ML20148D963
| ML20148D963 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 09/12/1978 |
| From: | Johnson E, Madsen G, Verduzco G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148D944 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-298-78-15, NUDOCS 7811060055 | |
| Download: ML20148D963 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000298/1978015
Text
__
- ___ ___ ___.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENF0FCEMENT
REGION IV
Report No. 50-298/78-15
Docket No. 50-298
License No. DPR-46
Licensee:
Nebraska Public Power District
i
P. O. Box 499
Columbus, NeSraska 68601
Facility Name:
Cooper Nuclear Station
,
!
Inspection At:
Cooper Nuclear Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska
Inspection Condt . _ ,. : August 28-30, 1978
I
Principal Inspector: T.N A
9Itt f,8
E. H. Johrson, Reactor Inspector
Date
"T.N.de.I
'l/o.l,a
%
Ffo
G. H. Verduzco, Reactor Inspector (Training)
Date
7[v& ,. cv
9/a/W
8
Approved By:
'G. L. Madsen, Chief, Reactor Operations and
Date
'
Nuclear Support Branch
l
Insoection Summary
Inspection on fugust _28-30.1978 (Report No. 50-298/78-15)
Areas Inspected
Routine, Unannounced inspection of plant operation 3; and
safety reiltWmaintenance activities. The inspection involved twenty 'five (25)
inspector-hours on-site by one inspector.
Results:
0' the two areas inspected no items of noncompliance or deviations
were noted in one area. One deviation (failure to maintain a fire door in an
operable ste:us as required by National Fire Code - Details, paragraph 2) was
noted in one area.
l
l
g 3:600 6
. _ _ -
- - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
-2-
'CETAILS
Persons Contacted
P. Borer, Technical Assistant to the Station Superintendent
B. Brungardt, Shift Supervisor
R. Creason, Shift Supervisor
- L. Lessor, Station Superintendent
R. Peterson, Reactor Engineer
P. Thomason. Assistant to the Station Superintendent
M. Williams, Operations Supervisor
V. Wolstenholm, Quality Assurance Specialist
- Present at the exit interivew.
In addition to the above technical and supervisory personnel, the
inspector held discussions with various maintenance, operations,
technical support and administrative members of the plant staff.
1.
Plant Status
Curing the period of this inspection, the plant was conductne;
> P,ine
power operations at approximately 95% power.
2.
Review of Plant Operations
The inspector reviewed the below listed plant logs and records, tid
discussions with shift personnel, observed control room and plant
process instrumentation, toured accessible areas of the plant and
observed routine operations, including routine radiological controls
to determine that no abnormal conditions were in existence and that
oper'ations were being ccnducted in accordance with license conditions
and other NRC requirements.
Night Order Book, May 23, 1978 through August 28, 1978
Shif t Supervisor's Log, May 23, 1978 through August 28, 1978
Control Room Operator's Log, July 24, 1978 through August 5, 1978
Jumper Log - all outstanding entries
s
Clearance t.og - all outstanding clearances
Ccntrol Room Log Sheets, July 11, 1978 through July 31, 1978
Auxiliary Patrol Log Sheets, July 11, 1978 through July 31, 1978
Special Instruction Log and Special Order Log - all outstanding entries
Nonconformance Reports, May 14, 1978 through August 20, 1978
.
.
en
a-
On August 28, 1978, following the end of normal working hours, tF~
inspector conducted a .our of accessible areas of the station.
It
was noted that one fire door in tne reactor building 903 foot level
leading to the southwest quadrant was blocked open by a water hose.
The inspector noted that the hose was connected to an instrument
tap at one end but disconnected at the other end.
No work was in
progress in the vicinity of the hose, nor was a watchstander present
at the fire door.
The National Fire Code NFPA 80-1977, " Fire Doors and Windows," Section
14 .12, requires m pect that doors shall be operable at all times and
they shall be kept losed and latched or arranged for automatic closing.
Cemrary to thn Code requirement, the blocking open of the southwest
qui.drant reactor building fire door rendered this fire door inoperable.
This constitutes e deviation from an industry approved code.
No other items of noncompliance or deviations were noted in this area.
During the tour of the facility, the following minor discrepancies
were noted and brought to the attention of the licensee for review and
correction.
The air start piping for number 1 diesel generator was
noted to be vibrating while the air start flasks were recharging.
Although this vibration was not excessive, it might be indicative of
a loose piping hanger or support. The inspector noted that the grout
sealer in one pipe chase in the vicinity of the CRD pressure control
station had spalled, indicrlive of deterioration of the grout or
possible piping vibration in this area. These items were discussed
with the Station Superintendent during the exit interview who indicated
that they would be reviewed and appropriate corrective action initiated.
3.
Safety Related Maintenance Activities
The objective of this inspection effort was to determine that maintenance
activities on safety related equipment were scheduled and controlled in
the manner required by the licensee's Quality Assurance Program. This
effort also verified that maintenance activities were properly performed
and inspected and that Technical Specification Limiting Conditions for
Operation were met while the equipment was out of service.
The inspector reviewed the below listed maintenance activities:
MWR #
Subject
78-6-177
Source Range D Reading Erratic
78-6-135
Reactor Recirculation Pump Seal Pressure Instrument
)
78-4-89
Drywell to Torus Vacuum Breakers
.
- -
-
-
-
..
4-
MWR #
Subject
78-4-219
Control Rod Drive 30-35 - Align and Renew Gaskets
and 0-Rings
78-4-173
HPCI-M0-15 Seal Ring Leak
78-4-205
Overhaul Control Rod Drive #1620
78-7-11
250 VDC Battery Charger Fails to Charge
78-169
Instrument Sensing Line Plugged
78-8-75
Diesel Generator #2A Air Receiver Relief Valve
Within the area of this inspection, no iters of noncompliance or
deviations were noted; hovver, the following additional findi.ngs were
made.
