ML19247B293
| ML19247B293 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 07/20/1979 |
| From: | Ippolito T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Pilant J NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908080324 | |
| Download: ML19247B293 (4) | |
Text
-
1 ERA t o asc oq'o UNITED STATES
!},y,c['.
e
" ' h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- N.. f, y!
Jt'tY 2 0 1979 Docket No. 50-298 Mr. J. M. Pil ant, Di rector Licersing & Quality Assurance Nebraska Public Power District P. O. Box 499 Columbus, Nebraska 68601
Dear Mr. Pflant:
0.E : COOPER NUCLEAR POWER STATION We are reviewing your submittal dated April 25, 1979 in response to IE Bulletin 79-08.
We have detemined that the additional infomation requested in the enclosure is necessary in order to complete our safety efaluation.
We request that responses to thn items in the enclosure be forwarded to this office within two weeks of your receipt of the enclosure, which Ws previously transmitted to you by telecopy.
Please contact William F. Xane at (301) 492-7745 if you require additional discussions or clarification regarding the infomation requested.
Si ncerely, M
Thomas A. Ippolito, Ch ef Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Operating Reattors Encl osure:
Request for Additional Infomation cc w/ enclosure:
See next page p)cj 250 790BOSO M ]
Mr. J. Ji. Pilant
~
-2 JULY 2 0 G79 Nebraska Public Power District cc:
Mr. G. D. Watson, General Counsel Nabraska Public Power District P. O. Box 499 Celu.T. bus, Nebraska 68601 Nr. Arthur C. Gehr, Attorney Snell & Wilmer
'100 Valley Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073 Cocper Nuclear Station aT7N:
Mr. L. Lessor Station Superintendent P. O. Box 98 Brownville, Nebraska 68321 Auburn Publ ic Library 118 - 15th Street Auburn, Nebraska 68305
, (i ()
bd 9/'.
Enclosure COOPER STATION REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IEB 79-08 Item No. 1 1.
Confirm that the review of item 1 of IEB 79-08 by all licensed operators and plant management and supervisors with operational responsibilities has been documented in your plant records.
Item No. 2 1.
four response indicates that you reviewed containment isolation of all valves whereas the Bulletin refers to all lines.
Confirm that your review considered isolation of all lines penetrating containment.
Item No. 3 1.
For the manual actions related to restart and continued RCIC operation, and for any other manual actions required, specify whether ttese actions are aodressed by written procedures.
Item No. 4 1.
Your response is incomolate. Describe all uses and types cf vessel level indication for both automatic and manual initiation cf safety systems.
?.
Your response is incomplete.
In addition, describe other instrumentation which the operator might have to determine changes in reactor coolant inventory, e.g., drywell high pressure, radioactivity levels, suppression pool high temperature, containment sump pump operation, etc.
3.
Clarify your response to indicate whether operators have been instructed to utilize other available information to initiate safety systems.
Provide your schedule for completion of this action.
Item No. 6 1.
It ir act clear frcm your respanse that safety related valve positioning requi.ements were reviewed to ensure proper coeration of engineered safety features.
Please ;upplement your rasponse to provide a commitment to conduct this review and a schedule for completion.
O
? N 4/ /
COOPER STATION 2.
Please augment your response to indiate ti,0 extent to which position and locking device checks are performed for locked safety system valves.
3.
Your response did not clearly irdicate that all accessible safety-related valves had been inspected
',o verify proper position. Nor was a schedule for performing the position verification for all safety-related valves provided.
Please supplement your response to provide this information.
Item No. 7 1.
In your discussion regarding systems designed to transfer radioactive gases and liquids, no explicit discussien is presented regarding valve action or resetting safety features instrumentation.
Provide assurance that inadvertent transfer of radioactive gases or liquids out of -ontainment will not occur on resetting safety feature instrumentation.
Item No. 8 1.
We understand from your response that operability.
verified for redundant safety related systems prior to removal of any safety related system from service.
Since you may be relying on prior operability verification within the current technical specification surveillance interval, operability should be further verified by at least a visual check of the system status to the extent practicable, prior to removing the redundant equipment from service.
Please supple-ment your response to provide a commitment that you will revise your maintenance and test procedures to adopt this position.
2.
It is not clear from your response that all involved reactor operational personnel in the oncoming shift are explicitly notified about the status of systems removed from or returned to service.
Please indicate how this information is transferred at snift turnover.
Item No. 9 1.
Amend y'Jr response to provide assurance that your procedures stipulate that NRf will be notified any time the reactor is not in a controlled or expected condition of operation.
,7 4 (') b p
/