ML20149M260
| ML20149M260 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 02/22/1988 |
| From: | Callan L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Trevors G NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20149M263 | List: |
| References | |
| IEB-87-002, IEB-87-2, NUDOCS 8802250443 | |
| Download: ML20149M260 (2) | |
See also: IR 05000298/1987033
Text
.
..
.
-
.
.
.
,
,
l
FEB 2 21988
!
In Reply Refer To:
Docket:
50-298/87-33
i
Nebraska Public Power District
ATTN:
George A. Trevors
-
,
Division Manager - Nuclear Support
P.O. Box 499
Columbus, NE
68601
,
Gentlemen:
i
t
This-refers to the inspection conducted by Messrs. W. R. tiennett and
,
E. A. Plettner of this office during the period December 22, 1987, through
January 31, 1988, of activities authorized by NRC Operating License DPR-46 for
Cooper Nuclear Station and to the discussion of our findings with Mr. G. R. Horn
and other members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
Areas examined during the inspection included operational safety verification,
engineered safety feature walkdown, preparation for refueling, monthly
surveillance and maintenance observations, NRC Bulletin 87-02, radiological
protection, and security. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of
selective examination of procedures and representative records, interviews with
personnel, and observations by the NRC inspectors.
The inspection findings are
'
documented in the enclosed inspection report.
We have also identified actions you have taken with regard to previously
,
identified inspection findings.
The status of these items is identified in
.
j
paragraph 2 of the enclosed report.
Within the scope of the inspection, no violations or deviations were
identified.
1
Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased to
discuss them with you.
'
'
Sincerely,
!
Orls!=1 ff;ned By
L 1. C,dbu
i
i
L. J. Callan, Director
Reactor Projects Division
f
'
j
Enclosure:
(see next page)
(
!
-
.
!
l
!
RIV: rih
RIV: SRI
i,/ C:RPB/C
D:DRk
<
!
EAPlettner/sn
WRBenne
EJHoller
LJCallan
') / 1/88
Q_ /j1/88
g/g/88
Q / /88
, ,
/&l
l
,
,
8802250443 080222
h\\
!
!
POR
ADOCK 05000290
g
!
G
4
--._-,,---_____.-_.-_y,..-._..r,
, _ . , _
. , , ,
,,
,..,,m
.,m_,_,_,,__,,._,_..,.~.%.
- , . . .
,-,m
--,.y.,.
w
,y,-.,
_
,
,
,
L
Nebraska Public Power District
-2-
Enclosure:
Appendix - NRC Inspection Report
50-298/87-33
cc/w enclosure:
Cooper Nuclear Station
'
ATTN:
Guy R. Horn, Division Manager
.
of Nuclear Operations
'
P.O. Box 98
,
Brownville, Nebraska
68321
Kansas Radiation Control Program Director
'
l
Nebraska Radiation Control Program Director
l
!
'
i
bcc to DMB (IE01)
bec distrib. by RIV:
!
- RRI
R. D. Martin, RA
'
- Section Chief (ORP/C)
- Lisa Shea, RM/ALF
'
RPSB-DRSS
- MIS System
!
- RIV File
- Project Engineer, DRP/C
- RSTS Operator
- W. Long, NRR Project Manager
.
- R. Hall
- DRS
'
- TSS
- DRP
,
!
- w/766
1
1
!
i
!
>
r
!
1
.
.
. . .
.
.- . .
-
- .
.
.
.
. -
- - -
_
_
O
-
.
Nebraska Public Power District
-2-
Enclosure:
Appendix - NRC Inspection Report
50-298/87-33
cc/w enclosure:
Cooper Nuclear Station
ATTN: Guy R. Horn, Division Manager
of Nuclear Operations
P.O. Box 98
Brownvi?ie, Nebraska
68321
Kansas R.tdiation Control Program Director
Nebraska Radiation Control Program Director
bcc to DMB (IE01)
bec distrib. by RIV:
- RRI
R. D. Martin, RA
- Section Chief (DRP/C)
- Lisa Shea, RM/ALF
RPSB-DRSS
- MIS System
- RIV File
- Project Engineer, DRP/C
- RSTS Operator
- W. Long, NRR Project Manager
- R. Hall
- DRS
- TSS
- DRP
- w/766
i
,
- - - - - - - -
.
. -
-
. -
.
.
-
-
-
.
- - - -
- - - -
- . -
-
.
.
