IR 05000298/1990003
| ML20012B234 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 03/05/1990 |
| From: | Kelley D, Seidle W, Singh A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20012B233 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-298-90-03, 50-298-90-3, NUDOCS 9003140014 | |
| Download: ML20012B234 (6) | |
Text
,q
.-
,'
t sn'
.n
,
a.
,,
,
a
,
g:
,.A
-
APPENDIX
,
^
U.S.. NUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
.)
-
<-
,
,
NRC Inscection 'Reporti 50-298/90-03-Operating Licensei ' DPR-46-g.-
- Docket:
50-298
'
JLicensee: " Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD)
"
P.O. Box 499
'
- Columbus, Nebrar,ka. 68602-0499
-
,
Facili,ty Name:. Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS)
Inspection At:
>
. Inspection Conducted:
February:12-16, 1990
M6
- Inspectors
- -
)
C~
,
~ ~ -
Amarjit Sirth, Rea~ctor Inspector Date.
Test Programs Section, Division of Reactor
,
' Safety.
(
-
i S)9 O
-
D..L. Kelley, React Inskgttor-
_
Da'te '
Test Programs Sect n, Division.of Reactor.
.
Safety
- g 1 -
Accompanied-
...
.
.
')
,
.
Byi
.W. C.LSeidle, Chief, Test Programs.Section
'
"
,
Division:of Reactor Safety,(February 15-16,1990)-
'
_y
,
J///70-Approvedi-
_Date '
i
=
,
.W.; C. Seidldt Chief, Test Programs Section-
. Division of-Reactor Safety
,
. Inspection Summary-l; Inspection Conducted February 12-16, 1990 (Report 50-298/90-03)-
i l'
[
- Areas Inspected:. Routine, unannouncedlinspection of the containment local leak
!
" rate testing, surveillance testing, and calibration' control programs, and
!
qmodification3 testing.
Results: : Within~the areasJinspected, no violations or deviations were
,
- identifled. 'The containment' local leak rate testing program was being,
!
.
l
-
\\
'
'
J 9003140014 900308
'
,
[
- PDR ADOCK0500g8
_j m
.
,
g
< <
!
,
,
,
p
- , 4.~ m
.
,
~
.
a
.
'
s,-
q q;. s -
i
<
.-
~
,
I
'
- '
,
3. <
,
>-
,
y, Jif-
implemented and has met-the acceptance criteria. The surveil _ lance testing 'and -
calibration control programs for pumps and valves appeared to be working well
- ,
. as evidenced by the lack of overdue surveillance = tests.- This i: considered to be a strength in the licensee's surveillance prograa. :However, there is a
_ deficiency. in the licensee's. training program in that there is a lack of
,
training documentation for individuals who had ' performed containment local leak ~
rate tests. This documentation is required by a station procedure and has been-the. subject of previous violations, i
The design modification testing program was found to be technically sound, well
controlk), and effectively implemented.
'
,
k-t
s
- k rg
?
'
w i
.
g
$
%
n '.
,
+
.'
I
'
-
-
.
.
.
-
.
,
_
. _ -
'
(
,
l
<
"
%
.,.4
-
.;
[s
'
q y*
.-3 j
'
-
c4
.
DETAILS
,
,
1.
PERSONS CONTACTED
[
!NPPD'
>
o
"
1*T.;V. Aret, Licensing Specialist
'
,
t,
- R. Bhungardt,.0perations Manager
- A. Boesch. Instrument and Control (I&C) Engineering Supervisor
-
"
1 e
!*L.' E. Bray,' Regulatory Compliance Sp(QA) S ecialist
'
,
'
- R. Deatz,: Senior Quality Assurance pecialist
- J. W. Dutton, Nuclear Training Manager s_
'.J, '
- RL L. Gardner, Maintenance Manager
- G. Horn, Division Manager hoclear Operations
'
l1
-
-
,.
.
j
- sr 1*H. A. Jantzen, ?I&C Supervisor n 3o
- L.'Kunc1L Huclear Power Group Manager
- E. M. Mace,' Engineering Manager V-
, ?*J. M. Meacham,aSenior Manager of Operations j
+ *S.:M. Peterson, Senior Manager of Technical Suppcet Services
0,
- G. E. Smith,1QA, Nanager'.
.
- G. R.' Smith,LL'icensing' Supervisor
+
- D. A.:Wacha, Lea'd I&C Engineer.
'
.
. K.~C. Walden. Nuclear Licensing and Safety Manager
,
'-
NRC-R I*W.*C'(Seidle, Chief.TestProgramsSection,RIV
'
-
i *G U A. Pick, Resident Inspector
'
'
- . w
~*W. R.-Bennett, Senior Resident Inspector.
