IR 05000298/1980006
| ML19323J150 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 05/06/1980 |
| From: | Constable G, Spangler R, Westerman T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19323J148 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-298-80-06, 50-298-80-6, IEB-79-01B, IEB-79-1B, NUDOCS 8006190289 | |
| Download: ML19323J150 (8) | |
Text
_ _ _
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
,
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0!9 FISSION m
0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT U
REGION IV
Report No. 50-298/80-06 Docket No. 50-298 License No. DPR-46 Licensee: Nebraska Public Power District P. O. Box 499 i
Columbus, Nebraska 68601 Facility Name:
Cooper Nuclear Station Inspection At:
Cooper Nuclear Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska Inspection Conducted: April 8-11, 21-23, 29-30, 1980 p c or:
%Y M o f./
c d
vR/ G. Spangldr,'BAactet Inspector
'Date Reactor Projects Section
=.
.
g/v/
(
-
Ace'apanying
.-
Personnel:
[
o, n
'
-
-
G.~ Lt Constable, Reactor Inspector Date Reactor Projects Section
A E/$/90 t
>
D. Mcdonald, Reactor Inspector {'
'D4te Engineering Support Section G
D. Tomlinson, Reactor Inspector
/D6te
'
Engineering Support Section Approved B:r:
[/(/88 T. F. Westerman, Chief, Reactor Projects Section Date Reviewed By:
'R. E. Hall, Chifef, Engineering Support Section Dste L 8 0 0 61-9 Od83
__
_
_
.
.
.
i:-
-2-Inspection Summary:
Inspection on April 8-11, 21-23, 29-30, 1980 (Report No. 50-298/80-06)
Areas Inspected: Rcutine, unannounced inspection of follow-up on previously identified items, quality assurance annual review, calibration, review of in-service inspection procedures, review and evaluation of in-service inspection data, follow-up on IEB 79-01B and independent inspection effort. This inspection involved 105 manhours on-site by four NRC inspectors.
Results: Within the areas inspected above no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
i i
!
i
.
.
-3-DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Nebraska Public Power District L. F. Bednar, Electrical Engineer P. J. Borer, Operations Supervisor P. F. Doan, Mechanical Engineer H. A. Jantzen, I&C Supervisor i
- L. C. Lessor, Station Superintendent C. R. Noyes, Technical Assistant to Station Superintendent R. O. Peterson, Engineering Supervisor D. L. Phillips, I&C Engineer J. Weaver, NPPD Licensing Engineer V. L. Wolstenholm, Quality Assurance Supervisor
- Indicates presence at exit meetings.
General Electric R. C. Hooper, Field Engineer 2.
Follow-up on Previously Identified Items (Closed) Unresolved Item 7613-02 (Report 76-13, paragraph 6): Torus Supports.
The inspector held discussions with station personnel regarding torus modifications and reviewed MDC 76-110.
This issue is resolved.
(Closed) Unresolved Items 7709-01 and 7815-03 (Inspection Reports 77-09 and 78-15, paragraphs 3): Maintenance activity audits and type of QC Inspections Performed.
These issues were identified in an audit conducted by the licensee's QA staff.
Based on a review of QA activities (paragraph 3) and discussions with the licensee's staff, the inspector determined that acceptable resolution is in progress.
This issue will be inspected in the future as part of the routine inspection of QA activities.
(Closed) Unresolved Item 8001-01 (Report 80-01, paragraph 6):
APRM Calibration.
A GAF of 1.02 in conjunction with a APRM trip setting of 118% appears to be adequate based on discussions with NRC Headquarters provided that instrument drift does not result in an actual trip set point higher than the LSSS of 120%. The licensee indicated that procedural modifications will be made to require that the GAF will be checked when an APRM trip setting is found to exceed 118% to avoid exceeding the LSSS.
,
l u-
-
.
J
.
_
.
-
.
.
.
-4-(Closed) Small Break LOCA Guidelines Audit (Inspection Report 80-01, paragraph 8): Acceptability of Findings.
,
IE has been informed that DOR plans no formal review of inspection results for the SBLOCA guidelines audit. Region IV considers the licensee's implementation of the NEDO 24708 guidelines to be acceptable.
This matter is therefore considered resolved.
3.
Quality Assurance Review The inspector reviewed the licensee's implementation of quality assurance activities to determine that safety-related work was being conducted in conformance with quality requirements.
The inspector reviewed work in progress on feedwater sparger replacement and torus modifications, i
In addition, the inspector reviewed the following QA audits conducted during the past year to assess the depth of QA review and to verify that j
identified findings are being resolved:
QAP 200 - 1979, Administrative Controls for 10 CFR 21 Reporting - 7/26/79 QAP 200 - 1979, Jump r Log and Instrument Set Points QAP 400 - Calibration Control 1/24/80
'
QAP 1000 - 1979, Core Management, 12/7/79 No items of noncompliance or deviations were noted.
4.
Calibration The inspector selected a sample of license specified calibrations to determine that:
They were performed at the required frequency,
.
They were conducted in accordance with properly approved procedures,
.
'
All instrument set points were in agreement with the license
.
limits, and Selected test equipment was in calibration at the time of use.
.
The sample consisted of the procedures listed below:
Procedure Number Name Technical Specification 6.1.29 APRM High Flow Bias Table 4.1.2 (
.
.
-5-Procedure Number Name Technical Specification 9.4.3 Main Steam Line High Radiation Table 4.1.2 6.2.2.1.1 RV Low-Low Water Level Table 4.2.A 6.2.1.2.1 RWCU High Flow Table 4.2.A 6.2.3.1 DW Flow Drain Pump Flow Table 4.2.A 6.3.15.1 Station Battery 4.9.A.2.b Within the above areas, the inspector. identified the following item.
