IR 05000298/1980013
| ML19339A986 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 09/23/1980 |
| From: | Aneshansley M, Gagliardo J, Spangler R, Westerman T, Yandell L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19339A976 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-298-80-13, NUDOCS 8011060110 | |
| Download: ML19339A986 (8) | |
Text
-..
.
_ - -.
.
..
.
-
-
_..
--.
.. -. - -
D
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Report No.
50-298/80-13 Docket No. 50-298 License No. DPR-46 i
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.
September 8 - 11, 1980 f/t
-
%urd/
7/N/h8
"
spe r:
4.
G.' Spangler, / Reactor Inspector Dite
'
Reactor Projects Section No. I
!
N'rXii"*
{JfdfwT
>N.mL b+
9/P/D
.
M.' Aneshansley, Reactor faspect'or
/ Date Nuclear Support Sectica
/
!
i i
(l tO th t D _
nu$${
l S/CC L. Yandell, Reactor Inspector Date l
Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Approved by:
7- [,
9/a y/fo
_
T.
Westerman, Chief
/Date Rea : tor Prcjects Section No.1 l
}
.
,
Reviewed by:
!)
d il7Y3#
J. A Gaglprdo, Chief Date Nuclear Support Section t
_. jfl1060 11 0
,
__
_
..
_
-
- __-.
-
-
. _.. _.
...--..
.... -
-
. _.
_
..
...
'
,
Inspection Summary:
Inspection on September 8-11, 1980 (Report No. 50-298/80-13)
I Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of review of plant operations, requalification training, followup on LER's and followup on IE Bulletins and Circulars. This inspection involved 78 manhours on-site by three (3) NRC
]
inspectors.
Results: Within the four areas inspected no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in three of the areas.
Within the area of requalification train-
!
ing one item of noncompliance (infraction - failure to fully implemeyt the require-ments of Appendix A to 10 CFR 55, paragraph 3) and one deviation (fa'ilure to fully
meet a commitment made in the operator requalification program, paragraph 3), were
identified.
.
i
.
[
d
,
i I
i
.
)
.
~ _, -.
... _.
. _.
., -
__
_.
- -...
. -.
.
- -
_. _, _ _
__
-
.
. __
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted - NPPD P. Borer, Operations Supervisor G. Bray, Station Operator B. Creason, Shift Supervisor R. Gardner, Unit Operator I B. Gilbert, Training Coordinator B. Jansky, Training SRO M. Sandau, Station Operator
- L. Lessor, Station Superintendent
- Indicates preseice at the exit meeting.
2.
Review of Plant Operations The purpose of this inspection effort was to verify that routine facility operations were being conducted in accordance with license conditions and procedural requirements.
The inspectors made plant tours, discussed plant operations with manage-ment and shift personnel, and reviewed various logs, records and reports as listed below:
Shift Supervisor's Log June 24 - July 3, 1980 August 26 - September 4, 1980 Control Room Log June 24 - July 3, 1980 August 26 - September 4, 1980 Night Order Book June 24 - July 3, 1980 August 26 - September 4, 1980 Special Orders Log All outstanding entries Special Work Permit Log All outstanding entries Red Arrow Log Selected entries Clearance Order Book All outstanding entries Jamper Log All outstanding entries Scram Reports 80-02, 80-06 and 80-07 Valve Seals Log Selected RHR and SLC entries Shift Turnover Log Augunt and September, 1980
1
--
,
.
.
.
.
.-
..
-
..
.
j-Nonconformance Reports NCR 2098, 2099, 2101, 2119, 2123 Daily Log Sheets Selected entries (July - September 80)
,
,
No apparent items of noncompliance or deviation were noted in the above
areas.
3.
Licensed Operator Requalification Training The inspector reviewed licensed operator requalification training, related documentation and procedures, and interviewed the training coordinator and his assistant to verify that required licensed operator requalification training had been completed.
,
A.
Lectures a
The 1980 operator requalification examination had been administered
,
during the period February - April,1980.
The requalification lecture
!
schedule, based upon the results of this examination, had not been prepared.
