IR 05000298/1983003
| ML20023C438 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 04/28/1983 |
| From: | Redano R, Westerman T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20023C431 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-298-83-03, 50-298-83-3, NUDOCS 8305170333 | |
| Download: ML20023C438 (7) | |
Text
.'
'
' '
"
.
,
.
.
.
.
- .
^
'
APPENDIX U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION ~IV
-
,s Report:
50-298/83-03 Docket:
50-298 License:
DPR-46 Licensee:
Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD)
P.O. Box 499 Columbus, Nebraska 68601 Facility Name:
Cooper Nuclear Station Inspection At:
Cooper Nuclear Station, Nemaha Ccunty, Nebraska Inspection Conducted:
March 28-April 1, 1983 Inspector:
S. $ Sp d m W 9-M-2 2 R. T. Redano, Reactor Inspector Date Reactor Project Section A Approved:
h
/- t 7-7 I T. F. Westerman, Chief Date Reactor Project Section A Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted March 28-April 1,_1983 (Report 50-298/83-03)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of training and surveillance.
The inspection involved 32 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results: Within the two areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
One new open item, 8303-01, was identified in the area of train-ing, and one new open item, 8303-02, was identified in the area of surveillance.
8305170333 830429 PDR ADDCK 05000290
pm
-
.
Details 1.
Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Personnel
- L. Lessor, Station Superintendant R. Brungardt, Shift Supervisor J. Meacham, Engineering Supervisor S. Freeborg, Mechanical Engineer II J. Kuttler, Lead Health Physics Technician P. Stevenson, Secretary V. Wolstenholm, QA Supervisor G. Smith, QA Specialist K. Goebel, Administrative Supervisor L. Parks, System Analyst M. Wolken, Plant Engineer
~
S. Jobe, Electrical Engineer L. Lawrence, Maintenance Supervisor C. Moeller, Performance Engineer S. Studebaker, Instrument and Controls (I&C) Engineer P. Ballinger, Reactor Engineer A. Witaker, Electrician K. Wheeldon, Electrician N. Dingman, Electrician D. Engraf, I&C Technician E. Nickolite, I&C Technician Contractor Personnel M. Brown, Consultant, Stone & Webster (S&W)
R. Alexander, Carpenter,.Beall G. Dolezal, Sheetmetal Worker, Waldinger The NRC inspector also contacted other licensee personnel.
- Denotes presence at the exit interview conducted on April 1, 1983.
2.
Status of Previously Identified Item Violation 8230-01:
The NRC inspector examined the CNS Procedure Index and found that the licensee was meeting the biennial review requirements for all applicable procedures.
The new computer program developed and imple-mented by the licensee to track procedure review appeared to be effective.
This violation is considered close.
3.
Training The NRC inspector examined the licensee's program for the training of nonlicensed personnel to determine whether it complied with Technical Specification requirements and regulatory commitments.
The scope of the NRC inspector's examination included the lesson plans, administration of training, and training effectiveness in the areas of health physics, security, emergency response, employee orientation, QA, and fire protec-tion.
The lesson plans and course outlines used in each subject area appeared to cover the respective subject in adequate detail.
The selected personnel records audited by the NRC inspector indicated that initial training and retraining programs were being administered in compliance with Technical Specification requirements.
The NRC inspector interviewed selected licensee personnel including contractors, consultants, engineers, technicians, craftsmen, and clerical staff to evaluate the effectiveness of the training that they had received.
From these interviews, the NRC inspector found that the information actually presented to licensee and contractor employees in the various training sessions adequately corresponded to the course outlines for those training sessions.
The NRC inspector did note a weakness in the knowledge retention of the contractor craftsmen in the areas of employee orientation and emergency response.
Both contractor craftsmen that were interviewed, were unable to tell the NRC inspector where they would assemble in the event of a site emergency.
The consultant interviewed by the NRC inspector displayed a lack of knowledge retention in the area of employee orienta-tion.
Neither the consultant nor the contractor craftsmen were aware of the location of the nearest first aid station or injury reporting pro-cedures, two major points of the employee orientation course outline.
None of the NPPD employees interviewed by the NRC inspector displayed any significant knowledge retention weaknesses.