.
p
' *C Paulk, Reactor Inspector,-RIV-
,
"* Denotes'those attending the exit; interview on-February 16, 1990.
.
t
'During the inspection -theLinspectors also contacted other licensee. personnel.
,
as,
..
.
.
Cb 2.
CONTAINMENT LOCAL LEAK RATE TESTING (61720)c c
.
lhe purpose of this' inspection was tofverify that primary containment local-
,
N leak rate tests (LLRT), as requ ked by the CNS Technical. Specifications'(TS),-
'3 were performed to ensure that leakage through. testable containment penetrations
,
'
and isolation valves would not exceed the. allowable leakage specified. This.
c
.
review-included records, proceA:res,land independent calculations associated'
l F-Lwith1the-LLRT conducted.at CNS.-
.
- During'the inspection, the inspector reviewed the primary containment LLRTL
,
Procedure 6.3.1'.1, Revisior. 16, dated September 13', 1989. The procedure was.
y lJ
'
ccompletei.and satisfactorily stated the acceptance criteria for each penetration H
.and containment isolation valve (CIV) and for the airlock and the equiprent B
hatch.. Test procedure instructions were concise and provided for independent verification of test results and for system restoration.
..
-
H ls
'
'
-,
l
^
,.
-
'
gy#
.
,
,t i. 3
.-..-
,
T+
,
.,
.- =-
The inspector reviewed records of.LLRTs conducted during 1988 and 1989.
In F
conducting this review, the inspector verified that corrective actions were
- taken on excessive leakage components and that appropriate retests were conducted on penetrations and CIVs. The cumulative data for containment
>
testable penetrat a and CIVs were reviewed to verify that the total contain-ment local leak tr'e did not exceed the acceptance criteria of 0.60La (189
.
scfh). This acceptance criterion was well within the required TS.
During a review of the licensee's Type B & C LLRT surcary reports for 1988 and 1989, the inspector made an observation related to testing of penetrations X-205,
'
X-210B and-2118. The test results showed that the initially as-found leakage
-
from the Type B & C leak rate tests exceeded the acceptance criteria. However, the involved penetrations were repaired and retested, and the results ret the
,
acceptance criteria. The inspector also verified through record review of maintenance orders and post-naintenance tests that the subsequent total. leakage
,'
was substantially reduced.
During this inspection, the inspector noted that the individuals who performed the LLRTs~are trained in accordance with the CNS Procedure ~0.17, " Selection and-Training of Station Personnel," Revision 10, dated June 27, 1989. Hcwever,-the
_
- training department was unable to locate any documentation of training for these individuals, as required by CNS Procedure 0.17. This_is a deficiency in the licensee's' training 3rogram and is another example of training documentation deficiencies that were 11e subject of previous violations.
'
No-violations or deviations were identified in the review of this program area.
3.
SURVEILLANCEANDCALIBRATIONCONTROL_ PROGRAMS _(61L25]
- The purpose of this inspection was to ensure that the licensee had developed
-- and implemented the surveillance and calibration control programs at CNS.as
_
. required by the TS. The assessment of the surveillance testing and calibration control programs was accomplished by reviewing' procedures and by discussing the
,
aspects of the program with licensee personnel. These programs are established and. implemented by CNS Engineering Proceduie 3.9, Pevision 1, dated January 18, 1990.
The major component of the surveillance and calibration activities is the computerized history established by the CNS surveillance scheduling system.
The-surveillance scheduling system is coordinated and tracked by the CNS surveillance coordinator. The surveillance scheduling system is a data base that contains equipment information. The data base is verified manually for accuracy by the CNS surveillance coordinator. The licensee had performed a L
review to_ determine those components, which require survei"ance testing in accordance with the TS. The licensee has also conducted a review to determine those components that are required to be tested and calibrated but not as a
[
- requirement of the TS.
,
This revicw included the inservice inspection and testing requirements of l
Section XI of the ASME code. The test and calibration information was then
1
$
l, b
'
'
,
,
%
'
%,
- ,..
>
.
.
-5-loaded into the surveillance scheduling system with-data on the testing and calibration. The scheduling. system also included information about periodicity and' procedural requirements.
From this data base,-the surveillance coordinator-
= generated the schedules for surveillance and distributed them to the appropriate department for the task to be formed. This schedule included both TS and other
^ *.
testing and calibration requirements. The surveillance tests were tracked by the shift technical supervisor, and. the maintenance tests were tracked by the maintenance department supervisor. The inspector-reviewed the December 1989 w
- and January 1990 monthly surveillance testing schedules and verified that all tests required to be performed on each shift, each day, and each week were identified with a test procedure and the appropriate = responsible group (s)
listed. The inspector. discussed scheduling efficiency with licensee personnel.
