IR 05000298/1989007
| ML20247A442 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 03/14/1989 |
| From: | Bennett W, Constable G, Greg Pick NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247A390 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-298-89-07, 50-298-89-7, NUDOCS 8903290123 | |
| Download: ML20247A442 (6) | |
Text
._ __ - _ - -
_
.
.
'
-
.
,
APPENDIX B_
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
NRC Inspection Report:
50-298/89-07 Operating License:
DPR-46 Docket: 50-298 Licensee: Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD)
P.O. Box 499 Columbus, Nebraska 68602-0499 Facility Name: Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS)
Inspection At: CNS, Nemaha County, Nebraska Inspection Conducted:
February 6-28, 1989 Inspectors:
7!P7 G. A. Pick, Resident Inspector, Project Section C, Date Division of Reactor Projects
[Ahd'
M/n W. R. Bennett, Senior Resident Inspector, Project Date Section C, Division of Reactor Projects
.
- msq s
,r-
.-
, q
-
Approved: g.'
J 't.i.
-
If
~
G. L. Constable, Chief, Project Section C, Division Dite '
.
l of Reactor Projects
'
8903290123 890320 i
PDR ADOCK 05000298 d
a PDC
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _.. _ - -_
- - - - - - - - - - -
-
-
,
_______ _ _ _
.
u
.
-2-Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted February 6-28, 1989 (Report 50-298/89-07)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection including a followup of previously identified inspection findings, operational safety verification, and monthly surveillance and maintenance observations.
Results: The NRC inspectors observed that the plant was operated in a safe, conservative manner. One apparent violation was identified for failure to provide a timely response to a violation (failure to respond in a timely manner to training concerns). This apparent violation involves training records concerns that have led to four other violations within a 14-month perio m
.
.
..
,
..
-3-DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Employees
- G. R. Horn, Division Manager of' Nuclear Operations
- J. M. Meacham, Senior Manager, Technical Support
- J. R. Flaherty, Engineering Supervisor
- R. Brungardt, Operations Manager
- R. L. Gardner, Maintenance Manager
- G. E. Smith, Quality Assurance Manager
- L. E. Bray, Regulatory Compliance Specialist E. M. Mace, Engineering Manager
- Denotes those present during the exit interview conducted on March 6, 1989.
The NRC inspectors also interviewed other licensee employees and contractors during the inspection period.
2.
Plant Status The plant operated at essentially 100 percent power except for the period February 13-18, 1989. During that period, the plant operated at approximately 60 percent power while performing maintenance on' the emergency diesel generators (EDGs). This maintenance was~in response'to a
~
diesel generator control air system failure on February 13,.1989.
3.
Followup on Previously Identified Inspection Findings (92701)
The NRC inspectors reviewed the licensee's response to NRC Inspection Report 50-298/88-31. This inspection report was issued on November 18, 1988, and included a Notice of Violation which required a written response within'30 days. The licensee responded to this Notice of Violation in Letter NLS8900078, dated February 10, 1989 (84 days after the.. issuance of theinspectionreport). The licensee's failure to respond within the specified time is an apparent violation (298/8907-01) of 10 CFR 2.201.
In addition, the NRC inspectors noted that the requested written response to NRC Inspection Report 50-298/88-24, dated November 8, 1988, was not issued until February 10, 1989.- This is not a violation in that it was not a required response. Both issues discussed in the'above inspection reports are related to training. Four violations concerning training have.been issued by the NRC in the last 14 months.
The number of violations issued in the area of training and the: failure to respond'to one of these violations appear to indicate a lack of management-attentio,
.
.
,
,
~4-4.
Operational Safety Verification (71707)
The NRC inspectors observed operational activities throughout the q
inspection period. Control room activities and conduct were observed to be well controlled and professional. -Proper control room staffing was
,
maintained. The NRC inspectors observed four shift turnover meetings and-l verified that information concerning plant status was properly communicated to the oncoming operators. Discussions with operatorr demonstrated that they were cognizant of plant status and understooa the
,
importance of, and reason for, each lit annunciator. Control board walkdowns and tours of accessible areas at the facility were conducted to verify operability of plant equipment. Overall plant cleanliness was observed to be good throughout the inspection period.
j On February 13, 1989, EDG No. 2 was manually shut down approximately 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> into its monthly operability test when licensee personnel observed that control air system pressure was decreasing.
Results of the inspection concerning this failure and previous EDG failures are documented in NRC Inspection Report 50-298/89-09.
During the time EDG No. I was inoperable, and the sub' sequent period when EDG No. 2 was inoperable for maintenance, the NRC inspectors observed that all surveillance required by Technical Specifications (TS) were properly
performed and controlled. Control room operators appeared to be aware of the status of the EDGs at all times during the maintenance evolution.
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 j
and/or contaminated areas WEre properly posted and controlled.
Radiation
-
work permits contained appropriate information to ensure that work could i
be performed in a safe and controlled manner.
