IR 05000298/1987033

Insp Rept 50-298/87-33 on 871231-880131.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Previous Insp Findings,Operational Safety Verification,Esf Walkdown, Preparation for Refueling & NRC Bulleting 87-002

ML20149M266
Person / Time
Site:	Cooper
Issue date:	02/18/1988
From:	Bennett W, Holler E, Plettner E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20149M263	List: IR 05000298/1987033 ML20149M260
References
50-298-87-33, IEB-87-002, IEB-87-2, NUDOCS 8802250447
Download: ML20149M266 (8)

Text

>

.

.

A APPENDIX

,

U. S. tiUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGIO!! IV NRC Inspection Report

50-298/87-33 License: DPR-46 Docket: 50-298

) Licensee: Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD)

P. O. Box 499 Celunbus, flE 68601 P

Facility !!ame: Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS)

Inspection At: Cooper Nuclear Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska Inspection Conducted: December 22, 1987-January 31, 1988

,

i Inspectors: ,' M

'

h2Ed. __ J/ FP E. A. Plettner, Resident Inspector, (RI) Dat,e

, .

kh!5 WY/PU W. R. Eennett, Senior Resident inspector, (SRI) ~ Date

!

,

' ^

Approved: - -

E J Moll'er', C!nef, Project Section C,

1. !/9!9ff Dste ' !

Reactor Projects Division i

fB802250447 880222 0 {

PDR ADOCK 0500 -

- - - - - -

d - - - - --

i

.

'

..

Inspection Summary Inspection Conductr.d December 22, 1987, through January 31, 1988 (Report 50-298/87-33)

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of licensee actions on previous inspection findings, operational safety verification, engineered safety feature walkdown, preparation for refueling, monthly surveillance and maintenance observations, NRC Bulletin 87-02, radiological protection, and securit Results: Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identifie )

,

I I

,

. . . - - - - . .

- 1 I

l

!

-

.

DETAILS

'

! Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Employees

• R. Horn Division Manager of Nuclear Operations

• D. M. Norvell, Maintenance Manager

• G. E. Smith, Quality Assurance Manager

• R. Brungardt, Operations Manager

) *L. E. Bray, Regulatory Compliance Specialist The NRC inspectors also interviewed additional licensee employees during

the inspection period.

• Denotes those present during exit interview conducted on February 1,198 ; Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings The following open item was reviewed by the NRC resident inspector.

(Closed) Open Item 298/8626-01: Deficient As-built Instrument Drawings -

'

This item discussed deficiencies between 50P 2.2.33, Revision 27,

,

Appendix A, and Drawings NPPD 1.D.15, 1550406, and GE 11506011. Drawing 1 Change Notice 87620 was completed on October 26, 1987, to correct the

deficiencies. The NRC resident inspector compared S0P 2.2.33, Revision 31,

Appendix A, to the above drawings and found no deficiencie This item is close '

.

i Operational Safety Verification  ;

The NRC inspectors observed operational activities throughout the

,

inspection period. Control room activities and conduct were observed to be well controlled. Proper control room staffing was maintained. Discussions with operators determined that they were cognizant of plant status and understood the importance of, and reason for, each lit annunciator. The NRC inspectors observed selected shift turnover meetings and noted that information concerning plant status was comunicated to the oncoming i operator ,

j On January 11, 1988, a railroad car carrying an empty spent fuel cask j derailed on Nebraska Public Power District controlled property without j damage to the fuel cask. The NRC inspectors monitored licensee actions to

return the car to the track and ensure no damage was incurred by the fuel *

l cas ,

, t

- .

'

...

On January 22, 1988, both steam header pressure transmitters to the Digital Electro-Hydraulic Control System (DEH) failed causing reactor pressure control to shift to manual. -Licensed operators in the control room controlled the evolution utilizing System Operating Procedure (50P) 2.2.77,

"Turbine Generater," Revision 29, dated December 17, 1987 Abnormal Operating Procedure (A0P) 2.4.5.2, "Reactor Pressure Control System Malfunction," Revision 9, dated August 1,1985, and A0P 2.4.9.1.11 "DEH Pressure Controller Output fails Low," Revision 6, dated July 16, 1987. In addition, discussions were held arnng the licensed operators about what their actions would be in case of rurther problems with the system. A blown fuse was discovered to be the cause of the loss of both pressure transmitters possibly due to surveillance testing being performed on the main turbine first stage pressure indicator. The surveillance was secured, the fuse replaced, and the DEH system restored to Mode 4 (automatic

.) pressure control) after approximately 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> in manual pressure contro The licensee is still investigating the cause for the blown fus Tours of accessible areas at the facility were conducted to confirm operability of plant equipment including the fire suppression systems and other emergency equipment. The NRC inspectors performed a walkdown of the High Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI) System. Results of this walkdown are documented in paragraph 4 of this report. Facility operations were performed in accordance with the requirements established in the CNS Operating License and T During a tour on January 13, 1988, the NRC inspectors noted that light was passing through the seal between the rail and outer airlock door in the reactor building railroad air loc This is a similar condition to that documented as NRC Violation 50-298/8728-03. Further investigation revealed that sealant had been applied between the rail and outer airlock door but had apparently been insufficient to completely seal the openin Discussion with the licensee identified that corrective action is ongoing

