IR 05000298/1985033

Insp Rept 50-298/85-33 on 851201-31.No Violation or Deviation Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Notification of 851223 Unusual Event,Operational Safety Verification,Monthly Surveillance & Maint Operations

ML20140D689
Person / Time
Site:	Cooper
Issue date:	01/22/1986
From:	Dubois D, Jaudon J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20140D666	List: IR 05000298/1985033 ML20140D661
References
50-298-85-33, NUDOCS 8602030096
Download: ML20140D689 (9)

Text

-

-.

,

APPENDIX U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION IV

NRC Inspection Report: 50-298/85-33 License: DPR-46 Docket: 50-298 Licensee: Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD)

P. O. Box 499 Columbus, NE 68601 Facility Name: Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS)

Inspection At: Cooper Nuclear Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska Inspection Conducted: December 1-31, 1985 Inspector: d b Oh D. L. DuBois, Senior Resident Inspector, (SRI) Date Approved: 42.g/ eS7// / 2 [I J. udon hief, Profedt Section A, Date Reac Pr ect Branch 9602030096 860129 8 DR ADOCK 050

.. .

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ .

- .

-2-Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted December 1-31, 1985 (Report 50-298/85-33)

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of notification of an unusual event, operational safety verification, and monthly surveillance and maintenance observations. An enforcement conference was held with the licensee during this perio The inspection involved 32 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspecto Results: Within the five areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identifie __ _

-

-. - . . - . .- -- _.. -_. - - - ..- - . .-. . . .

. .

,

j -3-DETAILS Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Personnel

,

• D. E. Schaufelberger, General Manager

• L. G. Kuncl, Assistant General Manager, Nuclear

+ V. Thomason, Division Manager Nuclear Operations

< +*G. R. Horn, Outage and Modifications Manager

'

• J. M. Meacham, Technical Manager

+*R. Brungardt, Operations Manager

,

+D. M. Norvell, Maintenance Manager

+J. V. Sayer, Acting Technical Staff Manager

+ D. Black, Operations Supervisor

- + M. Mace, Acting Technical Manager

* D. Hamm, Security Supervisor

, + Garrett Smith, Senior QA Specialist The NRC inspector also interviewed other licensee operations, maintenance, j and administrative personne ,

NRC Personnel i *E. H. Johnson, Acting Director, Division of Reactor Safety and Projects

, *R. L. Bangart, Director, Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards

• R. E. Hall, Chief, Radiological and Safeguards Programs Branch

• J. P. Jaudon, Chief, Reactor Project Section A

.

• L. A. Yandell, Chief, Emergency Preparedness & Safeguards Programs

!

Section

• J. A. Kelly, Senior Physical Security Specialist

• W. M. McNeill, Project Inspector

+*D. L. DuBois, Senior Resident Inspector

• D. A. Powers, Enforcement Of ficer

!

! * Indicates presence at enforcement conference held December 17, 1985.

+ Indicates presence at exit meeting held December 20, 1985.

. Enforcement Conference On December 17, 1985, Mr. E. H. Johnson, Acting Director of the Division of Reactor Safety and Projects, and members of the NRC Region IV staff

, held an Enforcement Conference with Mr. D. E. Schaufelberger, General Manager (NPPD), and senior members of the NPPD general office and CNS site staff The Enforcement Conference was conducted at the NRC Region IV l office for the purpose of discussing the facts and circumstances

,

i

- - - , v. . -

,--,.r.- -.., ,--r, , - -. v,.,,..-.

• .

