IR 05000298/1993001
| ML20217F942 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 01/26/1993 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217F876 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-97-148 50-298-93-01, 50-298-93-1, NUDOCS 9708070055 | |
| Download: ML20217F942 (8) | |
Text
..
.'
e QUARTERLY PLANT PERFORMANCE REVIEW (QPPR 93 01)
COOPER NOCLEAR STATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SALP CYCLE 011 (JANUARY 19, 1992. THRU APRIL 24,1993)
FINAL JANUARY 26, 1993 1.
DYIRYllM The plant has o)erated near full power with few equipment problems.
Communications Jetween the licensee and the Region have received attention and appear to be improving.
To enhance their corrective action systems the licensee 1malemented a deficiency reporting process with the goal to document lower thresloid deficient conditions.
II, PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Quarter 92 03 Analysis:
Performance indicators do not indicate situations that would warrant changes to the MIP.
111. EMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT REGLlLATORY ISSUES None.
IV, PLANT OPERATIONS PREVIOUS RATINGS SALP 90: 1 92: 2 0"PR 07-28: (NC)
10-20: (NC)
01-26: (NC)
STRENGTHS:
Management attention has been applied to plant housekeeping and imarovement has been seen.
Simulator evaluators were very professional and ex11bited good evaluation skills.
Examination material was very good and in accordance with the standard.
The licensed operators appeared to be safety-conscious and competent.
WEAKNESSES:
Licensed operator training weaknesses were observed in command, control, and communications; however, the licensee was aware of the problems and was actively pursuing their corrective actions program.
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT: The plant has been operated effectively during the past quarter.
80 g 5 970005 MATTHEM97-148 PDR
.
j QW y *i t,t V T$~
. - - _
.
.
.
RECOMMENDED MIP REVISIONS:
60705 - R1 - Preparation for Refueling - 60 to 75 hours8.680556e-4 days <br />0.0208 hours <br />1.240079e-4 weeks <br />2.85375e-5 months <br /> 60710 RI - Refuleing Activities - 0 to 60 hours6.944444e-4 days <br />0.0167 hours <br />9.920635e-5 weeks <br />2.283e-5 months <br /> 86700 - RI - Spent fuel Pool - 0 to 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> Reason:
for the performance of a shutdown (S/D) risk pilot inspection V.
RADIOLOGICAL CONTROLS PREVIOUS RATINGS SALP 90: 1 92: 2 OPPR 07 28: (NC)
10 20: (+) 01-26: (+)
STRENGTHS:
Performance in the area of radiological confirmatory measurenents was outstanding.
An excellent water chemistry program was being implemented.
Excellent liquid and gaseous radioactive waste effluent programs were being implemented.
WEAKNESSES:
None.
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT:
Excellent performance in the areas of radiological confirmatory measurements, water chemistry, and effluent programs was seen.
RECOMMENDED MIP REVISIONS:
None.
VI.
MAINTENANCE / SURVEILLANCE PREVIOUS RATINGS SALP 90: 21 92: 1 QPPR 07-28: (NC)
10 20:
(NC) 01 26: (NC)
STRENGTHS:
The licensee's review of industry information resulted in conservative actions and was not limited to the specific instance identified in the industry information.
WEAKNESSES:
None.
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT:
Performance in this areas continues to be very good.
RECOMMENDED HIP REVISIONS:
None.
,
.
..
.
..
.
..
....
___ __
.
.'
.
VII. EMERGENCY PREPARE 0 NESS PREVIOUS RATINGS SALP 90: 21 92: 2 OPPR 07 28: (NC)
10-20:
(-) 01 26: (NC)
STRENGTHS:.None.
WEAKNESSES:
None.
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT: - No performance observation this quarter.
RECOMMENDED HIP REVISIONS:
None.
.VIII. SECURITY--
PREVIOUS RATINGS SALP 90: 21 92: 1 OPPR- 07-28: -(NC)
10 20:
(-) 01-26: (NC)
STRENGTHS: A good access control program was being implemented.
The intrusion detection system was Well designed and well-maintained.
WEAKNESSES:
One example of improper escorting was identified by the NRC.
The licensee failed to change some security locks upon termination of some employees.
The lack of training aids was a program weakness.