The NRC inspector informed the licensee administrative supervisor of the aforementioned interview results and discussed the ANSI N18.1-1971,
" Selection and Training of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel," requirement that, "Means should be provided in the training program for appropriate evaluation of its effectiveness." The administrative supervisor explained that a written test was being developed for prompt implementation in the areas of security, emergency response, and employee orientation.
The NRC inspector concurred that the implementation of a written test may increase the attentiveness of the trainees and reduce the instances of knowledge retention weaknesses as found in the contractor employees.
This will remain an open item, 8303-01, pending implementation of a written test in the areas of security, emergency response, and employee orientation.
The NRC inspector verified that the licensee was conducting quarterly fire brigade t, raining sessions and that the fire brigade training program requirements were provided by a qualified fire protection engineer as specified in Technical Specificiation 6.1.4.A.
The NRC inspector also
.
- - - _.
-
i
.
noted that several senior members of the fire brigade had attended a fire brigade leadership course conducted by General Physics Corporation.
In the area of health physics training, the NRC inspector learned that a written test was already being administered.
The NRC inspector learned from interviews with female employees that the subject of prenatal radia-
'
tion exposure was addressed in health physics training.
No violations or deviations were identified in this area of inspection.
4.
Surveillance The NRC inspector examined the content, conduct, and documentation of surveillance test procedures to evaluate their compliance with regulatory requirements.
The surveillance test procedures listed below were reviewed by the NRC inspector.
Procedure Revision No.
Procedure Title No.
Date 10.16 Shutdown Margin Check
6/23/82 6.1.24 Rod Worth Minimizer Functional Test
9/21/81 for Startup 6.2.2.1.1 CSCS Water Level Calibration and
3/9/82 Functional / Functional Test
'
6.1.5 RPS High Reactor Pressure Calibration
3/9/82 and functional / Functional Test 6.2.4.1 Daily Surveillance (Technical
6/7/82 Specifications)
l
'
6.3.4.1 Core Spray Test Mode Surveillance
4/27/82 Operator
!
!
6.3.3.3 HPSI Simulated Automatic Actuation
12/7/81 I
Test l
l 6.2.5.1 Suppression Chamber - Rx. Bldg. Vacuum
4/27/82 Breaker Calibration and Functional Test 6.3.1.9.3 SBGTS - HEPA Filters Leak and Housing
4/25/80
'
Door Seal Leak Test
!
6.3.1.5.3 Station Battery Weekly Check
10/15/82 6.3.4.3 CS, RHR, and Diesel Auto Start and
8.20.82 Loading l
.
.
...
.
.. - -
.
_ _ _. _ _ _ _ _. _ _
_
.. - _,
-
.
.
6.4.5.1 Eire Protection System Monthly
8/12/82
'
Inspection
,
6.4.5.2 Fire Protection System Annual
8/31/82 Inspection The following procedures from the inservice inspection (ISI) program were also reviewed by the NRC inspector.
Procedure Revision No.
Subject Examined No.
IV2-5752 Control Rod (CR) Penetrations and CR
Housing Pressure Boundary Welds MIUD-5752 Primary Nozzles to Pipe Dissimilar
Metal Welds IV3-S752 Vessel Cladding
IVI-S752 Internal Surface of Dissambled Pump
All of the above procedures contained appropriate prerequisites, acceptance criteria, instructions, and technical content.
The NRC inspector found that the licensee's review of completed test procedures was prompt and thorough.
The NRC inspector checked the licensee's arithmetic calcula-tions and data analysis for 1981 and 1982 shutdown margin calculations and all February 1983 daily jet pump operability checks and found them to be correct.
l The performance of Surveillance Procedure 6.1.5 was observed by the NRC inspector.
The I&C technicians conducting this test adhered to the test l
procedure, stopping when necessary to obtain written second party verifica-tion of light indications, and evaluated the test indications in a satis-factory manner. The NRC inspector did, however, note one inaccuracy in the test procedure.
Steps 8b and 13b describe Annunciator 9-5-2/8-1 as saying, " REACTOR SCRAM SYSTEM A," when the annunciator actually says,
" AUTO SCRAM TRIP SYS A."
An analogous situation also exists in Annuncia-tor 9-5-2/9-1 for " SYSTEM B."