-4-surrounding apparent violations of the CNS Technical Specification requirements in the area of safety-related surveillance test performanc The violations were discussed in NRC Report 50-298/85-3 . Notification of Unusual Event On December 23, 1985, the following sequence of operational events occurred at CNS:

. At 2:50 a.m. the "D" Residual Heat Removal (RHR) Service Water Booster Pump packing failed during the performance of Surveillance Procedure (SP) 6.3.20.1, "RHR Service Water Booster Pump Flow Test and Valve Operability." The resultant excessive packing gland leakage required the pump to be isolated, thus rendering it inoperabl An inoperable Service Water Booster Pump places the plant in a Technical Specification Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO). This pump is a subsystem component of the Containment Cooling Syste . At 4:30 a.m. the RHR Loop "A" Inboard Injection Valve, RHR-M0-25A, failed to open during the performance of SP 6.3.5.2, "RHR Motor Operated Valve Operability Test." This failure rendered the valve inoperable. An inoperable RHR injection valve places the plant in a Technical Specification LC0. This valve is a subsystem component of the Loop "A" Low Pressure Coolant Injection (LPCI) syste The CNS Technical Specification Section 3.5.A.8 states that if one LPCI subsystem and an active component of the Containment Cooling subsystem are found to be inoperable simultaneously, the reactor shall by placed in the cold shutdown condition within 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> The CNS Emergency Plan Implementation Procedure (EPIP) 5.7.1, Attachment "B,"

" Classification Guide," Section 6.1, states that if any Technical Specification LC0 results in immediate shutdown, the licensee shall declare a Notification of Unusual Event (NOVE).

Based upon the preceding events and the Technical Specification and EPIP requirements noted above, the shift supervisor assumed the position of Emergency Director and declared a NOUE at 4:30 a.m. Following completion of emergency notifications required by EPIP 5.7.6, " Notification," the shift supervisor began a pove reduction in preparation for eventual reactor shutdown and cooldow At 8:36 a.m. post-maintenance surveillance testing was completed satisfactorily on RHR-M0-25A thus rendering the valve as operabl That testing removed the plant from the LCO condition of Technical Specification Section 3.5.A.8 and, therefore, the requirement of EPIP 5. .

.- -- _ .- _ - . . __ _ _ .-.

. . .

-

-5-The NOUE was terminated at that time and the power reduction terminate The plant was subsequently returned to full powe ,

l The SRI interviewed shift personnel and the CNS Emergency planning Coordinator concerning this event. Also, he performed a review of the

following licensee logs, procedures, and reports

'

. Control room logs for complete and timely entry of significant information pertaining to the even . Procedures and checklists applicable to the declaration and

,

termination of the event.

I . Licensee followup report to the NRC in a letter from Mr. P. V.

'

Thomason (NPPD) to Mr. R. D. Martin (NRC-RIV) dated December 23, 198 .7.1, Revision 5, " Emergency Classification"

]

.

. . 5.7.2, Revision 4, " Notification of Unusual Event"

,

. 5.7.6, Revision 6, " Notification" i

j . 5.7.22, Revision 6, " Communications"

. 5.7.28, Revision 2, " Emergency Director" The reviews and discussions were conducted to ensure that licensee personnel performed all actions required by the CNS emergency procedures, Technical Specification, and Emergency Plan.

i No violations or deviations were identified in this are . Operational Safety Verification The SRI observed control room operations, instrumentation, controls, reviewed plant logs and records, conducted discussions with control room personnel, and performed system walk-downs to verify that:

i I

. Minimum shift manning requirements were met.

. Technical Specification requirements were observe . Plant operations were conducted using approved procedures.

'

. Plant logs and records were complete, accurate, and indicative of actual system conditions and configurations.

J

,_...__.-..~__,-c , - , - , - - - - - - . . - . . , - - - - , , - - . - - - - , .

-

_ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

. s .