'
The inspector concluded that the use of the surveillance scheduling system,
. coupled with the responsibility given to the surveillance coordinator, resulted in no overdue tests.-
The responsibilities for handling completed tests were specifically assigned by the procedures which control the test programs. The procedures specified that completed tests were reviewed, completion data entered into the tracking system, and overdue or missed tests were flagged. Corrective actions were assigned to the responsible group. Anomalies and deficiencies were reviewed, and the applicable T5 limiting condition for operations were checked to ensure that thty were not exceeded.
In addition, the shift supervisor was notified,
and a-maintenance order was written to correct any identified deficiencies.
<
No'violetions or deviations were. identified in the review of this program area.
.4.. MODIFICATION AND TESTING (72701)
+
The purpose of this inspection was to' ascertain the effectiveness of the x
~
,
licensee's control and implementation.of post-modification testing activities.
The inspector concluded that.th( licensee had implemented an effective program
,
for the control and performance of post-modification testing. The areas inspected were the control procedures and the review of six completed design change tests.
,
.The assigned responsibilities for post-modification testing, testing procedure-content, and th'e purpose of the test are stated in licensee En
- Procedure 3.4, " Station Modification;" 3.4.3, " Design Change;"gineering and 3.49,
.
" Implementation and Acceptance Testing Activities."
,
The inspector reviewed the above procedures to ascertain that the philosophies-l
'._
,and. instructions would when followed, produce a' test procedure that would l
effectively and accurately test the design modification. The inspector
- concluded from'the. review that there was reasonable expectation that a given
" #
procedure would result in a test that would verify that the modification was correctly ~ installed and that the modification operated as designed.
,
,
]'.
. Additionally, the test, when performed, would identify any modification induced problems.
]~
.;)
"
n
,
,
'N
.
.
.
}
_.
-.. -........ - -,..
... -.
lk,. c
'.
.-
.
The inspector 1made a random selection of completed design modifications and reviewed the included post-design modification testing packages. Design.
Modifications86-024, 88-36,87-118, 89-036,88-263, and 87-191 were selected.
The design modification packages covered modifications to the diesel generator, feedwater: control, residual heat removal, core spray, high pressure core injection, and reactor cure isolation cooling systems. The major points of the r
'
review were to verify that the modification effectively tested the modified installation and that the modification performed as designed. Other aspects of ip -
the test that were examined included the test procedure detail, prerequisites
for testing, test instrument requirements, specificity of acceptance criteria,
_
and documentation and review requirements.
'
The~ inspector concluded from the review that a consistent test format had been used; this resulted in ao easily followed and detailed procedures. The test r
_
purpose was succinctly stated in each case. The acceptance criteria were J.
clearly' delineated. The test procedure steps were detailed, and hold points and sign-offs were specified when required. The review process was specified as was the document storage requirements. The test procedures were also
{
determined to be technically adequate. Test changes were reviewed and found to
,
be' well documented and aroperly reviewed and approved. The preapproval test p
i review appeared thorougi as evidenced by the small number of "On-the-Spot i!
Changes" required during the test performance.
>
.c
~ 2
'
The inspector made three observations to licensee representatives while re' viewing the tests. First, it was noted that a chronological log was not used during testing. Use of a log could be helpful in the review process in identifying' problem areas and, for long tests could serve as a_ turnover log whenl testing. personnel were changed. The second observation was that the test summary sheet did not address the testing results or prcblem are:s encountered.
The addition of this material, in addition to what is already included, could
" provide _a succinct review of the design modification without the need to read throughlthe modification details. The third observation was that,-although~the-test instruments were-identified, the instrument-accuracy-and scale division were rot specified.
It should be noted that the inspector found no evidence-that.the absence of accuracy and scale divisions had any acerse effects on the tests reviewed.
,
The_ overall conclusion reached by the inspector was that the licensee had developed a technically sound and well controlled, implemented, and documented post-modification test program.
)
110 violations or deviations were identified in the review of this program area.
~
5.
EXIT INTERVIEW The inspection scope and findings were sumarized in an exit meeting held on February 16, 1990, with the licensee personnel ind.icated in paragraph 1 of this report.- The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to, or reviewed by, the inspectors during the inspection.
'
.
h
._-'m____.b.E_.._'_m
'
_
_ ^_ _ -
_
_. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _. _ _ _ _.
_ _ _ _. _ _.
_
,_
_
_