ML20147C614
| ML20147C614 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 10/27/1978 |
| From: | Johnson E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20147C580 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-298-78-17, NUDOCS 7812180356 | |
| Download: ML20147C614 (8) | |
See also: IR 05000298/1978017
Text
_
-________- ____ _
-
l
l
.
9
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Report No. 50-298/78-17
'
Docket No. 50-298
License No. DPR-46
Licensee:
Nebraska Public Power District
P. O. Box 499
Columbus, Nebraska 68601
Facility Name: Cooper Nuclear Station
Inspection At: Cooper Nu:: lear Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska
Inspection Conducted: October 2-5, 1978
Principal
T * N do
A
2 ~'
B
Inspector:
E. H. Johnson, Reactor Inspector
Date
.
It/2 7/g
G. L. Constable, Reactor Inspector
Date
Approved By:
Y2ddw-
/o/n b r
G. L. Mad en, Chief, Reactor Operatiens &
Date
"
Nuclear Support Branch
Inspection Summary
Inspection on October 2-5,1978 (Report No. 50-298/78-17)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of offgas system; requalifi-
cation training program; safety limits, limiting safety system settings and
limiting conditions for operation; maintenance activities; and follow up on
IE Circular 78-08. The inspection involved thirty-nine (39) inspector-hours
on-site by two (2) NRC inspectors,
e
Results: Of the five areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations
were noted in three areas.
Two items of noncompliance (Infraction - failure to
i
follow the locked valve procedure for the control of valves in the standby
liquid control system, paragraph 5; Deficiency - failure to schedule requal-
ification lectures for licensed operators as required tsy the requalification
program, paragraph 4) were noted in two areas.
781218035%
_ - - - _ _ _ _ - - - - - _
- _ - _ _ - -
..
.
.
-2-
- ~
'
i
DETAILS
-
e
r
Persons Contacted
P. L. Ballinger, Reactor Engineer
.
L. F. Bednar, Electrical Engineer
P. J. Borer, Technical Assistant to the Station Superintendent
R. D. Creason, Shift Supervisor
W. F. Gilbert, Training Coordinator
'
L. C. Lessor, Station Superintendent
D. E. Mayer, Mechanical Engineer
E. R. Noyes, Engineering Supervisor
J. L. Peaslee, Shift Supervisor
R. W. Seier, Qualtiy Assurance Supervisor
- P. V. Thomason, Assistant to the Station Superintendent
M. G. Williams, Operations Supervisor
- Present at the exit interview.
In addition to the above technical and supervisory personnel, the
inspector held discussions with various maintenance, operations,
technical support and administrative members of the licensee's
staff.
1.
Plant Status
During the period of this inspection, the plant was in routine power
operation at approximately 90% power.
The inspectors conducted a
walk-through of accessible areas of the plant.
Several minor material
discrepancies were noted and brought to the attention of the Shift
Supervisor.
-
The inspectors noted that walk-through radiation monitors are installed
in various locations of the plant where radioactive contamination is
possible.
However, these monitors did not appear to be regularly
used by Station personnel when leaving such areas.
The inspectors
discussed this item with the Assistant Station Superintendent at the
exit interview and expressed their concern that there does not appear
to be clear guidance on the use of these walk-through radiation
monitors.
2.
Review of Offgas System
The objective of this inspection effort was to review the design,
operation, maintenance, and installation of the offgas system in response
to a request from NRC IE Headquarters for this information.
The specific items reviewed were the physical location and installation
of offgas system piping and components, system controls, loop seals,
ventilation and gas monitors associated with the offgas piping areas
l -.
.
. . . . _ . - - - - - - - -
,
,
-3-
and licensee procedures for conducting maintenance on offgas piping
and handling abnormal conditions with the offgas system.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were noted in this area. The
infonnation gathered in this portion of the inspection has been
forwarded to HRC IE Headquarters.
3.
Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related Electrical Eqtipjmegt
The objective of this inspection effort was to review the licensee's
action on IE Circular 78-08, " Environmental Qualification of Safety-
Related Electrical Equipment."
The licensee has received all the reference material associated with
this Circular and has assigned responsibility to the Quality Assurance
Supervisor for reviewing the references and assembling the available
on-site documentation to support the environmental qualification of
safety-related electrical equipment.
The QA Supervisor is being
assisted by the on-site engineering staff.
A formal schedule for
completion of the review has not been established, but a licensee
representative indicated to the inspector that review should be
substantially completed by December 1, 1978.
The inspector noted that
the licensee has not yet established any areas requiring corrective
action.