-6-

. System pumps, valves, control switches, and power supply breakers were properly aligne . Licensee systems lineup procedures / checklists, plant drawings, and as-built configurations were in agreemen . Instrumentation was accurately displaying process variables and protection system status to be within permissible operational limits for operatio . Plant equipment that was discovered to be inoperable or was removed from service for maintenance was properly identified, redundant equipment was verified to be operable, and applicable limiting conditions for operation were identified and maintaine . Equipment safety clearance records were complete and indicated that affected components were removed from and returned to service in a correct and approved manne . Maintenance work requests were initiated for equipment discovered to require repair or routine preventive upkeep, appropriate priority was assigned, and work commenced in a timely manne . Plant equipment conditions such as cleanliness, leakage, lubrication, and cooling water were controlled and adequately maintaine . Areas of the plant were clean, unobstructed, and free of fire hazard Fire suppression systems and emergency equipment were maintained in a condition of readines . Security measures and radiological controls were adequat The SRI performed a lineup verification of the following systems:

. Core Spray

. Standby Liquid Control During routine daily walk-downs of the control room panels, the SRI identified the following discrepancies:

. On December 12, 1985, the Reactor Vessel Pressure Recorder, NBI-PR-28, was oscillating +- 50 psig about the point of 750 psi Actual vessel pressure was stable at 1000 psig. This condition had existed for approximately 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> _ -. - m

o . .

-7-

. On December 12, 1985, the Off-Gas Vent Pipe Monitors, RMP-RM-50 Channels "A" and "B" were indicating 400 cps and 20 cps respectivel Normal off gas activity was 10 cps. It was subsequently determined that the test source had not fully retracted from the area of the "A" detecto . On December 16, 1985, the High Pressure Coolant Injection Turbine and Pump Bearing Temperature Recorder, point 7, " Thrust Bearing Oil," was pegged high (greater than 300 degrees F). Actual temperature was stable at approximately 115 degrees F. This condition had existed for approximately 5 day Although there were no apparent Technical Specification requirements for the above instrumentation to be operable at the time of discovery, the SRI held discussions with the responsible shift supervisory personnel concerning the importance of monitoring equipment status and its readiness for service. These observations were also addressed to plant management during a subsequent exit meetin The tours, reviews, and observations were conducted to verify that facility operations were performed in accordance with the requirements established in the CNS Operating License and Technical Specificatio No violations or deviations were identified in this are . Monthly Surveillance Observations The SRI observed Technical Specification required surveillance test These observations verified that:

. Tests were accomplished by qualified personnel in accordance with approved procedure . Procedures conformed to Technical Specification requirement . Test prerequisites were completed including conformance with applicable limiting conditions for operation, required administrative approval, and availability of calibrated test equipmen . Test data was reviewed for completeness, accuracy, and conformance with established criteria and Technical Specification requirement . Deficiencies were corrected in a timely manne . The system was returned to servic The following surveillance tests were selected and observed:

- . ,

.. .

-8-

. 6.1.4, " Main Steam Line Process Radiation Monitor Calibration and Functional Test"

. 6.2.4.1, " Daily Surveillance (Technical Specifications)"

. 6.3.17.1, " Control Room Ventilation" The reviews and observations were conducted to verify that facility surveillance operations were performed in accordance with the requirements established in the CNS Operating License and Technical Specificatio No violations or deviations were identified in this are . Monthly Maintenance Observation The SRI observed preventive and corrective maintenance activities on portions of the following system component:

. Service Water Booster Pumps The observations were conducted to verify that:

. Limiting conditions for operation were me . Redundant equipment was operabl . Equipment was adequately isolated and safety tagge . Ap9ropriate administrative approvals were obtained prior to commencement of work activitie . Work was performed by qualified personnel in accordance with approved procedure . Radiological controls, cleanliness practices, and appropriate fire prevention precautions were implemented and maintaine . Quality control checks and postmaintenance surveillance testing were performed as require . Equipment was properly returned to servic These reviews and observations were conducted to verify that facility maintenance operations were performed in accordance with the requirements established in the CNS Operating License and Technical Specificatio No violations or deviations were identified in this are .

_ . Exit Meetings Exit meetings were conducted at the conclusion of each portion of the inspection. The NRC inspector summarized the scopa and findings of each inspection segment at those meetings.

l i

!

l l

'

.

I I

l l

!

. _ , - _ _ . . _