-

to solve this sealing problem. This occurrence will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection to verify corrective actions for Violation 50-298/8728-0 On January 28, 1988, a reactor scram occurred when attempting to restore

"B" recirculation pump to service. Reactor Recirculation Pump "B" had earlier been secured due to problems with the reactor recirculation motor generator (MG). When restoring the recirculation pump to service, the MG failed to maintain 20 percent speed as designed. The control room operators placed the MG set in lockout at approximately 50 percent speed and were attempting to reduce speed when the recirculation pump discharge valve started to open as designed. When the discharge valve opened, a high flux scram eccurred. All systems appeared to operate normally during the scram. Subsequent to the reactor scram, and separate from the scram, a short to ground on the motor for Residual Heat Removal (RHR) Pump "B" was '

discovered after the breaker to the motor trippe The SRI monitored !

licensee actions subsequent to the scram and RHR pump problem No violations or deviations were identified in this are j l

l i

. . _ _

. - -. - .-

-

)

i ... l

! l 5 l Ll i

4. Engineered Safety Feature (ESF) Walkdown- ,

! The NRC inspectors performed an' independent walkdown of the HPCI Syste '

l The inspection was performed to verify operability, to confirm that . i

} licensee system lineup procedures match plant drawings and the as-built l configuration, and to identify equipment conditions or-items that might j degrade system performanc l 1 .

.

In preparation for performing the walkdown of the HPCI System, the NRC

inspectors conducted a review of, and a comparison between, the following ,

,

licensee system checklist and applicable as-built drawings: t

System Operating Procedure (50P) 2.2.33 "High Pressure Coolant *

] , Injection System," Revision 31, dated November 5, 1987; Appendix A,

"Valve Checklist."

'

?

.

As-Built Drawing - Burns & Roe 2041 for HPCI system As-Built Drawing - Burns & Roe 2044 for HPCI system As-Built Drawing - NPPD 1550-406 for HPCI system l

• As-Built Orawing - NPPD I.D.-15 for HPCI system i

'

,

As-Built Drawing - GE 115D6011 for HPCI system  !

i i

During the inspection minor discrepancies involving missing or broken valve  !

labels and valve handwheels were noted. None of the discrepancies identified affected system operability. When these discrepancies were  !

j brought to the licensee's attention, the licensee initiated actions to ,

,

correct them. The discrepancies were corrected during this inspection l l ) perio :

i i No violations or deviations were identified in this are .

5. Preparation For Refueling

J The NRC inspectors observed fuel movement from the new fuel boxes to the  ;

i spent fuel pool. The NRC inspectors also reviewed the following nuclear ,

t performance procedures concerning new fuel movement: .

.

!

[

'

Procedure Title Revision Date l

?

,

10.21 Special Nuclear Materials 1 May 14, 1987 ,

{ Control and Accountability  ;

i Instructions 10.22 Receiving and Handling 1 October 16, 1986 Unirradiated Fuel

!

!  !

,

,

4 - - = . . - - - - , , . . , , _ - , . . , ,,,,,,-..,.,,--,-.,.-,,,..,--.,,cnm-._- . - - - - .

I

,

..

..-

6-  !

.

10.23 Unirradiated Fuel Inspection 1 April 17, 1986 and Channeling and Control Blade Inspection The NRC inspectors observed that all personnel performing the fuel movement -

were aware of procedure requirements and precautions and that the evolution

'

was performed in accordance with the applicable procedures. The NRC inspectors verified new fuel pool fuel assembly locations, accountability records, and status board updates. All personnel engaged.in the fuel movement were qualified to perform the evolutio No violations or deviations were identified in this are . Monthly Surveillance Observations  ;

The NRC inspectors observed and reviewed the performance of Surveillance !

Procedure (SP) 6.3.12.1, "Diesel Generator Operability Test," SP 6.4.8.4.2,

"Reactor Feed Pump Turbine (RFPT) Backup Oil Pumps and Filter / Cooler ,

'

Dif ferential Pressure Alarm Tests," and Nuclear Performance Evaluation Procedure (PEP) 10.9, "Control Rod Scram Time. Evaluation." -j

SP 6.3.12.1, "Diesel Generator Operability Test," Revision 22, dated November 19, 1987: This surveillance was performed on January 8, 1988, to ensure operability of DG IB prior to performing maintenance on DG 1A. Testing was performed properly and operators were cognizant of surveillance requirements. Limiting conditions for operation were properly entered for the surveillance and subsequent maintenanc :