Further, no lectures had been given to emphasize weak areas identified in the annual examination.
10 CFR 55, Appendix A, Section 2, Lectures, requires that the requalifi-cation program include pre planned lectures on a regular and continuing basis throughout the license period in those areas where annual ex-aminations indicated a need.
The licensee's approved requalification
,
!
program (letter from P. F. Collins, USNRC, DOL to Mr. L. C. Lessor, NPPD, dated August 18, 1976) states "With the exception of special activity periods, such as refueling outages, the lecture series will be spread
,
i reasonably evenly throughout each year."
The licensee's failure to provide a requalification lecture series
on a regular and continuing basis is an apparent item of noncompliance at the infraction level (298/80-13-01).
The inspector discussed with the training coordinator.the method used to evaluate the results of the annual examination and develop a plan-ned lecture series to upgrade licensed operator's and senior operator's.
knowledge in areas identified as weak.
The ~ training coordina* >r in-i dicated that lesson plans were generally not developed direc'.ly as I
a result of the examination evaluation.
Since no requalification
"
lecture-schedule had been developed, no requalification lesson plans
'
were available for review. These lesson plans will be reviewed at a subsequent inspection.
This item will. remain open pending further review (0 pen item 298/80-13-02).
.
i~
.B.
On=the-Job-Training (0JT)
i
.
The inspector reviewed records to verify that each licensed operator j
manipulated plant controls and that each licensed senior operator i
t
!
i
,
l
.1 i
'
.
either manipulated the controls or directed the activities of others who manipulated the controls. No deficiencies were noted in this area; however, the inspector did note that the majority of the con-trol manipulations were simple power changes with recirculation flow changes.
It was further noted that Cooper Nuclear Station does not utilize a simulator to obtain a variation in the control manipulations.
The inspector reviewed the method that was in use to ensure that each licensed operator was familiar with facility design changes, procedure changes, and license changes.
Cooper Nuclear Station attaches the applicable document to a route sheet and requires each licensed opera-ter to read the change and initial the route sheet.
With the excep-tion of Minor Design Change 80-78, all route sheets were properly completed.
Another element of OJT required each licensed operator and senior operator to review the contents of the station abnormal and emergency procedures at least annually.
The documentation of this requirement to date in the current training cycle does not clearly indicate that all operators have reviewed all the required procedures.
This was discussed with the training coordinator and he indicated that he would review the documentation.
This item will remain open pending completion of the action taken by the Training Coordinator (0 pen item (298/80-13-03).
C.
Operator Evaluations 10 CFR 55, Appendix A, Section 4, Evaluation, requires the requalifi-cation program to include an annual written examination to determine the scope and depth of retraining in a number of specific areas.
The licensee's approved requalification program lists ten (10) categories
that are to be covered on the annual exam; however, the annual exam administered in February - April, 1980, did not address all the categories.
Specifically, the approved program states "A planned lecture series indicate a need for additional training in the
...
following subjects:
1) Theory and principles of operation 10)
..
Station QA Program as related to station operations." The annual examination did not cover " Station QA Program as related to station operations." This is an apparent deviation from the licensee's com-mittments (298/80-13-04).
Further review of the annual evaluation revealed that the examination
was given in a single version to all licensed operators.
The exam-ination given in 1980 required two months to administer to all individ-uals required to take the examination; however, the inspector found that the licensee had taken no special measures to prevent it from
"
becoming compromised.
This item is open pending the licensee's review and resolution of this potential problem (0 pen item 298/80-13-05).
. _ _
.
,
._.
-
-.
-
.
10 CFR 55, Appendix A, Section 4, Evaluations, requires that written examinations be administered to determine licensed operator's and senior operator's knowledge of subjects covered in the requalification lecture series..The licensee's approved requalification program states
" Written examination shall be given covering material presented in the requalification program lecture series." The requalification quiz No. 22, given in November 1979, had not been graded to determine licensed operator's and senior operator's knowledge of subjects cover-ed in the requalification lecture series.
This is a second example of the apparent item of noncompliance at the infraction level (Paragraph 3. A) with respect to requalification program requirements (298/80-13-01).