Test procedures for the intrusion detection system did not encourage personnel to challenge the system during testing, PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT:
Performance in this area is at the same level as previously identified.
RECOMMENDED MIP REVISIONS:
None.
IV, ENGINEERING / TECHNICAL SUPPORT PREVIOUS RATINGS SALP 90: 2'
92: 2 OPPR 07 28: (NC)
10 20:
(NC) -01-26:-(+)-
.
.
STRENGTHS:
During the week of January 4-8. 1993, an Engineering and Technical Support inspection was conducted at Cooper, with participation by the NRR PM.
The licensee's engineering staff appears to be competent, qualified, and adequately trained.
The licensee's total Nuclear Power Group engineering staff including people at the plant and at the corporate office, has increased significantly over the past dozen years, from 27 in 1980 to 62 in 1985 to 142 in 1991.
The overall staffing in the Nuclear Power Group has gone from 280 in 1985 to 569 at present, plus an additional 85 people in the security staff and another 100 administrative staff. for a total of about 750 people.
About 200 of these are located at the corporate office.
The Cooper Operations and Maintenance budget is currently $63.5 million per year and is growing at about 9 percent per year after inflation.
Staffing and funding at Cooper appears to be comparable to that at a number of other nuclear plants.
The licensee is now doing almost all of the engineering work associated with Cooper and is not relying on cunsultants except for (1) the use of GE to do reload analysis, which the licensee verifies using its own analysis, and (2) the use of SAIC to perform PRA analyses for the IPE.
The inspection found no significant backlog of engineering work being performed in su) port of the plant.
About one-third of the engineering staff is located at tie plant and two thirds at the corporate office.
The separation does not appear to have an adverse impact on the engineering work, because a corporate plane is available 3 days a week to fly employees back and forth and because the lead engineer for a plant modification is temporarily stationed at the plant during the installation of the modification.
The engineering effort on two major programs, the Design Basis Documentation (DBD) Program and the IPE aragram, has been delayed in the past but now appears to be on track.
11e OBD program is being conducted by the licensee's
-
staff.
To date, the Design Balls Documents for 3 of a total of 25 systems have been completed. and diI are scheduled to be complete by 1997.
The Cooper JPE report is being prepared with the assistance of a consultant. SAIC and is being reviewed by the licensee and by another contractor.
The IPE is scheduled to be submitted in March 1993. about 6 months behind the original schedule.
These programs were delayed to some extent by changing regulatory recuirements, but also bv the licensee's initial underestimate of the scope anc depth of ef fort required.
For example, the IPE was originally estimated to require 8,500 man-hours, but will require a total of 25.000 to 30.000 man-hours, the licensee estimates.
At the exit, the staff emahasized the need for the licensee to keep its engineering efforts on scledule, as well as continuing to maintain quality.
The staff also encouraged the licensee management to meet with NRC management.
both at Headquarters and Region IV. to improve communications between it and the NRC.
WEAKNESSES:
None.
,
.
.
.
..
.
.
t PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT:
Performance in this area is very good.
RECOMMENDED MIP REVISIONS:
None.
X.
SAFETY ASSESSMENTlQUALITY VERIFICATION PREVIOUS RATINGS SALP 90: 2 92: 2 OPPR 07-28: (NC)
10 20: (NC) 01-26: (NC)
STRENGTHS:
The licensee's evaluation and corrective action to address the water hammer event in the RHR system were prompt and appeared to be good, WEAKNESSES:
Some examples of weak management controls and corrective action were seen involving control of compressed gas cylinders on the refueling floor and lack of identification of temporary start up strainers in the core spray system.
The licensee implemented an organization change without submitting a 15 change.
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT:
Performance in the area is good.
