IR 05000298/1981024
| ML20038D156 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 11/30/1981 |
| From: | Randy Hall, Jaudon J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20038D151 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-298-81-24, NUDOCS 8112160112 | |
| Download: ML20038D156 (4) | |
Text
A
.
t
'-
APPENDIX U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
Report:
50-298/81-24 Docket:
50-298 License:
DPR-46 Licensee:
Nebraska Public Power District Post Office Box 499 Columbus, Nebraska 68601 Facility Name:
Cooper Nuclear Station Inspection at:
Cooper Nuclear Station Site, Nemaha County, Nebraska Inspection conducted:
November 16-20, 1981 s
-
'
//[]
/
Inspector:
s J. P. Jaudon, Reactor Inspector, Systems and Date'
Technical Section Approved:
A
//
'
R. E. Hall, Chief, Systems and. Technical Section Date'
Inspection Summary Inspection on November 16-20, 1981 (Report 50-298/81-24)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of the desig change program and the nonroutine reporting program.
This inspection involved 34 inspector-hours by one NRC inspector.
Results:
Within the two areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
.
<
e N
"A
'
Y
'
,
I 8112160112 0i1201'
..
PDR ADOCK 05000298 '
G ppR
.'
~
+
,
., _
.
...
e-L
'
<
,1
r
.
-
o
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Nebraska Public Power District P. Borer, Engineering Supervisor
- L. Lessor, Station Superintendent R. Mcdonald, Health Physicist P. Thomason, Assistant to the Station Superintendent V. Wolstenholm, QA Supervisor The NRC inspector also contacted other plant personnel including administra-tive, clerical, engineering, quality assurance, and operations personnel.
- Denotes presence at the exit interview conducted November 20, 1981.
2.
Design Change Program The NRC inspector reviewed the licensee's program for design change control.
The NRC inspector determined that the total backlog of design changes,.
inciuding those under development, was approximately 150 at the time of the irispection.
The NRC inspector found that the licensee applied the following procedural control to each design change:
i
-
Documentation of review and. approval'for each design change.
A fire hazard analysis for each proposed change.
-
!
A "Reportabilit9 Analysis" for each proposed change.
This analysis
-
included determination of whether or not the proposed change constituted
~
an unreviewed' safety ^ question and the basis' for this determination.
i The NRC inspectorLreviewe'dilicensee Procedure 1.13, Revision 22.(7/13/81),
'
i
" Station Design Change ~s."
Although this procedure was found to provide detailed instruction for the control of individual design changes, the
!
NRC inspector.noted that'it did not provide for report or review of the
~
'
scope of.the entire design change-program;_however, the licensee was found to be using a computer report to provide such control.
The~NRC inspector checked the licensee's method for_ drawing update after-a change.
It was determined that after each design change which affected
~
a safety system,'the licensee used a Drawing Change Notice (DCN) to notify.
t l
operators in the Main Control Room and Radwaste Control Room.
The NRC L
inspector checked the DCN file in the' Main Control Room. 'The NRC inspector
!
found 25 DCNs were outstanding.
The average age'of DCNs was approximately
'
one month, but the NRC inspector noted that three'.DCNs were considerably older than the one month average.
These three were aged four to six months.
The NRC inspector noted that on shift operators-demonstrated'the ability to t
!:
l l
1
..
- -
-
-
..
.
~..
.
,
,
--. -
-
.
.
?h'
.
.
-
.
.
%
.
'
identify drawings which had;been affected by a design change and to
'
determine quickly what the changes to the drawing / system had been. -The NRC~ inspector-reviewed Procedure 1.19, Revision 12'(9/24/81), " Drawing Control Notice (DCN)," noting that'this procedure described the method in use by the' licensee.
The NRC inspector expressed concern to licensee
,
management that three drawing revisions had not-been issued four to six months.after the completion of the~ design change and noted that the licensee's procedures did not specify a time limit for. issuance of _ the.
revised drawing.
The NRC inspector. reviewed the licensee's Jumper and Bypass records.
It
'
was-determined that the licensee issued authorizations to install a-jumper
or bypass at the rate of approximately 10 per month,.but that most were cleared in'a short time.
The NRC inspector did note that there were four jumper / bypass authorizations which had been outstanding for such a I
long period as to make-them essentially semipermanent.
After inquiry by the NRC inspector, licensee representatives' indicated that these four.
authorizations would be re-evaluated.
The NRC' inspector noted that the licensee conducted a weekly verification of outstanding jumpers and by-i passes.
The NRC inspector also reviewed licensee Procedure 1.4, Revision 4 (10/5/81), " Station Rules of Practice." The NRC inspector did not find any discrepancies between the licensee's procedural-requirements and practice regarding jumpers and bypasses.
There were no violations or deviations identified during this phase of'
'
the inspection.
3.
Nonroutine Reporting Program The NRC inspector reviewed the licensee's programs for.the review'and l
evaluation of off-normal events occurring on site and for the review ~ of generic information received from external'soJrces'for on site applicability.
l a.
On-Site Off-Normal Events-The NRC inspector found that the licensee was using nonconformance
!
reports (NCR) to document off-normal events and to~ track them to resolution.
The NRC inspector noted that while anyone on site could initiate an NCR, the Quality Assurance department maintained records tof NCRs including a log and suspense file and the file of completed
,
.
NCRs.
The NRC inspector noted that atithe time'of the. inspection
,
there were 25 NCRs open.
The NRC inspector found that for the pre-ceeding year the average number of NCRs originated each month was approximately 11, but that the number of NCRs prepared each month varied ac' cording to the status of the_ plant.
Many more NCRs were apparently originated during outages than during operation. The
~
NRC inspector reviewed licensee Procedures 1.10, Revision 12 (3/6/81),
'
"Non-Conformance 'and. Corrective Action," and 1.25, Revision 0:(6/29/78),
,
"10 CFR 21'Reportability." The former procedure was the licensee's
'
procedure to control the reportability and correction of off-normal events while'the latter procedure provided supplemental information
' -
concerning ~reportability under'10:CFR-21.
3:
.
,
- -
.
-
- - -
-
.
-. -
(
.
.
b.
Generic Information Review The NRC inspector found that the licensee's program for review of generic information to determine local applicability was based on an initial review by senior site management. Additional review or action was found to be assigned based on the results of this initial review.
The NRC inspector reviewed licensee Procedure 1.26, Revision 1 (9/25/81), " Routing Proceoure for Operating Experience Review." This procedure provided the administrative controls and system for generic material.
The NRC inspector also reviewed the licensee's file of Institute of Nuclear Power Operations / Nuclear Safety Analysis Center Significant Operating Experience Reports.
There were no violations or deviations identified in this phase of the inspection.
4.
Exit Interview An exit interview was conducted November 20, 1981, with Mr. L. C. Lessor.
At this exit interview, the NRC inspector summarized the scope and findings of his inspection.
.
<
- - -
-
-
- - -
-
-
- -
-