,
'
2
,
Inspection Sunnary
Inspection Conducted December 22, 1987, through January
{ Report 50-298/87-33)
'
31, 1988
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of licensee actions on
previous inspection findings, operational safety verification, engineered
safety feature walkdown, preparation for refueling, monthly surveillance and
maintenance observations, NRC Bulletin 87-02, radiological protection, and
security.
Results: Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were
identified.
J
'
t
1
i
I
l
1
1
'
i
. , _ . . . .
_.
,-
_ _ _ - . - - ,
- - _ . _
-
.
.
.-
-
1
.
,.
'
,
3
T
i
OETAILS
}
'
f
4
i
1.
Persons Contacted
'
Principal Lictnsee Employeel
- G. R. Horn, Division Manager of Nuclear Operations
- D. M. Norvell, Maintenance Manager
- '
- G. E. Smith, Quality Assurance Manager
i
- R. Brungardt, Operations Manager
- L. E. Bray, Regulatory Compliance Specialist
l
The NRC inspectors also interviewed additional. licensee employees during
j
the inspection pe~iod.
- Denotes those present during exit interview conducted on' February 1,1988.
,
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
l
The following open item was reviewed by the NRC resident inspector.
,
(Closed) Open Item 298/8626-01: Deficient As-built Instrument Drawings -
This item discussed deficiencies between 50P 2.2.33. Revision 27
"
Appendix A, and Drawings NPPD 1.D.15,1550406, and GE 11506011. Drawing
Change Notice 87620 was completed on October 26, 1987, to correct the
deficiencies. The NRC' resident inspector compared 50P 2.2.33. Revision 31,
l
Appendix A, to the above drawings and found no deficiencies.
,
'
This item is closed.
-
j
3.
Operational Safety Verification
The NRC inspectors observed operational activities throughout the
i
inspection period. Control room activities and conduct were observed to be
]
well controlled.
Proper control room staffing was maintained. Discussions
i
with operators determined that they were cognizant of plant status and
I
understood the importance of, and reason for, each lit annunciator. The
l
NRC inspectors observed selected shift turnover meetings and noted that
information concerning plant status was communicated to the oncoming
,
operators.
'
On January 11, 1988, a railroad car carrying an empty spent fuel cask
'
derailed on Nebraska Public Power District controlled property without
damage to the fuel cask. The NRC inspectors monitored licensee actions to
,
!
return the car to the track and ensure no damage was incurreri by the fuel
cask.
,
!
i
'
a
l
,
1
!
f
.
. .
-
. -
- - -
.
--. - - - .
-
- - - -
- --
.
. - .
...- -
..
.
. .
4
On January 22, 1988, both steam header pressure transmitters to the Digital
Electro-Hydraulic Control System (DEH) failed causing reactor pressure
control to shift to manual.
Licensed operators in the control room
controlled the evolution utilizing System Operating Procedure (SOP) 2.2.77,
"Turbine Generator," Revision 29, dated December 17, 1987, Abnormal
Operating Procedure (A0P) 2.4.5.2, "Reactor Pressure Control System
Malfunction," Revision 9, dated August 1,1985, and A0P 2.4.9.1.11, "DEH
Pressure Cont oller Output Fails Low," Revision 6, dated July 16, 1987.
In
addition, discussions were held among the licensed operators about what
their actions would be in case of further problems with the system.
A
blown fuse was discovered to be the cause of the loss of bot 5 pressure
transmitters possibly due to surveillance testing being performed on the
main turbine first stage pressure indicator.
The surveillance was secured,
the fuse replaced, and the DEH system restored to Mode 4 (automatic
_
pressure control) after approximately 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> in manual pressure control.
The licensee is still investigating the cause for the blown fuse.
Tours of accessible areas at the facility were conducted to confirm
operability of plant equipment including the fire suppression systems and
other emergency equipment.
The NRC inspectors performed a walkdown of the
High Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI) System.
Results of this walkdown
are documented in paragraph 4 of this report.
Facility operations were
performed in accordance with the requirements established in the CNS
Operating License and TS.
During a tour on J6nuary 13,1988, the NRC inspectors noted that light was
passing through the seal between the rail and outer airlock door in the
reactor building railroad air lock.
This is a similar condition to that
documented as NRC Violation 50-298/8728-03.
Further investigation revealed
that sealant had been applied between the rail and outer airlock door but
had apparently been insufficient to completely seal thi opening.
Discussion with the licensee identified that corrective action is ongoing
to solve this sealing probitm.