RECOMMENDED MIP REVISIONS:
2515/113 SI Loss of Decay Heat Removal 60 to 150 hours0.00174 days <br />0.0417 hours <br />2.480159e-4 weeks <br />5.7075e-5 months <br /> 71707 - RI - O erational Safety Verification 0 to 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> 42700 - R1 - P ant Procedures 0 to 50 hours5.787037e-4 days <br />0.0139 hours <br />8.267196e-5 weeks <br />1.9025e-5 months <br /> 41500 RI - Training and Qualification Effectiveness - 0 to 50 hours5.787037e-4 days <br />0.0139 hours <br />8.267196e-5 weeks <br />1.9025e-5 months <br /> 62703 - R1 - Maintenance Observations - 0 to 75 hours8.680556e-4 days <br />0.0208 hours <br />1.240079e-4 weeks <br />2.85375e-5 months <br /> Reason:
Perform the S/D risk pilot inspection 92720 - R1 Corrective Action - 120 to 70 hours8.101852e-4 days <br />0.0194 hours <br />1.157407e-4 weeks <br />2.6635e-5 months <br /> 92702 - RI - Followup on Corrective Actions for NOVs and N0Ds - 50 to 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> 92700 - R1 - LER Followup - 120 to 140 HOURS Reason:
To reflect actual level of effort being expended on these modules XI.
0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION Operations The fact that the last unplanned reactor trip occurred 2 years ago demonstrates the licensee's ability to conduct routine plant operations in an acceptable manner.
_
...
..
.
.
..
.
..
_
. _ _
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - -
i.
, k i
.
j Safety Assessment /Oualitv Verification i
The licensee did_not request any temporary waivers of compliance during the quarter, although an opportunity to request a waiver occurred on December 30.
1992, when both diesel generators were declared inoperable.. This was a result of a design deficiency discovered by the licensee as a result of its DBD
'
Program.
Power was reduced per the technical specifications, and plant modifications were made to correct the deficiency.
The diesels were declared
operable about 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> after power reduction had been initiated. At that time
plant power had been reduced to about 65 percent.
If the licensee had
requested and been granted a temporary waiver, the transient reduction in i
power could have been avoided.
The licensee appears to be reluctant _to request waivers and should be encour6ged to discuss with the NRC staf f the
'
possibility of obtaining a waiver if the DBD program uncovers other deficiencies that are well understood and quickly correctable, j
General Comments
Overall, we see the licensee's performance as satisfactory in all areas.
The i
number of licensing actions and activities for Cooper appears to be i
appropriate for a plant of its vintage.
In general, their submittals have
been acceptable, although schedular delays have been requested by the licensee
!
in some instances.
The communication between NRR management and the licensee's e nagement
)ersonnel has been minimal.
Efforts to encourage dialogue end/or visits by iPPD management should be continued. We are not recommending additional i
inspections during the next 6 months because such inspections, coming on top
]
of'the currently scheduled inspections, might have an adverse impact on the licensee's conduct of operations. However, later in the year we would
recommend that a SAQV inspection be performed.
I General licensina Comments The licensing organization at Coo 3er appears to be competent and doe; an adequate job of communicating wit 1 NRR and Region IV.
However, Cooper management a) pears to be reluctant to visit Nhc headquarters or otherwise interact witi NRR management.
Efforts should continue to be made to encourage q dialogue with management, There are 19 outstanding licensing tasks for Cooper, About half are generic issues and half are site specific issues.
The licensee has been timely with most licensing submittals and obtains approvals for schedule changes for good causes. However, we should continue to emphasize to the licensee the need for timely response to NRC initiatives.
(Ns
-...
.
.
.
.
..
,
XII. ATTACHMENTS 1.
MlP 2 Report 2.
IFS Report 3.
Performance Indicators
,
.
..
.
..
..
.
-
.______ ___ -
__,
,=
,
'.
t
.
SUMMARY OF HIP-CHANGES CNS QPPR HEETING JANUARY 26, 1993 MODULE TITLE AREA ADD /
FM TO DELTA CHANGE 60710 REFUELING OPS C
0
- 60 86700 SPENT FUEL POOL OPS C
0
- 30 92720 CORRECTIVE ACTIONS SA0V C
120
50 92702 VIOLATION F/U SA0V _
C
30
92700 LER F/U SA0V C
120 140
+ 20 Tl 2515/113 REllABLE DHR SA0V C
150
+ 90 41500 NON LICENSE TRNG OPS-A
50
+ 50 42700 PLANT PROCEDURES OPS A
50
+ 50 62703 MAINT. OBS MS A
75
+ 75 71707-OP SAFETY VERIFICATION OPS A
100
+100 60705 PREP REFUELING OPS C
75
+ 15 TOTAL CHANGE
+240