IR 05000298/1980004
| ML19312E236 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 04/17/1980 |
| From: | Constable G, Dean S, Westerman T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19312E235 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-298-80-04, 50-298-80-4, NUDOCS 8006030534 | |
| Download: ML19312E236 (5) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _
_
._ _
'
.
O U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Report No. 50-298/80-04 Docket No. 50-298 License No. DPR-46 Licensee: Nebraska Public Power District P. O. Box 499 Columbus, Nebraska 68601 Facility Name:
Cooper Nuclear Station Inspection At:
Cooper Nuclear Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska Inspection Conducted: March 11-13 Q980
'N M
/7//p VJ Principal Inspector:
z'
G. L.M onstable FReactor Inspector Date
-
.
-
J
}) AH se
[ S. R.'D'enn, ' Reactor Inspector Date Approved By:
7-4 -I7-30'
T. F. Westerman, Chief, Reactor Projects Date~
Section Inspection Summary Inspection on March 11-13, and 24-27, 1980 (Report No. 50-298/80-04)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, announced inspection of quality assurance program; General Electric type SBM control switch problem, and a review of refueling outage activities. The inspection involved sixty-six (66) inspector-hours on-site by two inspectors.
Results: Of the four (4) areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were noted in any area.
)
s
.
'
S0060se g gg
.
DETc.. _J 1,
Persons Contacted
- L. C. Lessor, Station Superintendent C. R. Noyes, Technical Assistant to the Station Superintendent P. J. Borer, Operations Supervisor R. O. Peterson, Engineering Supervisor V. L. Wolstenholm, Quality Assurance Supervisor
- Present at exit interview.
In addition to the above technical and supervisory personnel, the inspector held discussions with various maintenance, operations, technical support and administrative member's of the licensee's staff.
2.
Plant Status The reactor was shutdown and defueled. All fuel being stored in the spent fuel pool.
3.
Quality Assurance Program Review
.
The objective of this inspection effort was to ascertain whether changes made to the licensee's QA Program are in conformance with the QA Program described in the application as required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, and whether personnel responsible for implementing the QA Program are familiar with the changes or revisions. Selected licensee administrative procedures which implement the requirements of the Quality Assurance Program were reviewed to ensure these procedures are in conformance with the approved QA Program.
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's approved " Quality Assurance Pro-
,
gram for Operation" as described in Revision 8 of FSAR Amendment 39,
l dated August 20, 1979. This approved program was then compared with the Quality Assurance Instructions (QAI's), Quality Assurance Plans
,
(QAP's), as well as selected administrative procedures to ensure these l
instructions, plans, and procedures were in conformance with the licensee's Quality Assurance Program.
The inspectors reviewed the following QAI's and QAP's which had been revised by the licensee since the last inspection in this area. These reviews were made both in-office and locally at Cooper Nuclear Station.
9l
,
.
Quality Assurance Instructions (QAI's)
TITLE QAI NO.
DATE ISSUED Controlled Distribution of Quality
1/15/79 Assurance Doc"ments General Guidelines - Quality
1/10/80 Assurance Surveillance General Guidelines - Quality
11/21/79 Assurance Audits Personnel Qualifications and
1/15/79 Training for QA Assignments Quality Records Retention, Storage
1/15/79 and Disposition Guidelines for Establishing Quality
1/22/79 Classifications of Components & Materials Non-Conformance Reports Issuance,
7/19/79 Control and Corrective Action Delegation of Specific Responsibilities
11/20/79 Guidelines for Audit Frequency
11/20/79
& Scheduling Disposition of Non-Conformance
1/15/79 Materials, Parts, and Components Suppliers Qualification
2/25/80 Quality Assurance Plans (QAP)
TITLE QAP NO.
DATE ISSUED Quality Assurance Plan 500 12/21/79 The inspectors reviewed the following QA audits which were performed during the first quarter of 1980.
Fuel Inspection Audit Design Changes Audit
<
o
..
-
.
i
'*
Fire Protection Audit Training Audit No items of noncompliance or deviations were noted in these areas.
4.
General Electric Type SBM Control Switches i
The licensee reported that as a result of the General Electric Service Informati.on Letter (SIL 155) dated 3/76 with supplements 1 and 2 dated 7/76 and 11/79, an inspection of all SBM control switches was conducted.
Approximately 480 SBM switches located primarily in the control room were checked for deterioration, and or cracking of the Lexan cam followers.
The area of concern is near the roll pin that holds the electrical con-l tacts in place. The inspector reviewed the results of the licensee's
'
inspection and observed that approximately 60 of the 480 switches and cam followers which had changed ' rom a clear appearance to an opaque " rock
.
salt" coloration indicating severe deterioration.
Approximately four switches, not installed in safety systems, had cracked or chipped cam followers and these are theorized to have been the most likely candidates for failure during use.
One switch at CNS has failed in service during the five years of plant operation.
,
The resolution of this issue will be inspected during a future inspection.
5.
Plant Tour At various times during the inspection, the inspectors observed plant monitoring from the control room.
The inspectors also toured accessible areas of the refueling deck, tours, drywell, and reactor building. From these tours they made the following observations:
General cleanliness was satisfactory No excessive fluid leaks were observed
.
No fire hazards were observed Seismic restraints and pipe hangers appear to be in satisfactory condition i
No itens of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Refueling Activities The inspector randomly observed fuel movement and accountability control to ensure conformance with approved procedures. The positioning of fuel bundles in the refueling pool were visually verified to be correct for the sample selected by the inspector.
,
i l
- *
,
5
,
i No items of noncompliance or deviation were noted in this area.
.
7.
Exit Interview i
The inspectors met with the station superintendent at the conclusion of
,
the inspection. The scope and findings of the inspection were discussed.
I i
,
f l
.i e
4
I f
_ _ _... - _. _..... - -.
_m,-.,
,, _.,,.__,..,,.,,..-..
r -..
,.. -.... - _.,....
-