The inspector indicated that this area would received further follow-
up during subsequent inspections.
4.
Requalification Training
The objective of this inspection effort was to ascertain whether the
licensed operator requalification training program is effective and
in conformance with regulatory requirements.
The inspector reviewed the ongoing requalification training program
including the following training records.
Annual Examintion for 1978
Lecture Schedule
Attendance Records
Records of On-the-Job Training
Records of Control Manipulations
Records of Supervisory Evaluations
The annual requalification examination was given in March 1978.
The
average grade was 91.6%.
The lowest average grade was 88%.
Five
individuals made less than 80% but greater than 70% on individual
sections of the exam.
Attendance at the requalification lecture
>
_
_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
,
-4-
series is generally required of all licensed operators and senior
operators.
All training is conducted at the senior operator level
of understanding.
The lectures are given at random intervals during
the year as plant workload permits when two or more operators and
an instructor are available.
As of the date of the inspection,
eleven lectures were listed on the attendance record.
The Training
Coordinator stated that additional lectures were planned for later
in the year.
Within the scope of this inspection effort one item of noncompliance
was identified.
l
The operator and senior operator requalification program for Cooper
,
Nuclear Station requires that an annual written examination be given
to all licensed operators and senior operators to determine areas in
which requalification training is needed.
A planned lecture series
is required where the annual examination indicates a need for additional
'
training.
A minimum grade of 80% on each section is needed to exempt
an operator or senior operator from required attendance at the
lecture on that section.
Contrary to the above, five individuals made
less than 80% (but greater than 70%) on four sections of the annual
exam, yet lectures on these sections were not scheduled nor was there
any indication of a requirement for these five individuals to attend
the required lectures.
-
Prior to the completion of the inspection, the inspector was presented
with a revised requalification schedule that was expanded to include
lectures on the required subjects and indicated the required attend-
ance at these lectures.
Since this constitutes the corrective action
for this item, no written response will be necessary for this noncom-
pliance.
The completion of the required training by the licensed
personnel noted above will be reviewed during a future inspection.
5.
Standby Liquid Control System Valves
During this inspection the inspector conducted a walk-down of the
standby liquid control system to determine that system valves were in
the proper start positions.
The inspector noted that valve SLC-10,
Standby Liquid Control Outlet Valve, from the storage tank was not
lock-wired open as required by Process and Instrument Drawing 2045.
A broken lock wire was found in the vicinity of this valve.
A check
of the Valve Seals Log (Attachment E to Procedure 1.4) indicated that
valve SLC-10 was to have been lock-wired open with the serialized
lead seal lock wire noted by the inspector.
The check of the Shift
Superivsor's Log revealed that on September 25, 1978 a surveillance
procedure had been performed on the Standby Liquid Control System
-
which required the removal of the valve seal on SLC-10; however, the
.
_ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . - _ - _ - -
-
_
_ ....- _ _
.
.
-5-
valve was not resealed following completion of the surveillance test.
Procedure 1.4 requires that whenever a seal is broken for any reason,
the Shift Supervisor be notified and the seal returned to him.
He
will then update the valve seals log and ensure that the valve is
resealed when returned to its normal position.
Criterion V to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, requires that activities
affecting quality be prescribed by written approved procedures and
that these attivities be accomplished in accordance with these pro-
cedures.
This requirement is amplified in the licensee's Quality
Assurance Manual, Section 2.5.
The failure to control the removal and reinstallation of the valve
seal on valve SLC-10 is contrary to the requirement stated above and
is an item of noncompliance.
No other items of noncompliance or deviations were noted in this
area.
During the above review of valves in the Standby Liquid Control System,
the inspector noted that valve SLC-28 did not have a " locked closed"
tag on the valve, nor was the valve lock-wired.
Process and Instru-
mentation Drawing 2045 indicates that the valve is locked closed.
This apparent discrepancy was brought to the attention of the Shift
Supervisor who entered the valve in the Valve Seals Log and issued a
lock wire for the valve in accordance with the procedure.
6.
Safety Limits, Limiting Safety System Settings, Limiting Conditions
for Operation
The objective of this inspection effort was to review the licensee's
adherence to Technical Specification requirements for safety limits,
limiting safety system settings and limiting conditions for operation.
The inspector reviewed licensee procedures, records of calibration,
recorder charts, selected maintenance activities, records of completed
surveillance tests and conducted inspections of selected safety systems
to determine conformance to Technical Specification requirements.
The Technical Specification items reviewed are indicated below.