The NRC inspector questioned the operators l
who verified the annunciator alarms about the frequency with which they i
encounter annunciator windows which do not match the test procedure description.
The operators replied that they typically use only the numerical position indication (i.e., 9-5-2/9-1) to verify annunciator alarms and do not bother to read the annunciator when assisting with surveillance tests.
This occurance caused the NRC inspector to be concerned that annunciator descriptions might be a generic problem in licensee surveillance proce-dures.
The annunciator descriptions for the annunciators listed below
,
~
. J
- -,. -, -, - - _ - - -, - - -
- - -.
-
-
_ _ _ _ _,_
___
..
_
_
_.
-
.
were randomly selected from frequently run surveillance tests and compared to the actual annunciator wording in the main control room.
9-4-2/8-1 9-5-2/8-4 9-5-1/7-5 9-4-2/7-1 9-5-1/8-1 9-5-1/8-6 9-5-2/9-4 9-5-2/1-1 9-5-2/2-1 In each case the test procedure annunciator description closely matched the actual annunciator wording with the only differences being the use of abbreviations (i.e., " ALM" for " ALARM").
The NRC inspector informed the station superintendent of these findings.
The station superintendent
'
replied that annunciator window descriptions are monitored closely by both his staff and the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) and that he considers accurate annunciator descriptions necessary for operator train-ing.
It appeared to the NRC inspector that the innaccuracy in the Pro-cedure 6.1.5 description of Annunciators 9-5-2/8-1 and 9-5-2/9-1 was an isolated occurence in the licensee surveillance procedures.
The NRC inspector examined the data sheets of all selected surveillance procedures for test instrumentation identification.
In the case of Procedure 6.3.19.3, there was no test instrumentation identified although it was obvious to the NRC inspector that a 00P analyzer was required to-perform the test.
The engineer responsible for the performance of Test 6.3.19.3 informed the NRC inspector that this particular test was i
performed along with a related filter test, 6.3.19.4, by an outside contractor and that Procedure 6.3.19.4 contained the test instrumentation identification for-both procedures.
The NRC inspector verified this and i
informed the responsible engineer that it is a desirable practice to I
identify the instrumentation used for each procedure in the data for that particular procedure.
This will remain an open item 8303-02, pending
,
revision of Procedure 6.3.19.3, "SBGTS-HEPA Filters Leak and Housing Door
'
Seal ' Leak' Test," to include the identification of the test instrumentation
'
used.
- The calibration records for Test Instruments 4567, 2682, 2541, 2529, and 4527 were examined to verify that theseEinstruments were in calibration when used in various March 1983 surveillance tests.
The NRC inspector found that all of the above instruments appeared to be in calibration when used for the selected surveillance procedures.
l No violations or deviations were identified in this area of inspection.
5.
Exit Interview An exit interview was conducted on April 1, 1983, with those persons denoted in paragraph 1 of this report.
At the interview, the NRC inspector discussed the findings indicated in the previous paragraphs.
The licensee acknowledged these findings.
!
! --
_
. _ _ _. _.
,
. _ _ _ _ _ _
..
.
,. _ ___
..
-
c FoRu 7es U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PRiNCIPALINSPECTOR(42me Est 4rst, awnchyserwr@)
(1141t
^d M
i f
KedQn D' Kt chWd
/.
,E MC Os38 INSPECTOR'S REPORT REVIEWER Office of Inspection and Enforcement ll/esierm03, b b
sNSPECTORS TRANAjTON DOCKET NO. tS a'SaW OR LICENg REPO47 N EX T INSPEC. DATE UCENSEE/ VENDOR NO.18Y PRODUCTil13ontW
'
"
- ^
'"^
tMrekn PuHic Per L
o e o o e : 9 g g g a g
'-'~'c
nig We'r_+
M - M00iFY g
_
- CELETE C
R - REPLACE D
kIh Nhh kr nl.N D ^=" ~'""'
^
M 15 ' ' 10 -
PE.JOD OF INVESTIGATIGN/IN SPECTION INSPECTIOM PERFORMED BY ORGANIZATON COCE OF REGON/HQ CONDUCT-FROM TO X
1 - REGCNAL OFFICE STAFF
~ OTHER
~
eg-weery Mamower 4,cortny " ew code )
MO.