10 CFR 55, Appendix A, Section 4, Evaluations, requires that the requalification program include systematic observation and evaluation of the performance of licensed operators.
The licensee's approved requalification program states "The performance of licensed operators and senior operators shall be evaluated at least annually by super-visors and/or training staff members." The licensee had developed an excellent method to document these systematic evaluations; however, approximately fifty percent of the cases reviewed for the current training cycle were incomplete in that the supervisor's evaluation of the operator's performance was missing.
This item was discussed with the station Training Coordinator and Operations Supervisor.
This item remains open pending review and corrective action by the licensee (0 pen Item 298/80-13-06).
4.
Followup on LER's The inspector reviewed the licensee's actions and analysis for the follow-i
!
ing LER's:
80-08; 80-08-01 During the first scheduled five year in-spection of the RCIC turbine, it was dis-covered that a piece was missing from a bucket on the turbine wheel and that an ad-jacent bucket was bent.
(Closed)
The vendor's examination and report indicates that the fracture was not caused by impact or by a progressive fracture mode such as fatigue, but rather by a ductile overload process that could have occurred during the initial installation of the RCIC turbine.
Specifically, a foreign object could have been wedged between the turbine bucket and the outside diameter surface and caused the deformation as the turbine was rotated by hand for alignment. No degradation of the steam supply system is indicated.
80-07 Failure of the "B" Standby Liquid Control Pump to achieve rated flow.
(Closed)
Diassembly of the
"B" pump revealed worn and pitted cylinder suction and discharge valves and seats. The "A" pump was subsequently disassembled
2
.
and inspected.
Repairs were made according to vendor instructions.
The licensee is considering adding an inspection requirement to the PM program for these pumps.
80-27 Failure of the #8 left cylinder on Diesel Generator Number 2.
(Closed)
The vendor's report for this failure found that one of the piston pin bolts had failed due to rapid fatigee and that the remaining bolt indi-cated a slow fatigue failure for the first one-fourth of the bolt shank area and then failure by tensile load as indicated by a necked bolt shank.
The articulating rod pin bolts showed fretting at the bolt head indicating that these bolts were not tight.
However, the locking tabs on both the piston pin bolts and the articulating rod pin bolts were tight making it appear unlikely that the bolts had u: threaded in service.
The vendor's report concluded that due to length of service to failure and factory QC, the above bolts were properly installed.
The report further concluded that the piston and articulating rod pin holts were stretched when the piston started to seize during recent successive starts.
Repeated starts withoat allowing the engine to come to operating temperature can lead to uneven expansion between the iron piston and the cylinder linear.
Sub-sequently, the chrome cylinder linear apparently healed but the loss of prestress on the above bolts resulted in their fatigue failure.
The vendor's metal analysis indicated no material problems.
The licensee replaced all piston and articulating rod pin bolts on this diesel.
NDT examinations of these bolts revealed no negative indications.
The pro-blem does not appear to be generic.
Operations and maintenance personnel are now aware of the possible problem with repeated diesel starts.
LER's 80-24 and 80-25 are closed based on the inspector's in-office review.
5.
Followup on IE Bulletins and Circulars The inspector verified the licensee's review of the following circulars:
79-18, 79-25, 80-01, 80-02, 80-03, 80-05, 80-08, 80-09, 80-11, 80-14 and 80-15.
The licensee's actions appeared to be appropriate for each circular.
In addition, the inspector reviewed the licensee's actions taken in response to the following bulletin.
80-10 Contamination of Nonradioactive Systems and Resulting Potential for Unmonitored, Uncontrolled Release of Radioactivity to the Environment.
(Closed)
The review requested by this bulletin was conducted in response to IE Circular 77-14.
Several system changes were made at that time and the systems have remained unchanged since then.
The licensee has added non-radioactive systems to their weekly and monthly sample surveillance prog-gram.
Systems whose gross gamma activity is in excess of three standard deviations of background will be further evaluated.
.
.
.
6.
Exit interview An exit interview was conducted at the conclusion of this inspection.
The above findings were identified and discussed with the Station Superintendent.