For six of the nine maintenance activities reviewed, the inspector noted
that block 4 of the Malfunction / Work Request fonns (MWR) a quality control
inspection was required.
However, the type of inspection specified was
indicated to be " Job Completion" or " Review Completion." The inspector
was unable to determine what constituted this type of QC inspection.
The licensee had no quality control procedures which specify what is to
constitute a job completion QC inspection.
Section 4.1.1 of the licensee's
Quality Assurance Manual describes Quality Control Inspections and
requires that safety related niaintenance shall include appropriate quality
control checkpoints, were applicable.
Quality Assurance Manual states,
"The QC checkpoint shall identify specific work which is to be subjected
to inspection or verification and shall provide, in detail, the elements
of work to be inspected which include:
. .
2.
Type of Inspection or
Observation . . . ."
During inspection 78-13, the inspector reviewed the licensee's quality
control activities for safety related maintenance (Reference IE Inspection
Report 50-298/78-13, Details, paragraph 4) and noted that the licensee
had failed to record the type of observations and the results of quality
control inspections for several safety related maintenance activities.
This item was identified as an item of noncompliance.
In the corrective
action for this item of noncompliance, it will be necessary for the
licensee to establish definitive requirements for quality control
inspection of maintenance activities. This corrective action will
adequately resolve the questions raised above regarding the " type of
inspection or observation." This item is designated as an unresolved
item pending completion of licensee's corrective action on the item of
noncompliance described in Inspection Report 78-13 (Unresolved Iten
!
7815-1).
In reviewing the overhaul of control rod drive #1620 (MWR 78-4-205)
the inspector noted that upon disassembly of the drive, the licensee
determined that a sei;al number was not present on the rod and tube.
.
_
_
__._
__
_ _ _ _ .
.
_
_. _ _
-.
.
.
-
-5-
. Maintenance on this drive was conducted in accordance with Maintenance
Procedure 7.2.39, " Control Rod Drive Inspection." Attachment B to
'
this procedure governs the reassembly of the drive and provides check-
'
points and signoff block:; for recording specific data regarding the
drive. Step 6A of attc:cirent B to the maintenance procedure requires
a dimensional check of the rod and tube be performed unless:
a.
The serial number on the coupling rod is identical with the
serial number on the CRD flange;
b.
If no CRD parts have becn replaud, other than seals, bushings
and 0-Rings; and
c.
If no difficulty has been reported in uncoupling the CRD during
service in the reactor.
The inspector noted that these dimensions were not verified for the
rod and tube in contral drive #1620 when the serial number on the
coupling rod could not be verified. The inspector discussed this item
with the licensee representative who indicated that the leak test of
this drive had not yet been conducted and that it was normal practice
to perform the dimensional checks on the rod and tube at the time the ,
leak test is performed. This item will remain unresolved pending
completion of the leak test and dimensional checks on this rod
(Unresolved Item 7815-2).
In reviewing MWR #78-4-173, covering the repair of a seal ring leak on
valve HPCI-M0-15, the inspector noted that the repair was accomplished
by tightening down the cap screws on the seal ring. The inspector
reviewed the instruction manual and manufacturer's drawing for this
valve and determined that the allowable torque for the seal ring
retainer cap screws was not specified. The inspector discussed this
!
with a licensee representative and expressed his concern that this
apparent deficiency in the manufacturer's instruction manual had not
been identified during the performance of maintenance on this valve.
!
The adequacy of the licensee S maintenance procedures and the
,
manufacturer's instruction manuals will receive continued followup
during future inspections.
4.
In-Office Review of Licensee Event Reports
Licensee event reports are issued in accordance with the requirements
of Technical Specification 6.7.2.A and 6.7.2.B to report certain events
to the NRC. When received at the regional office these reports are
reviewed for their safety significance and completeness by the inspector.
Certain reports are selected for a detailed review at the site. The
i
status of these reports is indicated in the report for the inspection
'
during which on-site followup was conducted.
..
-
- -
-
-
-
.-.
. - . - . - -
.
-__
_ - - _ _ _ _ _
^
.
.
-6-
The below listed reoorts have been reviewed by the inspector in-office.
Based on the 100 percent review by the inspector of all licensee
internal nonconformance reports, discussions with licensee personnel
during the course of inspections, and periodic review of station logs,
these reports were closed with no further on-site followup.
LER #
Subject
78-8
HPCI Isolation on Hi Indicated Steam Flow From
Air in Sensing Line
78-21
Crud Buildup in Excess From Check Valve
- 78-23
Recirculation Riser /CS Piping Indicati1ns
+78-27
5.
Unresolved Items
Unresolved Items are matters about which more information is required
to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncom,nliance
or deviations. The following unresolved items were identified during
this inspection.
7815-1 - Type of Quality Control Inspection Performed (paragraph 3)
7815-2 - Dimeiiional Check of Uncoupling Rod on CRD #1620 (paragraph 3)
6.
Exit Interview
The inspector met with the Station Superintendent at the conclusion of
,
the inspection. The scope of the inspection and the findings above
. ore discussed. The Station Superintendent acknowledged the findings
relative to the deviation detailed in paragraph 2 above, and indicated
the item would be reviewed and corrected.
- Followed up on in IE Report 50-298/78-06, Details, paragraphs 7 and 8.
+Followed up on in IE Report 50-298/78-10, Details, paragraph 3.