Radiation monitors were properly utilized to check for contamination. The NRC inspectors observed that health physics personnel were well underway in preparation for the upcoming refueling outage.
The NRC inspectors observed security personnel perform their duties of vehicle, personnel, and package search.
Vehicles were properly authorized and controlled or escorted within the protected area (PA). Personnel access was observed to be controlled in accordance with established procedures. The licensee continued implementation of the security equipment upgrade during this inspection period. The NRC inspector conducted site tours to ensure that compensatory measures were properly.
implemented as required due to equipment failure or the security uograde.
Interviews with security personnel demonstrated that they were cognizant of their responsibilities. The PA barrier had adequate illumination and the isolation zones were free of transient materials.
The licensee operated the plant in a safe, cor, trolled manner during this inspection period. The many surveillance required during EDG maintenance were performed promptly and properly.
No violations' or deviations were identified in this are.
_
._
-
-
.
.
.
,
l
'
-5-i 5.
Monthly Surveillance Observations' (61726)
]
The NRC inspectors observed and/or reviewed the performance of the j
following surveillance procedures (SP):
'
SP 6.3.12.1, " Diesel Generator Operability Test," Revision 27,' dated i
.
February 9,1989:. This surveillance was performed several times
'during the inspection period on both EDG No;~ 1 and EDG No. 2.
The initial performance on EDG No.1 on February -13,1989, was terminated when-licensee personnel monitoring the test observed that control air system pressure was decreasing. After termination, the operability q
test for EDG No. 2 was performed-as required by TS. The'SP was-
'
performed again following maintenance on both EDGs. :The NRC
inspectors noted that all surveillance were performed in'accordance
,
with applicable procedures by qualified. operators.. Discrepancies--
i were properly documented and reported to the shift supervisor. - The l
reasons for performing each test were properly documented and all required reviews were promptly performed. The NRC inspectors observed that engineering and operations personnel were inspecting l
the diesel during each surveillance.
l SP 6.3.5.1, "RHR Test Mode Surveillance Operation," Revision 28, j
.
dated October 13, 1988: This surveillance was performed on the licensee's inservice test (perability requirements and as part of February 20, 1988, to meet TS o IST) program. During?the performance
-
of the test, Residual Heat Removal (RHR)-Pump "C", differential l
pressure was found to be above the IST Required Action Range-High.
The instrumentation utilized for performance-of the test was
_
!
recalibrates and the surveillance repeated, for-Pump "C" only, oni February 21. The differential pressure was still found to be above-
,
l the Required Action Range-High. At'this time, RHR Pump'"C" was declared inoperable.
An engineering evaluation was performed which determined that the j
test data showed no evidence of pump degradation;~ therefore, the pump i
i was capable of-performing its intended function.
It also determined L
that high differential pressure does not impair pump operability.
The high differential pressure was considered to be a problem with.
,
the test instrumentation and RHR Pump "C" was subsequently declared operable. The licensee will establish new reference values to ensure proper testing and trending.
The licensee performed all normal surveillance as well as those required due to inoperable equipment. The licensee appeared to properly evaluate problems when they occurred. No violations or deviations were identified in this area.
6.
Monthly Maintenance Observation (62703)
i The NRC inspectors observed the implementation of Maintenance Work-Requests (MWR) 89-0853 and 89-0868. on the EDGs -from February.14-17 1989.
L
n__
-
--
._
._
-
. - ____ _ _-__-_=______-__ - __ -
,
c.
..
'I f.
- 8
,,
-6 '
The MWRs were generated in response to a failure of the control' air system.
on EDG No. l'on February.13,1989, and previous vibration induced failures -
on both EDGs. The MWRs included replacement of a large portion of control air, fuel. oil', and lube oil tubing associated with the EDGs.
In addition,-
stainless steel flexible tubing was installed on the overspeed safety shutdown valve to reduce vibration between the diesel engine ~and off-engine components. The NRC inspectors observed that engineering personnel walked down the diesel generators to' determine which tubing required replacement, and marked up applicable drawings to specify the required. replacement._ Maintenance personnel then utilized the marked-up.
drawings to replace the tubing.. The engineering and maintenance departments provided 24-hour coverage to perform the moc:ifications.
I The NRC inspector's noted very good communications among all personnel involved with-the maintenance activity. The maintenance was performed in accordance with the MWRs and applicable maintenance procedures and work practices. No violations or deviations were identified in this area.
7.
Exit Interviews (30703)
An exit interview was conducted on March 6,1989, with licensee :
representatives (identified in paragraph 1). During this interview, the.
NRC inspectors reviewed the scope and findings of.the inspection. Other meetings between the NRC inspectors and licensee management were held periodically during'the inspection period to discuss identified concerns.
The licensee did not identify as proprietary any.information provided to, or reviewed by, the NRC inspectors.
,
I
'.