IR 05000298/1980016
| ML20002C311 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 11/14/1980 |
| From: | Spangler R, Westerman T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20002C309 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-298-80-16, NUDOCS 8101100031 | |
| Download: ML20002C311 (9) | |
Text
.
'
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Report No.
50-298/80-16 Docket No.
50-298 License No. OPR-46 Licensee:
Nebraska Public Power District P. O. Box 499 Columbus, Nebraska 68601 Facility N ne:
Cooper Nuclear Station Inspection At:
Cooper Nuclear Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska Inspection conducted:
October 21-24 and 29-31, 1980
>
',
@ : ley N,bv lUY$
n t :
.
4. G. Spangler, Rea'ctor Inspector Date Reactor Projects Section No. 1 Approved by:
X bcUbn
////'/Md
T. F. Westerman, Chief Date Reactor Projects Section No. 1 Insoection Summary Inspection on October 21-24 and 29-31, 1980 (Report No. 50-298/80-16)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of followup to previously identified items, followup on IEB's, and followuo to short term lessons learned category A items.
This inspection involved 40 inspector hours on site by one NRC inspector.
Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviation were identified.
!
t 0101 10003,\\
'
,
- - _ _
_ _ _ _. -. - - - -.
,, _,, - _,..,, -, -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_,
_
_,
_
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Nebraska Public Power District P. J. Borer, Operations Supervisor
- L. C. Lessor, Station Superintendent C. R. Noyes, Engineering Supervisor
- Indicates presence at exit meetings.
2.
Followuo on Previously Identified Items
~~
(Closed) Unresolved Item 8011-3 (Inspection Report 80-11, paragraph 58):
Possible inconsistency between Administrative Procedure 1.3 and Techncial Soecification 6.3.7.
The licensee will 4plement revision 5 to administrative procedure 1.3 to remove the possibility of an inconsistency with the Technical Specifi-cation.
3.
Followuo to IE Bulletin 80-17 Failure of 76 of 185 Control Rods to fully insert during a scram at a SWR (closed).
Reference:
TI 2525/39 The following is a summary of the licensee's and inspector's activities addressing each item of the bulletin.
Item 1 a. b, c:
Satisfied by Licensee: yes Licensee Actions The scram discharge volume consists of 8 inch pipe fabricated into a 'O'
shaped header on both the North and South CR0 hydraulic units.
The header is pitched with th.e open end of the U high, and is vented at the high end through 1 inch pipe from each side of the U shaped header through three valves to the Reactor Building (RB) Atmospnere.
The inner valve is an air operated vent valve discharging to two parallel swing check valves that each exhausts to the RB atmosphere (Note:
Originally there o s only one swing check valve exhausting direct:y to the RB atmosphere.
The parallel valve was added in response to Supplement 2 of IEB 80-17).
The low end of the headers are drained through two inch pipe to a single 12 U Ud
""'G ',
,
I
inch vertical instrument volume.
This instrument volume is drained through a two inch pipe and an air operated valve to the RB floor drain system which is also open to the RB atmosphere.
Initially on July 3, 1980, and daily for seven days thereafter the licensee performed Special Test Procedure (STP) 80-10.
This test consisted of discharging service air into the vent line of each 50V header and verifying that air passed through the SDV piping to the RB equipment drain supp.
The test results verified that there was no significant amount of water in the SDV and verified that the vent system was free of obstacles and func-tionally operable.
STP 80-11 was performed during the week of July 7, 1980.
This test consisted of admitting a steam-hot water mixture throuch the vent valves on each SDV header and measuring the temperature change along the bottom of the header.
These results demonstrated that there was no damming or collection of water in the SDV header.
Region IV Verification (1) The inspector discussed the STP's 80-10 and 80-11 and their results with licensee management.
(2) The inspector reviewed the Shift Supervisor's log from July 3 to July 9 and found entries indicating that STP 80-10 had been performed daily during this period.
Item 2 Satisfied by the Licensee:
yes Licensee Actions:
On July 26, 1980, the licensee performed STP 80-09, " Scram Discharge Volume and Associated Equipment Operability Tests specified by IE Bulletin 80-17."
A canual scram was initiated and followed later in the day by an automatic scram.
All data required by item 2 of the bulletin was successfully collected for both scrams.
