IR 05000298/1993002
| ML20217F977 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 03/23/1993 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217F876 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-97-148 50-298-93-02, 50-298-93-2, NUDOCS 9708070060 | |
| Download: ML20217F977 (6) | |
Text
__-
,
'
.
.
'
QUARTERLY PLANT FERFORMANCE REVIEW (QPPR 93 02)
COOPER NUCLEAR STATION EXEClfTIVE SUMARY SALP CYCLE 011 (JANUARY 19, 1992 TIRU APRIL 24, 1993)
FINAL MARCH 23, 1993 1.
QYEBYJfW The 31 ant has operated near full power with few equipment problems.
On March 5. t7e licensee shut down the plant to begin a 56 day refueling outage.
11.
PERFORMANCE INQJCATORS Quarter 92-04 Analysis:
Performance indicators do not indicate situations that would warrant changes to the MlP.
III. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT REGULATORY ISSUES A special inspection was performed to review additional examples of temporary strainers left in safety-related systems.
Significant regulatory concerns exist regarding the accuracy and completeness of information provided to the NRC in response to an earlier NOV for temporary strainers, and regarding the effectiveness of corrective actions and personnel performance.
IV.
PLANT OPERATIONS PREVIOUS RATINGS SALP 90: - 1 92: 2 OPPR 07-28: (NC)
10-20: (NC)
01 26: (NC)
03-23: (NC)
STRENGTHS:
Operating crews evaluated in the control room simulator aerformed well in detecting and classifying simulated emergency conditions.
Tle crews demonstrated an improved knowledge and performance of duties in all areas found to be weak in recent EP inspections.
The licensee *s administrative controls in the fire protection / prevention program was strong and contributed to.the generally good housekeeping of the plant.
WEAKNESSES:
Fire watches were not assigned to an inoperable Thermolag barriers and one fire watch was not aware of all the installations that he was supposed to monitor.
1-9700070060 970005 P } n{
h-148 HA PDR
QuY0100GO
~
_
- - - - - - - - - -
,
,
'
!
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT:
Licensee corrective actions appear to have had a positive offect on simulated operating crew EP performance.
RECOMMENDED HIP REVISIONS:
None.
V.
fMQ10LOGICALCONTROLS PREVIOUS RATINGS SALP 90: 1 92: 2 OPPR 07 28: (NC)
10-20: (+)
01-26: (+)
03 23: (+)
STRENGTHS:
Several excellent aspects of the solid radwaste program were noted including-surveillances: training programs for radwaste operators, maintenance personnel, and HP personnel; and procedures.
WEAKNESSES:
None.
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT:
The solid radwaste management program was well implemented.
RECOMMENDED HIP REVISIONS:
None.
VI.
MAINTENAtiCE/ SURVEILLANCE PREVIOUS RATINGS SALP 90: 21 92: 1 OPPR 07-28: (NC)
10 20:
(NC) 01-26: (NC)
03 23: (NC)
STRENGTHS:
Personnel effectively implemented the surveillance testing and cal Bration control programs.
WEAKNESSES:
None PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT:
'verall, performance in this area appears to be good RECOMMENDED HIP REVISIONS:
None.
Vll.
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PREVIOUS RATINGS SALP 90: 21 92: 2 OPPR 07-28: (NC)
10-20:
(-)
01 26: (NC)
03 23: (NC)
STRENGTHS:
The emergency response facilities had been maintained in a state of operational readiness.
2-
'
WEAKNESSES:
The licensee did not adequately test the emergency response organization paging system.
The licensee did not critique an aborted EP quarterly drill and 50RC did not assign corrective actions for weaknesses in another quarterly drill.
The same operating crew participated in 3 drills leading up to the graded exercise, none of the other 5 crews were selected for participation during the 4 month period prior to the graded exercise.
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT:
Several weak performance areas were observed.
RECOMMENDED HIP REVISIONS:
None.
VIII. ECURITY PREVIOUS RATINGS SALP 90: 21 92: 1 OPPR 07 28: (NC)
10 20:
(-)
01-26: (NC)
03 23: (NA)
STRENGTHS:
None.
WEAKNESSES:
None.
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT:
No performance assessment in this functional area during this quarter.
RECOMMENDED MlP REVISIONS:
None.
IV.
ENGINEERING / TECHNICAL SUPPORT PREVIOUS RATINGS SALP 90: 2 92: 2 QPPR 07-28: (NC)
10-20:
(NC) 01 26: (+)
03-23: (-)
STRENGTHS:
The design engineering process was very effective and included comprehensive 3rocedures, v 'll written modification packages, good staf fing.
and effective Jacklog control.
