IR 05000298/1981002
| ML20003G335 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 03/12/1981 |
| From: | Constable G, Dubois D, Spangler R, Westerman T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20003G332 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-298-81-02, 50-298-81-2, NUDOCS 8104290062 | |
| Download: ML20003G335 (6) | |
Text
- -.
.
.
.
g
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Report No. 50-298/81-02 License No. OPR-46 Docket No. 50-298 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:
February 9 - March 6, 1981 9 '72 $h1.r1 u&
3 J'/8/
/
c or:
0. L. DuBois, Resident Reactor Inspector
/ Date Project Section 1
-
hi'
w ~.Aca P 5/ 2/8/
r ne h R. G. Spandler, Reactor Inspector
/ Date
/
Project Section 1 y
b % LLA S&& /
A'
G. L. Cons' table, Resident Reactor Inspector
/ Date
/
Project Section 1
'
b k /E wwf 3//2/2/
Approved by
~
T. F. Westerman, Chief
' Date Project Section 1
,
Insoection Summary Insoection on February 9 - March 6, 1981 (Recort No. 60-298/81-02)
Areas Insoected:
Routine, announced inspection of operational safety verifi-cation, onsite review committee activities, surveillance, semiannual review of selected plant operations, follow up to LERs, and independent inspection effort.
The inspection involved 154 inspector hours on site by four NRC inspectors.
V B'104 29 0 0
.
.
.
Results: Within fiv's of the areas inspected no violations or deviations were identified.
However, within the area of operational safety verification one violation vas identified (failure to properly follow the equipment clearance procedure, paragraph 2).
i
.
.
3 DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted P. Borer, Operations Supervisor R. Brungardt, Surveillance Coordinator / Planner P. Doan, Mechanical Engineer
-
- L. Lessor, Plant Superintendent
,
L. Lawrence, Maintenance Supervisor R. Noyes, Engineering Supervisor
- Indicates presence at exit meetings.
2.
Operational Safety Verification The inspectors observed control room operations, instrumentation, controls, and reviewed applicable logs and conducted discussions with control room operators.
The inspectors verified the operability of the Standby Liquid Control System, reviewed tagout records and verified proper return to service of affected components.
They also verified that maintenance requests had been initiated for equipment discovered to be in need of maintenance, that the appropriate priority was assigned and that mainte-nance wac performed in a timely manner commensurate with the priority assigned.
Tours of accessible areas of the facility were conducted to observe plant and equipment conditions including cleanliness, radiological controls, fire suppression systems, emergency equipment, potential fire hazards, fluid leaks, excessive vibration and instrumentation adequacy.
These reviews and observations were conducted to verify that facility operations were in conformance with the requirements established in the Technical Specifications, 10 CFR and Administrative Procedures.
On February 18, 1981, during review of the licensee's equipment status I
controls, which included the correct initiation, approval, and performance i
of a safety-related clearance order, the resident inspector found that active Clearance Order No. 81-42 (A) was in error.
That is, clearance was approved and performed which cleared out 1B Residual Heat Removal Service Water Booster Pump and motor for motor repair; however, this Clearance Order contained a step which directed the clearance of 1A
,
l vice 1B RHR SW Booster Pump motor heater.
The Clearance Order was approved by the Shift Supervisor and performed as written, thus imple-menting the error.
The unit operator was informed by the inspector of the error.
The operator took immediate steps to correct the applicable Clearance Order step and to have the corrected step implemented.
Thus lA motor heater was restored I
to service and 18 motor heater was removed from service and properly j
tagged.
t I
i l
.
Due to the above Clearance Order error, lA motor heater was tagged out for five consecutive days thus causing the 1A motor to be placed in a degraded mode.
Plant Administrative Procedure 1.6, Revision 18, requires the Shift Supervisor to ensure that all Clearance Orders are correct prior to signing the order for implementation.
Station Technical Specification G.3.1 requires the adherence to written procedures related to the operation
.
and maintenance of system components that are safety related.
The failure to follow the requirements of procedure 1.6 as described above constitutes a violation (8102-01).
No additional violations or deviations were identified.
3.