A report summarizing the test was subsequently submitted to the NRC by letter dated July 30, 1980.
Region IV Verification:
(1) The inspector witnessed the manual scram test on July 26, 1980.
This was documented in IE Inspection Report 50-298/80-11.
(2)
Inspector reviewed the completed 80-09 test package.
Item 3a; b Satisfied by Licensee:
yes
Licensee Actions:
STP 80-09 described above included an attacilment to time the operation of the SDV vent and drain valves.
STP 80-10 was completed following both the manually initiated and automatically initiated scrams of July 26, thus demonstrating that no water had accumulated in the SDV.
Station surveil-lance procedure 6.1.14 has been revised to include timing of the SDV vent and drain valves.
This procedure is now done quarterly.
In addi-tion General Operating Procedure (GOP) 2.1.1, Plant Cold Startup, which is used in all scram recovery operations has been revised to include the requirement to conduct procedures 6.1.14 and STP 80-10 prior to restart of the plant.
Region IV Verification:
(1) i.te inspector reviewed the revised procedures 6.1.14 and 2.1.1.
Item 4 Satisfied by the Licensee:
yes Licensee Actions The licensee's emergency procedure EP 5.2.2, "Inakility to Shutdown with Control Rods," was reviewed and revised by the Operations Supervisor to include items 4(a) through 4(d) of the bulletin.
Ta meet the requirements of item 4(e) the Operations Supervisor put together a training package consisting of IEB 80-17 and GE letters and routed it for operator review.
All operators reviewed and initialed the package.
Region IV Verification:
(1) The inspector noted during informal conversations with several control
room operators that they were cognizant of the BF-1 evant and the l
probable cause.
(2) The inspector reviewed the training package and signed-off routing slip.
(3)
The insoector reviewed EP5.2.2, Revision 4 Item 5 Satisfied by Licensee:
yes l
Licensee Actions:
,
.
-
._
-
f L
STP's 80-10 and 80-1G Revision 1, " Air Flow Test to Determine the Operability of the SDV" were written and performed as required by IEB 80-17, its supple-ments, and subsequent orders:
Daily from 7/3 to 7/9/80, Daily from 7/15 to 9/17/80; Each Shift from 9/18 to 10/17/80.
The licensee on October 17, 1980, completed the installation of level switches on each SOV header and is therefore no longer performing STP 80-10 each shift.
Region IV Verification:
(1) The inspector reviewed Shift Supervisor Log Entries and 80-10 data sheets for the period July 5 to October 17, 1980.
Item 6b Satisfied by Licensee:
yes Licensee Actions:
After discussion with Region IV the Operations Supervisor issued Standing Order (S0) 80-03 which requires the gperaticn of one loop of torus cooling for torus water temperature abovg 90 F and two loops of torus c!;iling for torus water temperature above 95 F (one RHR pump per loop).
Region IV Verification:
(1) The inspector reviewed 50 80-03.
Item 6b Satisfied by Licensee:
yes Licensee Actiong:
The Station Superintendent is cognizant of this requirement and is handling
all reports.
Region IV Verification:
(1)
Inspector has discussed this requirement with the Station Superintend-en _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
I l
Item 6c Satisfied by Licenses:
's Licensee Actions:
SORC committee members in meeting #198 on July 7, 1980, reviewed this IEB 80-17 item and associated correspondence with GE.
It was determined that two pump operation of the SLC system was not feasible without extensive, major modifications.
It was further determined that the issue should be addressed as part of the ATWS review and study.
Region IV Verification:
(1) The inspector discussed the matter with the Station Superintendent and reviewed the 50RC meeting minutes for July 7, 1980.
Item 7
,
Cooper Nuclear Station has an ATWS related RPT.
Item 8 Satisfied by Licensee:
yes Licensee Actions:
In response to the IEB 80-17, SLpplements i, 2 and 3 to IEB 80-17 and the order issued October 2,1980, the licensee nas submitted the following correspondence from J. M. Pilart, NPPD, to K. V. Seyfrit, NRC:
(a)
Letter dated July 14, 1980, Subject:
IEB 80-17 (b)
Letter dated July 28, 1980, subject:
IEB 80-17, Supplement 2 (c) Letter dated July 30. 1980, Subject:
IEB 80-17, Item 2 (d)
Letter dated August 11, 1980, Subject:
IEB 80-17, Supplement 1; Supplement 2 (e) Letter dated August 15, 1980, Subject:
IEB 80-17, Supplement 1 (f) Letter dated August 27, 1980, Subject:
IEB 80-17, Supplement 3 (g) ' etter dated September 11, 1980, Subject:
IEB 80-17, Supplement 1
.