Temporary modifications were audited weekly by senior licensed operators and ef fectively controlled to limit their number and to ensure that none were over 6 months old.
WEAKNESSES:
Plant engineering resolution of temporary strainers had significant weaknesses including:
reliance on verbal information, absence of resolution of inaccurate information on P&lDs, and weak operability determination on the RCIC system.
Control room drawings and procedures did not always indicate open temporary modifications affecting them.
PERFORMMCE ASSESSMENT:
Plant engineering technical support showed several weaknesses.
Design engineering activities were generally good, RECOMMENDED MIP REVISIONS:
None.
3-
..
..
.
.
.
,
/
SAFETY ASSESSMENT /0VAllTY VERIFICATIOS PREVIOUS RATINGS SALP 90: 2 92: 2 OPPR 07-28: (NC)
10-20: (NC) 01-26: (NC)
,
03-23: (-)
STRENGTHS:
None.
WEAKNESSES:
Inaccurate and incomplete information was provided to the NRC in a NOV response.
Corrective actions to resolve temporary strainers being in safety related systems were ineffective and temporary strainers were found in 2 additional systems.
Individual performance was poor relative to assessing the status and significance of temporary strainers remaining in the plant.
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT:
Performance weakness in the area of corrective actions and in the performance of individuals continues to be seen.
RECOMMENDED HIP REVISIONS:
None.
XI.
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION Plant Onerations Plant operations appear to have been conducted in an acceptable manner during the past quarter.
Safety Assessment /Ouality Verification The continuing problems at Cooper associated with repeated discovery of installed temporary strainers o in.11cative of weaknesses in the licensee's corrective action program.
The licensee's submittal of inaccurate information to the staff in response to a November 1992 NOV on strainers indicates that the licensee needs to develop a more self critical attitude, to be more open and forthright in its dealings with the staff, and to put greater emphasis on accuracy in its documents.
General Licensino Comments The licensing organization at Cooper appears to be competent and does an adequate job of communicating witi NRR and Region IV.
However, Cooper management appears to be reluctant to visit NRC headquarters or otherwise interact rita NRR management.
The communication between NRR management and the licensee's management personnel has recently improved somewhat, as a result of a visit to White Flint by the 11censee's licensing and QA management.
The meeting was held at the staff's request, in order to get input from NPPD on the staff's draft regulatory position on procurement and commercial grade dedication.
The licensee had a number of significant comments on the staff position, and had clearly made an effort to be
.
_
_
_
_
_
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ___ ______ -_-____-___
-
.
<
'
@
'
responsive to the staf f request.
Efforts to encourage dialogae and/or similar
.
visits by NPPD management shoul1 be continued.
+
There are 18 outstanding licensing tasks for Cooper, which is about average for a plant of its vintage.
About half are generic issuer and half are site specific issues.
Most licensing submittals are acceptable but one in particular, an amendment request to remove the main steam line radiation monitor scram and containment isolation function was an exception, in this instence, the initial submittal provided minimal basis for the change and was missing three of the Technical Specification pages that were proposed to be changed.
Further, the licensee's response to a staff request for additional information was later found by the licensee to be in error and was corrected by letter.
The error had no safety significance, since the corrected value indicated more safety margin than the erroneous value.
However, this shows the need for more careful scrutiny by the licensee of communications with the staff.
Overall, we see the licensee's performance as average, with some areas of strength and some areas of weakness.
In general, their submittals have been acceptable although some license amendment requests have been deficient. both in accuracy and completeness. We should continue to emphasize to the licensee the need for complete and accurate information in its licensing submittals.
License Amendments - OPPR Period 01/01/93-03/10/93 1.
Amendment 157.1ssued on January 7.1993, modified the plant Technical Speci. 'ations to remove three tables of containment isolation valves.
in accordance with Generic Letter 91-08.
2.
Amendment Es sued on March 2.1993, modified the plant Technical Specificat e co rimove the main steam line radiation monitor scram and containment isolation functions.
XII.
.A_TTACHMENTS 1. MIP 2 Report 2. IFS 1 Report
.s.
. _
.
-
-
- :...,.
s gi w
y-----------r-----.
. - - - - - - - -, _,. - - - - -. _.,
,-,--,.-,.w,--
- -, - - - - - - - -, -. _ - _ _ - _.,, _ _,, _,..,. _., _ -,
-
.
.0
"
e
~
SUMMARY OF MIP CHANGES CNS QPPR MEETING MARCH 23, 1993 MODULE TITLE AREA ADD /
FM TO DELTA CHANGE NET CHANGE NONE
__
-6-
.....
..
__ _ _ _-__