DAY
'YR.
MO.
DAY VR 2 - RESIDENT INSPECTOR GEGCN DMSeON BAANCH O [3 h2 M Cl4 d/ gl3 3 - PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL TEAM l
DQWSS$MPWN@% % i M : k % M E59., @ i;,F.T! W ST M d "; _:~-
(
(
REGIONAL ACTION TYPE OF ACTIVITY CONDUCTED 4Checa one nos arvvi 02 - SAFETY 06 - MGMT VISIT 10 - PLANT SEC.
14 - lNQUIRY I - NIC FORM 581 03 INCIDENT 07 - SPECIAL 11 - INVENT.VER.
t$ - INVESTIGATION
)(
2 - F.EGCNAL OFFICE LETTER 04 - ENFORCEMENT 08 - VENDOR 12 - SHIPMENT / EXPORT 05 - MGMT. AUDIT 09 - M AT. ACCT.
13-IMPORT
.WhJNLY.MMMDYN r -
r_ - T r m 'M C~ i
"
'
.NsPEGT QNaNVE5TiGATiON FahDsNG*
TOTAL NUMBER ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE MEPORT CONTAIN 2390 LETTER OR REPORT TR ANSMITTAL DATE
'CMen w con erwvi OF YOLATONS AND HELD INFORMATION
- A
C D
DEVIATONS NRC FORM 591 m EPORT SENT i
,
OR REG.
TO HQ. FOR
'
LETTER IS SUED ACTION 2 - VOLATION 3 - CEVtATION A
B lC
Al8 ClD A
C O'
_MO._
DAY lYR MO.l DAY YR l
4 - VIOLATION & DEVIATION j
j l
1 - VES
VES MN N M1 i l i I
,
,
,
,
I MNI _, - _ _
Ah
$ bbdNMb b 'N #'
N
"'""
' ' "
~ ra MODULE iNFOR M ATION MODULE AsORMATiON SCf uoDULE NUMSER INSP.
6g e MODULE REO. FOLLOWUP MODULE NUM8ER INSP cz 9 VODULE REQ. FOLLOWUP E'
Edo5
8 2
55 5 52
hnosg s
a s.
s.
s
!s
..t hMs 3 9 : _s_ !!
!s nc as..c
=
f g t t $
i!, r,
.
-
-
_
.
o t
. 0--z o
o
._
c p
I i g
ya9 i.
yEb 23225 E !
o
.
0--z
-
<
m
-
.
.
$.
.
o 2 s
E 2
<
l 2 o
<
<
,
m
<
%
o s
i f
2 u
<
i!
Odf 5.30a r 8 2
I 2 3
C S f 2 5 i !
- =f
5_30s v
iz a
E 2 w l8 3 Pl7,3lB'
Dio,/
l,,I i i i
.
,
i I,il
Iii1
^
i i i i i i
l1
lI I
t t t t i
t 1 i t i i
e l,,l C
l,,l C
,,
,,
,
,,
,,
,
liil
!!
l O
,,
t !
(_
1 i it
,
9,.7170idB'
0,0,I li,le I i i I
^-
li,l
i i,
,
,
,
, i i i i
I,,l
I,,I
$
,,
,,
i i i
,,
,
li,1 e
liil c
i i
,,
i
,,
,,
i li,1 o
I,,I o
i,
,,
,
,,
!
,
,
.
i s Vi/ l7ioicI
^
il i3 / loo c li,Ie I,iI^
I,iI i
i i
, i i i i
liil
'
i i i i i I til
ii
, i i
I f I
l
!
l i l i f I f
f I f f f f f
i f l_
f f i f
,,
e i S 6 il l70icl
^
l 7 floio c iiiis il ii I^
!
i i i
i i
i i i i i i i iI
, I f I f
l i f f i !
l I i
-
I I l !
I l l l !
f f f
i l
0 C!CCLE SEQUENCE IF e
f,g l VIOLATION OR DEVtATION g l
) l l
l
[
,,
[ 9
,
.!22}4!$
10,_
12J 12 M
'8
's
- .1. 2
'
1 d2 dr.I %
'
e
. n m
a m --
C M.
u