Requirement
TS_
Items Reviewed
MCPRj[1.07
1.1.A
P-2 computer printouts 9/1/78
through 10/4/78
LPRM Operability
3.1.1
Same as above
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
-6-
Requirement
TS
Items Reviewed
SBLC Operability
3.4
1978 maintenance activities
on SBLC
Visual inspection of SBLC
system valves
Selected SBLC system surveil-
lance test records
J
Reactor Heatup Rate
3.6.A.1
Recirculation temperature
f 1000F/hr
recorder charts 5/1-4/78 &
5/ 31/78
Reactor Periods on
6.2.7.A.4
Source range / intermediate
Startup
range level recorders 5/1-4/78
& 5/ 31/ 78
LC0 for Recirculation
3.6.A.5
GOP 2.1.15 data sheet dated
Pump Startup
10/1/78
HPCI System Lineup for
3.5.C
Valve and switch lineup on
Standby
control room panel
Core Spray System Lineup
3.5.A
Valve and switch lineup on
for Standby
control room panel
Operability of SW Subsystems
3.12.C.2
SP 6.3.18.1 data sheet dated
with Inoperable Service
10/2/78 to verify operability
Water Pump
of remaining SW pumps
Operability of Diesel
3.5.F
Surveillance procedure data
Generator & associated
sheets to verify remaining
ECCS Components with one
diesel and associated ECCS
Diesel Out-of-Service
Components operable for
period 9/12-15/78
Diesel Generator Lineup
3.9.A.2
Inspection of diesel generator
for Standby
and control room panels for
normal lineup and system
parameters
No items of noncompliance or deviations were noted in this area, except
as described in paragraph 5 above.
7.
S_ource Range Indications for Startup
During the review of source range level of recorder charts for reactor
startups performed on May 1,1978, the inspector noted the following
discrepancies which were discussed with the Assistant Station Super-
intendent at the exit interview.
_ _ _ ~ . , . _ -
---
. _ _ _ . _
_
_ _ -_
- - - , - - _ _ , ,
_ - - - - - -
.
.
-7-
Upon reviewing the source range level recorder chart the inspector
noted that the only annotations contained on this chart were the
time the chart was put on and removed from the recorder.
Such other
j
information as time of reactor criticality, and shifting recorder
speeds from slow to fast were not recorded.
The inspector expressed
his concern that the lack of such information on recorder charts
prevents any adequate reconstruction of events.
The Assistant to the
Station Superintendent indicated that the necessity of properly annotat-
ing recorder charts would be stressed to operating personnel.
This
item will remain unresolved pending review of licensee's actions on
4
this matter.
(Unresolved Item 7817-1)
The source range recorder chart is a two panel recorder, each panel
capable _of recording either of the two source range channels.
It
was noted that during the training criticals being performed on May 1,
1978, at approximately 0800, one of the two source range level
recorder pens was not recording.
Chart indications show that one
of the two pens was stuck.
The inspector expressed his concern that
this condition was not noted by the operating staff for some period
i
of time, although training criticals were in progress.
The inspector
reviewed the licensee's procedures for reactor startup and determined
l
that there are no administrative controls to ensure that monitoring
instrumentation is recording as required.
The Assistant to the Station
i
Superintendent indicated that this item would be reviewed.
This item
will remain unresolved pending results of the licensee's review.
(Unresolved Item 7817-2)
8.
Maintenance
The objective of this inspection effort was to review the qualifica-
tion of selected maintenance personnel to determine that these personnel
were adequately prepared to perform safety-related maintenance by
virtue of previous. experience or training provided by the licensee.
The general requirements for such training are contained in ANSI
Standard 18.7-1972.
The inspector reviewed the personnel records and training records for
selected maintenance personnel.
No items of noncompliance or deviations
were noted in this area.
9.
Unresolved Items
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is requried
to ascertain whether they are acceptable items of noncompliance or
deviations.
The following unresolved items were identified during
this inspection:
7817-1
Recorder Chart Annotation (paragraph 7)
7817-2 Operability of Instrumentation Recorders (paragraph 7)
-
_
_
.
.
-8-
10.
Exit Interview
-
The inspector met with the Assistant to the Station Superintendent
at the conclusion of the inspection.
The scope of the inspection
and the findings were discussed.
The Assistant to the Station Super-
intendent acknowledged the findings relative to the items of
noncompliance, and unresolved items detailed above and indicated
that these items would be reviewed and corrected.
The inspector
.
indicated that the corrective action had been reviewed for the item
of noncompliance noted in paragraph 4 above and no further response
would be required for this item.
)
i
.
i