Onsite Review Committee The inspector reviewed the activities of the Station Operations Review Committee (SORC) to determine that the committee was functioning in accordance with Section 6.2 of the Technical Specifications and the licensee's Administrative Procedure 1.18.
By a review of the 1980 SORC meeting minutes the inspector found that the committee had met with a quorum of members at the required monthly meeting frequency.
The reviews of additional documentation and the inspector's attendance at SORC meeting No. 207 indicates that the 50RC has discharged their responsibilities as listed in Technical Specification 6.2.1.4.
During discussion with the 50RC Chairman (the Station Superintendent) the inspector noted that there seemed to be no way to track the resolution of items discussed during SORC meetings and left for future resolution pending additional information.
The Chairman indicated that he was in the process of establishing a SORC punchlist.
This item will remain as an open item (8102-02).
No further adverse findings were identified.
4.
Surveillance l
l The inspector selected a sample of surveillance tests to verify:
(
(1) that selected Surveillance Technical Specification requirements were being met, (2) that applicable portions of the ISI program for pumps and valves was covered by these procedures, (3) that the procedure format was acceptable, (4) that the procedures were consistent in valve and jumper manipulations, (5) that the test had met acceptance criteria or that appropriate action had been taken if they had not, (6) and that the test results had been reviewed by appropriate management.
.
_
_
.
.
-.
_ _ _
-. _ _
.
.
The following tests were selected for this review.
Procedure No.
Title Frequency 6.2.1.7 PCIS Reactor Vessel Low-Low Monthly (M)
Water Level Functional Test 6.2.2.1.10 4.16 Kv Buses 1F;1G UV Relay M
Times Functional Test 6.2.2.2.1 ADS Water Level Functional M
Test 6.2.2.2.2 ADS Drywell Pressure Calibration M
and Functional Test 6.2.2.2.3 ADS Timer Calibration and M
Functional Test 6.2.2.2.4 ADS Control Monitor Functional Semiannual Test 6.2.2.7.1 MSIV Limit Switch Calibration Refueling and Functional Test 6.3.12.3 Diesel Fuel Oil Quality Test Quarterly (Q)
6.3.16.1 REC Pump Operability Test M
6.3.20.1 RHR SW Booster Pump Flow Test Q
and Valve Operability
.
l 6.4.5.1 Fire Protection System Monthly M
Test 6.4.5.12 Diesel Fire Pump Fuel Oil Q
Quality Test As a result of this review the inspector found that the above tests had been conducted as required and acceptably met the items noted above.
No violations or deviations were identified.
l 5.
Semiannual Review of Selected Plant Ooerations A.
Observation of Licensee Audit The inspector observed a portion of the licensee audit of Minor Design Changes (MDC) which was conducted in accordance with Quality Assurance Procedure 1701, QAP Checklist - Cooper Nuclear Station Control of CNS Minor Design Changes.
The inspector verified the auditor's independence from the organization being audited.
.
- - - - _,
_
, -,
__ _
- ______
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
During observation of the audit, the inspector noted that there did not appear to be documentation for the actual withdrawal of materials or parts identified within each DCN package.
Further in review of the material withdrawai slips, it did not appear that they were approved or reviewed.
In general, the worker filled out the with-drawal slip and appeared to have sole responsibility to insure that the correct material had been withdrawn.
This is considered an open item (8102-03).
There were no violations or deviations noted.
B.
Observation of Licensee Training The inspector observed a portion of a training session for hot licensee candidates.
The lecture was concerned with temperature and heat as applied to plant operations.
There were no violations or deviations noted.
6.
LER Followup The following LER followup inspection was completed following discussions with the station staff.
80-35 (Closed) Failure of HPCI stop valve due to the use of improper gasket material.
During surveillance testing of HPCI a gasket between a hydraulic relay valve and the hydraulic cylinder of the turbine stop valve failed.
It was determined that the vendor, Schutte and Koerting, had supplied a gasket of improper material which NPPD subsequently installed.
The correct gasket was installed during this repair.
This report has been referred to the Division of IE, Vendor Inspection Branch, for followup at Schutte and Koerting.
7.
Exit Meeting Exit meetings were conducted weekly with the Station Superintendent who
,
was informed of the above findings.
,
i