This occurrence will be reviewed during a
subsequent inspection to verify corrective actions for
Violation 50-298/8728-03.
On January 28, 1988, a reactor scram occurred when attempting to restore
"B" recirculation pump to service.
Reactor Recirculation Pump "B" had
earlier been secured due to problems with the reactor recirculation motor
generator (MG). When restoring the recirculation pump to service, the MG
failed to maintain 20 percent speed as designed.
The control room
operators placed the MG set in lockout at approximately 50 percent speed
and were attempting to reduce speed when the recirculation pump discharge
valve started to open as designed.
When the discharge valve opened, a high
flux scram occurred.
All systems appeared to operate normally during the
Subsequent to the reactor scram, and separate from the scram, a
short to ground on the motor for Residual Heat Removal (RHR) Pump "B" was
discovered after the breaker to the motor tripped.
The SRI monitored
licensee actions subsequent to the scram and RHR pump problems.
No violations or deviations were identified in this area.
<
.
. .
-
.
.
,.
5
4.
Engineered Safety Feature (ESF) Walkdown
The NRC inspectors performed an independent walkdown of the HPCI System.
The inspection was performed to verify operability, to confirm that
licensee system lineup procedures match plant drawings and the as-built
configuration, and to identify equipment conditions or items that might
degrade system performance.
,
In preparation for performing the walkdown of the HPCI System, th. n C
r
inspectors conducted a review of, and a comparison between, the following
licensee system checklist and applicable as-built drawings:
System Operating Procedure (SOP) 2.2.33 "High Pressure Coolant
Injection System," Revision 31, dated November 5, 1987; Appendix A,
"Valve Checklist."
As-Built Drawing - Burns & Roe 2041_for HPCI system
As-Built Orawing - Burns & Roe 2044 for HPCI system
As-Built Drawing - HPPD 1550-406 for HPCI system
As-Built Drawing - NPPD I.D.-15 for HPCI system
As-Built Drawing - GE 11506011 for HPCI system
During the inspection minor discrepancies involving missing or broken valve
labels and valve handwheels were noted.
None of the discrepancies
identified affected system operability.
When these discrepancies were
brought to the licensee's attention, the licensee initiated actions to
correct them.
The discrepancies were corrected during this inspection
period.
No violations or deviations were identified in this area.
5.
Preparation For Refueling
The NRC inspectors observed fuel movement from the new fuel boxes to the
spent fuel pool.
The NRC inspectors also reviewed the following t,uclear
performance procedures concerning new fuel movement:
Procedure
Title
Revision
Date
10.21
1
May 14, 1987
i
Control and Accountability
Instructions
10.22
Receiving and Handling
1
October 16, 1986
Unirradiated Fuel
i
i
l
,
i
'
i
J
..
.
.- -
.
. -
-
- .
-
.
. _ .
. * . .
4
!
~ 6
j
i
-
'
10.23
Unirradiated Fuel Inspection
1
April 17, 1986
. 1
.
.
.
. ;
!
and Channeling and Control
j
Blade Inspection
!
.
The NRC inspectors observed that all personnel performing the fuel movement-
i
were aware of procedure requirements and precautions and that the evolution
[
4
was performed in accordance with the applicable procedures.
The_NRC
l
j.
inspectors verified new fuel pool fuel assembly locations, accountability
]
records, and status board updates.
All personmi engaged in the fuel
e
movement were qualified to perform the evolution.
i
l
No violations or deviations were identified in this area.
f
6.
Monthly Surveillance Observations-
!
The NRC inspectors observed and reviewed the performance of Surveillance
Procedure (SP) 6.3.12.1, "Diesel Generator Operability Test," SP 6.4.8.4.2,
i
"Reactor Feed Pump Turbine (RFPT) Backup Oil Pumps and Filter / Cooler
1
Differential Pressure Alarm Tests," and Nuclear Performance Evaluation
l
Procedure (PEP) 10.9, "Control' Rod Scram Time Evaluation."
j
!
SP 6.3.12.1, "Diesel Generator Operability Test," Revision 22, dated
l
'
November 19, 1987: This surveillance was performed on January 8,
1988, to ensure operability of DG IB prior to performing maintenance
i
on DG 1A.
Testing was performed properly and operators were cognizant
,
i
of surveillance requirements.
1.imiting conditions for operation were
j
properly entered for the surveillance and subsequent maintenance.
