IR 05000298/1986017

Insp Rept 50-298/86-17 on 860428-0502.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Surveillance Test Procedures & Records

ML20199E494
Person / Time
Site:	Cooper
Issue date:	06/12/1986
From:	Bennett W, Jaudon J, Greg Pick NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20199E485	List: IR 05000298/1986017 ML20199E481
References
50-298-86-17, NUDOCS 8606230314
Download: ML20199E494 (4)

Text

. ..

.

APPENDIX U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION IV

NRC Inspection Report: 50-298/86-17 License: DPR-46 Docket: 50-298 Licensee: Nebraska Public Power District P. O. Box 499 Columbus, Nebraska 68601 Facility Name: Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS)

Inspection At: CNS Site, Brownville, Nebraska Inspection Conducted: April 28 through May 2, 1986 Inspectors: . 11/ M d /A 86

.[R.LBer61ett, Project Engineer, Project

'

Date 3ection A, Reactor Projects Branch W l IM4A -

LM j)wate[' 1%b G. h. Pf:k,/ Reactor Engineer, Operations Sectidn, bactor Safety Branch Approved: . , 71.2 / M 6/ 8d *

J. P./Jaudph, Chief,' Project Section A Dat'e L Redctor(Projects Branch Inspection Sununary Inspection Conducted April 28 through May 2, 1986 (Report 50-298/86-17)

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of surveillance test procedures and record Resuits: . Within the one area inspected, no violations or deviations were identifie g6230314860617 G ADOCK 05000298 PDR _

. ..

..

DETAILS

. Persons Contacted

• D. Black, Operations Supervisor )

• Brungardt, Operations Manager

• Horn, Division Manager

• A. Jantzen, Instrument & Control (I&C) Supervisor

• J. Peaslee, Surveillance Coordinator

• J. Sayer, Technical Manager

• V. L. Wolstenholm, Quality Assurance Manager The NRC inspectors also contacted other site personnel including operations, I&C, administrative, and clerical personne * Denotes those attending the exit interview conducted on May 2, 198 . Surveillance Procedures and Records The purpose of this inspection was to ascertain whether the surveillance of safety-related systems and components is being conducted in accordance with approved procedures as required by the Technical Specifications and inservice testing (IST) programs for pumps and valve The NRC inspectors reviewed the following surveillance procedures for content, workability, and compliance with Technical Specifications (TS).

J Number Re Subject Issue Date 6.2.2. RHR Loops A and B Injection Valve Time Delay 10/17/85 Calibration and Functional / Functional Test 6.2.2.5.16 7 RHR Loop A & B Shutdown Cooling PCIS Isolation 10/22/81 Functional Test 6.3. CS Test Mode Surveillance Operation 01/30/86 6.2.2.5.12 10 RHR Loops A & B Pump and Valve Control Logic 11/13/84 Functional Test 6.3. Standby Liquid Control System Pump Operational 08/18/85 Test 6.3.1 Diesel Generator Operability Test 03/06/86 6.3.1 Station Battery Service Test 08/29/85

. .

. ; ..

.

f-

- Number Re Subject Issue Date 6.3.15.2A 2 Station Battery Performance Test 08/29/85 6.3. Primary Containment Local Leakage Tests 03/13/86 6.2.2. CS Loops A and B Flow Instruments Calibration 01/30/86 and Functional Test 6.2.2. HPCI Steam Line High Flow Calibration and 01/30/86 Functional / Functional Test 6.2.1. PCIS Main Steam Line High Temp Functional Test 07/05/85

,

6.2. Daily Surveillance (Technical Specifications) 02/06/86 Several questions were identified by the NRC inspectors; however, they were promptly and satisfactorily answered by the license Review by the NRC inspectors determined that the surveillance program at Cooper Nuclear Station is being controlled in a thorough and professional manner. The NRC inspectors concluded, however, that this is occurring because of the competence of personnel administering the program, not because of a thorough documented procedure for coritrolling the progra No written procedures, for instance, exist for feedback to the surveillance coordinator for required scheduling changes for the IST program. This feedback is happening via memoranda. The surveillance scheduling is performed manually, but it is planned to shift to computerized scheduling in the futur ~ The NRC inspectors reviewed all completed copies since January 1,1986, for Procedures 6.3.4.1, 6.3.12.1, 6.2.2.5.12, 6.2.2.3.1, 6.2.1.4.1, and 6.2.2.5.8. The inspectors noted that checkmarks were utilized to indicate performance of procedure steps. The person performing the steps then signs at the bottom of the page verifying that the checkmarks were made by him. In several instances, specifically Procedure 6.2.1.4.1 performed on

January 16, 1986, and Procedure 6.2.2.3.1 performed on April 22, 1986, the NRC inspectors noted that more than one signature appeared on a page signifying that they had checkmarked that page. The NRC inspectors and licensee representative were unable to determine who had performed what step in those procedures. The licensee stated that their new procedure format will require initials for each step performed instead of checkmarks. The use of checkmarks to denote performance of procedure steps is corsidered an open item (298/8517-01) pending future review of surveillance procedures utilizing the new procedure format. The NRC inspectors also noted that out-of-specification data were taken on Procedure 6.3.12.1, performed on April 15, 1986, and that some data were not taken on 6.3.12.1, performed on April 23, 1986. In both of these instances, the licensee found the errors, however, they were not found during shift supervisor review but were detected during engineering revie This failure to identify out-of-specification data during shift supervisor

. . - . .

. -. . _ . . ..

. . ; ..

.

'

. 4 ,

r-review is considered an open item (298/8617-02) pending future review of completed surveillance procedures to determine if licensee corrective action in this area has been effectiv The NRC inspectors observed the performance of two surveillance test The tests observed were performed in accordance with the procedure. _ Proper reviews were done by all appropriate personnel, and proper control and monitoring of the plant was exhibited by all operator The NRC inspectors reviewed the qualifications _of I&C technicians. All I&C technicians complete extensive classroom training and on-the-job training and must pass a test prior to being qualified to perform I&C 2 surveillance procedures. The I&C technicians must perform or observa all surveillance procedures prior to completing qualification. Upon qualification, they may perform all I&C surveillance procedure No violations or deviations were identified in this inspectio . Exit Interview An exit interview was held on May 2, 1986, with the personnel denoted in paragraph 1 of this report. The NRC senior resident inspector also attended this meeting. At this meeting, the scope of the inspection and

,

the findings were summarized.

e f

I i

, . . _ _ .

_ , , , . .,