(h) Letter dated September 18, 1980, Subject:
IEB 80-17, Supplement 1
- _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _
-)
.
.
. -.
..
.
.
(i) Letter dated October 22, 1980, Subject:
Order of October 2, 1980 All time requirements for responses have been met.
Inscection of TMI Task Action Plan Co ecory 'A'
Reauirements The following is a summary of the '.~.,pector's activities to verify the licensee's implementation of the TMI category A requirements identified ia NUREG-0578 and NUREG-0660.
(a) Procedures ai.d Staffing (TI 2515/42)
NUREG-0660 Insoector Actions TAP-Numoer 1. A. l.1 Verification was mav. hv discussion concerning the licensee s NUREG-0578 commitments with the Station Super-intendent and the Station Operations Supervisor, and by observation of the STA on shift.
The STA's responsibilities are defined in ADM Procedure 1.2, para. 16.
1.A.1.2 The inspector verified that pro-cedure 1.2, para. 6 and 7, had been revised to more explicitely define the duties of the Shift Supervisor and Control Room Operators in the direct command and oversight of operations that are important to plant safety.
II.F.2 The insoertor reviewed the licensee's
'
procedu'res 5.3.2, Pipe Break Inside Containment; and 5.3.3, Pipe Break I.-cide the Reactor Building.
The Som0CA guidelines were found to have been incorporated into these procedures.
The revised procedures were routed to each operator and
discussed on each shift to_ satisfy the training requirement.
I.C.2 The inspector verified that the licensee had revised Station Administrative Procedure 1.4, paragraph 4.1.2, to include the
_ _ _.
- _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _..
._- ___
._
.
.
._
.
I
..
licensee's NUREG-0578 commitments referenced in the NRR SER dated 4/10/80 for NPPO.
I.C.3 See TAP. No. 1.A.1.2 above.
I.C.4 The inspector determined that the licensee had revised Station Administrative Procedure 1.4,
. paragraph 11, to incorporate his NUREG-0578 commitments.
(b) Hardware Changes (TI 2515/43)
i
)
II.D.3 During inspection 80-01, the inspector determined that Design Changes (MDC 80-10 & MDC 80-67)
had been approved for the addition of pressure switches and thermocouples to relief valve tailpipes.
By discussion with the Station Opera-tions Supervisor on 6/6/80, the
'
inspector verified that this work wa. completed during the 1980 re-fue!ing outage.
The final review of the design documentation was done during this inspection.
II.E.4.2 During inspection 80-01, the in-spector confirmed that a design change (MDC 79-51) was being initiated for modification of the PCIS.
By discussion with the Operations Supervisor on 6/6/80, the inspector determined that this work was completed during the 1980 refueling outage.
The final review of the design change documentation s
was completed during this in-spection.
III.D.1.1 During inspection 80-01, the inspec-tor verified that procedure 5.3.2 had been revised to require certain drain val as to be closed in the
'
event of u LOCA.
Design Change
>
l l
.
.
78-22 was written to remove gland seal leakoffs from several valves located outside primary containment.
All work on design change 78-22 has been completed with the possible exception'of two MSIV's.
If neces-sary these valves will be done at the next available outage.
(open item 80-16-01)
(c) Health Physics (TI 2515/44)
II.B.3 The inspector confirmed that an emergency sampling procedure 8.4.1 had been written and issued and that a grab sample apparatus had been constructed and was available for rapid use.
III.D.3.3 Emergency Procedure 8.4.1 provides for a methodology of taking grab samples and quantifying release rates up to 10,000 Ci/sec.
III.A.l.2 The inspector toured the designated technical support center and verified that pertinent plant related drawings and documents were available in the center.
The licensee has designated his shop areas and laboratories as the Onsite Operations Support Centers.
The current emergency plan requires the manning of these areas in the event of an emergency.
5.
Exit Meetings Exit meetings were conducted at the conclusion of each portion of this inspection.
The above findings were discussed with and acknowledged by the Station Superintendent.