The Reactor Water Cleanup System 200% high flow isolation is accomplished by instruments DPIS 170A and B.
The trip setpoint was initially set at 6 inches of water and changed during April 1974 to 14.7 inches of water.
The set point chan g sheet indicates that this change was made to correct
,
for water density. However, the supporting calculations vere not shown and are apparently filed elsewhere. This will remain as an open item pending a review of these calculations.
(8006-01)
No additional items were identified in these areas.
5.
Review of Procedures for In-Service Inspection The IE inspector reviewed General Electric In-Service Inspection Procedures MIUV-S752, Revision 2; MIUR-S752, Revision 0; MIUP-S752, Revision 2; and MIUD-S752, Revision 0, which were being utilized for the ultrasonic inspection of reactor vessel and piping welds. Also reviewcd were proce-
<
dures IP-S752, Revision 0, for liquid penetrant inspection and IV1-S752, Revision 0, for visual examination. All procedures reviewed had been
approved by a cognizant Level III and they specified the examination category and the extent of examination. The ultrasonic procedures appeared technically adequate in that they specified the equipment to be used, calibration standards, calibration requirements, extent of
,
inspection, inspection angles, personnel qualification requirements and acceptance limits. The liquid penetrant procedure IP-S752, Revision 0, stated what materials were to be used, surface preparation, time limits, acceptance limits and post-test cleaning requirements.
Each procedure also contained samples of the appropriate form for recording the resr'ts of each examination.
The IE inspector also reviewed the personnel qualification records for fourteen of the on-site inspection personnel engaged in performing this in-service inspection. These records indicate that all inspection per-sonnel have met at least the minimum educational and experience require-ment as stated in SNT-TC-1A.
L
.
..
-6-No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified.
6.
Data Review and Evaluation for In-Service Inspection The IE inspector reviewed records of completed inspections representing ultrasonic, liquid penetrant and visual examinations performed by the ISI team.
The joints inspected, methods used, and procedures employed were:
Joint Method Procedure NVE-BD-N6B UT MIUV-S752, Revision 2 NEW-BD-N8A UT MIUV-S752, Revision 2 FWA-BJ-23 UT MIUP-S752, Revision 2 RBW-CF-6 UT MIUP-S752, Revision 2 RBW-CF-79 UT MIUP-S752, Revision 2 PWA-BJ-2 UT MIUP-S752, Revision 2
JPA-BF-1 PT IP-S752, Revision 0 RRD-BF-1 PT IP-S752, Revision 0 RRK-BF-1 PT IP-S752, Revision 0 CSA-BF-1 PT IP-S752, Revision 0 RPA-BF-39 PT IP-S752, Revision 0 RPB-BF-39 PT IP-S752, Revision 0 Records of the visual inspections performed on the following pipe hangers were also reviewed:
Hanger Procedure AH-5 IV3-S752, Revision 0 BH-2 IV3-S752, Revision 0 MSH-134 IV3-S752, Revision 0 MSH-145 IV3-S752, Revision 0 L
l i
.
.
.1-7-
!
Hanger Procedure RHH-52A IV3-S752, Revision 0 BSS-1 IV4-S752, Revision 0 CSS-4 IV4-S752, Revision 0 MSS-17 IV4-S752, Revision 0 MSS-18 IV4-S752, Revision 0 RHH-43A IV4-S752, Revision 0 RHS-76 IV4-S752, Revision 0 Records of the following nozzle to safe-end examinations were reviewed.
This ultrasonic inspection was rerformed in accordance with procedure MIGSCC-S752, Revision 2, for the detection of intergranular stress corrosion cracking.
JPA-BF-1 CSA-BF-12 RRD-BF-1 RPA-BF-2 RRK-BF-1 RPB-BF-39 CSA-BF-1
'
All records reviewed appeared to be complete and in accordance with the requirements of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1974 Edition with Addenda through Summer 1975.
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified.
7.
Independent Inspection Report A.
Check for Build-up of Radioactivity at Plant Discharge Point into the Missouri River At the request of the inspector a sample of silt was taken from the bottom of the discharge canal. The activity of the sample was measured and compared to a silt sample taken upstream of the nuclear station and to instrument background.
The sample was counted for both total activity and for specific isotopes that might be present. No significant build-up of radioactivity was indicated.
-
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
..
.
-8-B.
Plant Records The inspector noted that the licensee is currently keeping copies of only the most recent procedure revisions in an active file. The procedure change cover sheets are the only documentation retained describing previous procedure revisions. The inspector questioned if this practice agrees with attachment 4.1 to QAI-7, QA Records, Retention, Storage and Disposition. Furthermore, the inspector expressed the concern that retaining only the summary of procedure changes may not be sufficient in all cases to reconstruct any given procedure revision should this be necessary. These concerns were discussed during the exit interview and will remain as an unresolved item pending further review.
(8006-02)
.
8.
Follow-up on 79-01B The inspectors collected data on the installation of the Automatic Depressurization System (ADS) and the High Pressure Safety Injection System in the Drywell for use in evaluating NPPD's response to IEB 79-01B.
Installation details were obtained from electrical drawings and verified during a physical inspection of the components in the drywell. The inspectors were unable to verify the method of circuit connections at the pigtails on the inboard side of the electrical penetrations due to shielding placement. The licensee is attempting to locate construction QC inspection
'
records that document the proper makeup of these connections.
This item will remain as an open item pending a review of these records.
(8006-03)
No further items were identified.
9.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance or deviations.
An unresolved item is discussed in paragraph 7 of this report.
10.
Exit Interview Exit interviews were conducted at the conclusion of each portion of this inspection. The above findings were identified and discussed with the Station Superintendent.
,
,__
,_,
_
_
_
-.
_- -