4
1
]
...
.
e
.
.
222
5
.
r_
4
5 111
1 u
.
...
.
.
d
2
2
333
3 e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
c
6
6
666
6 or P
P P
P P
P P
P P
S S
S S
S S
S S
.o a.
a.
a.
a.
a.
c.
N
l
5 l
l
c
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.c A.
A.
A.
A.
A.
A.
C.
E ep S
6&
7
9
9
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
h
4b
4
4
4 ce S
S S
S S
S S
S T
T T
T T
T T
T T
e
.
3.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on February 23, 1979, and sum-marized the findings and scope of the inspection.
The licensee had no comment regarding this portion of che inspeccion.
,
.
-5-70/
, i: )
L U G, J. ; i.