DG 1A was declared inoperable while inspections for water leakage were performed. When maintenance was completed, the operability test for DG 1A was completed satisfactorily and DG 1A was declared operabl '

-). SP 6.4.8.4.2, "RFPT Backup Oil Pumps and Filter / Cooler Differential Pressure Alarm Tests," Revision 7, dated October 22, 1987: This

surveillance was performed on January 24, 1988, to ensure proper .

operation of the RFPT backup oil pumps. The NRC inspectors observed that the operator performing the test was aware of all precautions l associated with the test and performed the test in accordance with the procedur * PEP 10.9, "Control Rod Scram Time Evaluation," Revision 14, dated November 6, 1986: This procedure was performed on January 24, 1988, to meet Technical Specification (TS) requirements to insure the 1 reactor can be made subcritical at a rate fast enough to prevent fuel damage during power transients. This is accomplished by measuring the time it takes individual rods to go from the fully withdrawn condition i to the fully inserted condition when a scram signal is introduce !

The NRC senior resident inspector observed that the test was performed l by qualified personnel and performed in accordance with the procedur l When the primary means of timing the rod insertion (the Plant ;

Management Information System computer) did not function properly, a j strip chart recorder, as authorized in the procedure, was utilize ,

,

I

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

'

r o j t

'

'

7  !

j

The NRC senior resident inspector verified that the strip chart i recorder was in calibration and that operators were familiar with its "

usage. The NRC senior resident inspector verified that a second !

qualified person observed all rod withdrawals as required by TS and

'

i the procedure. All data was properly verified to be acceptable per +

the procedure and T [

,

,

1 No violations or deviations were identified in this are . Monthly Maintenance Observation l

"

The NRC-inspectors verified that the maintenance activities were conducted in accordance with approved procedures, regulatory guides, and industry j codes or standards and in conformance with T ,

t

. The following station maintenance activities of safety-related systems and ,

components were observed and reviewed by the NRC inspectors on the ;

indicated dates:

'

!

, January 6, 1988: Preventative Maintenance 03910 "Check Coupling and Oil !

i Levels of Standby Liquid Control Pump" l

i j January 8, 1988: Inspection of 1A Diesel for water leaks  !

>

i No violations or deviations were identified in this are I NRC Bulletin 87-02  :

f

',

'

The purpose of this bulletin was to request that licensees review their !

receipt inspection programs for fasteners and to independently determine, l through testing, whether fasteners in stores at the licensee facilities met '

) required mechanical and chemical specifications, j

<

On December 4, 1987, the NRC senior resident inspector assisted the

+

licensee in selecting 20 fasteners and 20 corresponding nuts. These ;

3 samples were then sent to Metals Engineering and Testing Laboratories of ;

' Phoenix, Arizona, where chemical, mechanical, and hardness testing as !

required by the bulletin was performed. The satisfactory results of this !

j testing, as well as other information required by the bulletin, were 4 transmitted by NPPD to the NRC via letter NLS 8800014 on January 11, 198 {

i 5 The NRC senior resident inspector reviewed the response to the bulletin and i found no discrepancies. In addition, the NRC senior resident inspector's '

i review of Plant Services Procedures 1.5, "Warehouse Receiving," Revision 7 I dated October 15,1987; and 1.8, "Warehouse Issue and Return," Revision 3, ;

dated August 13, 1987; as well as discussions with licensee personnel, !

j confirmed the licensee's response to the bulleti i

!  !

1 l

'

!

! i i

l

4

.

• '

...

,

This bulletin and associated Temporary Instruction 2500/26 are close (SIMS issue number BL-87-02)

'

No violations or deviations were identified ,in this are . Radiological Protection Observations The NRC inspectors verified that selected activities of the licensee's

.

radiological protection program were implemented in conformance with

'

facility policies, procedures, and regulatory requirements. Radiation work permits contained appropriate information to ensure that work could be performed in a safe and controlled manner. Personnel in radiation controlled areas were wearing the required personnel monitoring equipment ,

and protective clothing. Radiation and/or contaminated areas were properly posted and controlled based on the activity levels within the are Radiation monitors were utilized to check for contaminatio No violations or deviations were identified in this are . Security The NRC inspectors observed security personnel perform their duties of vehicle, personnel, and package search. Vehicles were properly authorized and escorted or controlled within the protected area (PA). The PA barrier had adequate illumination and the isolation zones were free of transient

material. Compensatory measures were implemented in a timely manner when equipment failed. These observations verified that the physical security plan was being implemented in accordance with the requirements established in the CNS Operating Licens The licensee implemented a cipher pad system for personnel entry into the

) P The NRC senior resident inspector monitored the implementation of these new procedure No violations or deviations were identified in this are . Exit Interviews An exit interview was conducted on February 1,1988, with licensee representatives (identified in paragraph 1). During this interview, the

NRC senior resident inspector reviewed the scope and findings of the l

inspection, r

!

'

!

a