ML20128B480

Insp Rept 50-298/93-02 on 930111-15.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Surveillance Testing & Calibr Control Programs

ML20128B480
Person / Time
Site:	Cooper
Issue date:	01/27/1993
From:	Stetka T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20128B471	List: ML20128B469 ML20128B480
References
50-298-93-02, 50-298-93-2, NUDOCS 9302030075
Download: ML20128B480 (5)

See also: IR 05000298/1993002

Text

-_. - . - - - . ._ . - - - - . __

<

.

,

4

APPENDIX

U.S. NOCLEAR REGULATORY COHHISSION

REGION IV

Inspection Report: 50-?98/93-02

Operating Lice.ne: DPR-46

Licensee: Nebraska Public Power District

P.O. Box 499

Columbus, Nebraska 68602-0499

Facility Name: Cooper Nuclear Station

Inspection At: Brownville, Nebraska

Inspection Conducted: January 11-15, 1993

Inspectors: L. D. Gilbert, Reactor Inspector, Maintenance Section

Division of Reactor Safety

R. C. Stewart, Reactor Inspector, Maintenance Section

Division of Reactor Safety

Approved: b

T. F. Stelka, Chief, Maintenance Section

~

/!77/98

D~ ate

Division of Reactor Safety

Ig oection Summary

Areas insoected: Routine, announced inspection of surveillance testing and

calibration control programs.

Ruu111:

• The administrative procedures clearly defined responsibilities for the

surveillance testing and calibration control programs.

• Personnel effectively implemented the surveillance testing and

calibration control programs.

Summary of insoection findinas:

.

• No inspection findings were opened.

'

• Inspection followup items 298/9102-01 and 298/9102-02 were closed.

Attachment:

• Attachment - Persons Contacted and. Exit Meeting

9302030075 930128

PDR ADOCK 05000290

0 PDR

. _.

_ _ _ _ , __

- _

,

d

'

-2-

MIALLi

1 PLANT STATUS

During this inspection period, the plant was operating at power.

2 $URVEILLANCE TESTlHG AND CALIBRA110N COUROL PROGRAMS (61700 AND 61725)

The purpose of this inspection was to assess the implementation of the

licensee's surveillance testing and calibration control programs.

2.1 Discussion

2.1.1 Surveillance Program

The inspectors reviewed the licensee's surveillance arogram for scheduling and

performing tests, calibrations, and checks required )y the Technical

Specifications. The administrative requirements and responsibilities of the

surveillance program were detailed in the Cooper Nuclear Station Operations

Manual, Procedure 0.26, " Surveillance Program," Revision 8. The procedure

assigned the responsibility for scheduling surveillance activities and

maintaining the status of surveillance tests to the surveillance coordinator.

The responsibility to coordinate with other shift activities and to authorize

the actual performance of the test was assigned to the control room shift

supervisor.

During the inspection, the inspectors witnessed three surveillance activities

required by Section 4 of the Technical Specifications. The activities

witnessed were performed using the following surveillance procedures:

• Procedure 6.2.2.5.7, "RHR Loops A and B Pump Low flow Switch Calibration

and Functional / Functional Test," Revision 17;

• Procedure 6.2.2.1.4, "CS and RHR Pump Discharge Permissive Calibration

and functional / functional Test," Revision 17; and,

• Procedure 6.3.18.3, " Service Water Surveillance Operation," Revision 27.

The personnel performing the surveillance activities were knowledgeable of the

procedure requirements and kept operations personnel informed of the

surveillance test status. The surveillance procedures clearly identified the

Technical Specification requirements and acceptance criteria. The inspectors

verified that the instrumentation / control technicians performing the test and

calibration activities were <;ualified and used calibrated instruments,

in addition, the inspectors selected and reviewed a number of surveillance

test records representing 14 different surveillance requirements of the

-. . - _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - - _

.

.

.

-3-

Technical Specifications. The surveillance testing related to the following

areas of the Technical Specifications:

• Reactivity control and power p 9 ration,

• Instrumentation.

• Reactor coolant system,

• Emergency core cooling system,

• Containment system,

• Electrical power system,

• Fire protection system, and.

• Inservice testing program.

The surveillence records confirmed that the required surveillance activities

were performed satisfactorily and at the specified frequency. The inspectors

also verified that the surveillance test procedures clearly specified the

Technic 9 Specification surveillance requirements and that the surveillance

test results were reviewed by the Shift svervisor.

The inspectors reviewed the four most recent license amendments, of which the

latest was Amendment No. 156, dated December 22, 1992. This review verified

that changes made to the surveillance program were incorporated into the

surveillance procedures and master surveillance schedule.

2.1.2 Calibration Control Program

The inspectors reviewed the licensee's calibration control program for

scheduling and performing calibration of safety-related process

instrumentation installed in the plant that were not specifically controlled

by Technical Specifications or the temporary measuring and test equipment

program. The programmatic requirements of the process instrumentation

calibration control program were detailed in the Cooper Nuclear Station

Operations Manual, Procedure 0.38, " Process Instrumentaticn Program,"

Revision 2.

The inspectors reviewed the calibration-records for selected process

instrumentation installed in the plant and used to provide data for the

l inservice testing witnessed during the inspection. The inspectors verified

l that the process instrumentation used for these surveillance activities were

l

included in the calibration program and that the calibration was current.

1

1 2.2 Conclusions

The licensee has developed administrative procedures which clearly define

responsibilities for scheduling and performing surveillance testing and

calibration activities. Operations personnel are effectively scheduling,

performing, and updating the surveillance testing and calibration control

programs.

-

.

4

l

3 FOLLOWUP (92701)

l 3.1 10.1ned}_. Inspection followun Item 298/9102-01: Perform Snecial Test to

Determine Seryls.e Walar Purro Room Temoeratutes _durina Symmer Months upon

L933 of Heatino __f.411 tion. and Air Condiligning

The inspectors verified snat a special test had been conducted to measure the

heat-up of the service water pump room with two pumps rur,ning and without

heating, ventilation, and air canditioning. Th resulting service water pump

room temperatures were evaluated as acceptable by the Nuclear Engineering

Department. The licensee also incorporated the results of the service water

pump room temperature test into Revision X of the Updated Safety Analysis

Report.

3.2 (Closed) Insoection followun Item 298/9102-02 L,1pnpuct a Water Hammer

Analysis of the Service Water System dur_ino a loss of Offsite Power,

The inspectors verified that the water hammer analysis of the service water

system had been completed by the Nuclear Engineering Department. The results

of the analysis indicated that the service water system would remain operable

following a loss of power and the restart of two pumps after the diesel

generators have energized the essential buses.

. . . . . . . .

. .

,

,

AIIACHMENT

l

1 PERSONS CONTACTED

Nebraska Public Power District

• L. Bray, Regulatory Compliance Specialist

• R. Brungardt, Operations Manager

M. Dean, Nuclear Licensing and Safety Supervisor

• J. Flaherty, Engineering Manager

• E. Hace, Acting Site Manager

• C, Moeller, Technical Staff Manager

• J. Peaslee, Surveillance Coordinator

• S. Peterson, Acting Plant Manager

BBQ

• W. Walker, Resident Inspector

In addition to the personnel listed above, the inspectors contacted other

licensee employees during this inspection period.

• Denotes personnel attending the exit meeting.

2 EXIT MEETING

An exit meeting was conducted on January 15, 1993. During this meeting, the

inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. The licensee

did not identify as proprietary, any information provided to, or reviewed by

the inspectors.

!