!
j
DG 1A was declared inoperable while inspections for water leakage were
j
j
performed. When maintenance was completed, the operability test for
j
!
DG 1A was completed satisfactorily and DG 1A was declared operable,
j
SP 6.4.8.4.2, "RFPT Backup Oil Pumps and Filter / Cooler Differential
l
Pressure Alarm Tests," Revision 7, dated October 22, 1987:
This
surveillance was performed on January 24, 1988, to ensure proper
,
- '
operation of the RFPT backup oil pumps.
The NRC inspectors observed
that the operator performing the test was aware of all precautions
,
l
associated with the test and performed the test in accordance with the
{
procedure,
[
,,
,
I
PEP 10.9, "Control Rod Scram Time Evaluation," Revision 14, dated
{
!
November 6, 1986:
This procedure was performed on January 24, 1988,
!
!
to meet Technical Specification (TS) requirements to insure the
reactor can be made subcritical at a rate fast enough to prevent fuel
<
damage during power transients.
This is accomplished by measuring the
.
i
time it takes individual rods to go from the fully withdrawn condition
i
to the fully inserted condition when a scram signal is introduced.
[
The NRC senior resident inspector observed that the test was performed
!
by qualified personnel and performed in accordance with the procedura.
,
When the primary means of timing the rod insertion (the Plant
l
!
Management Information System computer) did not function properly, a
!
strip chart recorder, as authorized in the procedure, was utilized.
<
,
!
!
- - - - . - - ,
. - , - - ~ . ,
-vn
-.m.-n,
- - - - - , , , . , , , ,,,,,,
,-,w , n
,-n n-
n,---,-v.,,__nm,-,--,,n.,,-,y
-.-,,---,,,,rnn.,,~,-,-n
.--
.
-
- .
.
.~
.
.-
'
,
. * . .
>
7
i
.
!
The NRC senior resident' inspector verified that the strip chart
recorder was in calibration ~and'that operators were familiar with its
usage.
The NRC senior resident inspector verified that a.second
1
qualified person observed all rod withdrawals as required by TS and
1
the procedure.
All data was properly verified to be acceptable per
1
i
the procedure and TS.
!
,
No violations or deviations were identified in this area.
,
7.
Monthly Maintenance Observation
>
The NRC inspactors verified that the maintenance activities were conducted
in accordance with approved procedures, regulatory guides, and industry
codes or standards and in conformance with TS.
<
The following station' maintenance activities of safety-related systems and
components were observed and reviewed by the NRC inspectors on the
!
indicated dates:
'
January 6, 1988:
Preventative Maintenance 03910 "Check Coupling and Oil
Levels of Standby Liquid Control Pump"
r
.
j
January 8, 1988:
Inspection of 1A Diesel for water leaks
l
No violations or deviations were identified in this area.
!
8.
4
9
4
The purpose of this bulletin was to request that licensees review their
'
receipt inspection programs for fasteners and to' independently determine,
j
through testing, whether fasteners in stores at the licensee facilities met
!
required mechanical and chemical specifications.
'
On December 4,1987, the NRC senior resident inspector assisted the
!
licensee in selecting 20 fasteners and 20 corresponding nuts.
These
j
samples were then sent to Metals Engineering and Testing Laboratories of
i
.
Phoenix, Arizona, where chemical, mechanical, and hardness testing as
I
required by the bulletin was performed.
The satisfactory results of this
i
!
tetting, as well as other information required by the bulletin, were
'
transmitted by NPPD to the NRC via letter NLS 8800014 on January 11, 1988.
j
The NRC senior resident inspector reviewed the response to the bulletin and
,
found no discrepancies.
In addition, the NRC senior resident inspector's
review of Plant Services Procedures 1.5, "Warehouse Receiving," Revision 7,
dated October 15, 1987; and 1.8, "Warehouse Issue and Return," Revision 3,
a
i
dated August 13, 1987; as well as discussions with licensee personnel,
confirmed the licensee's response to the bulletin.
i
1
1
a
,
.
8
This bulletin and associated Temporary Instruction 2500/26 are closed.
(SIMS issue number BL-87-02)
No violations or deviations were identified in this area.
9.
Radiological Protection Observations
The NRC inspectors verified that selected activities of the licensee's
l
radiological protection program were implemented in conformance with
facility policies, procedures, and regulatory requirements.
Radiation work
permits contained appropriate information to ensure that work could be
performed in a safe and controlled manner.
Personnel in radiation
controlled areas were wearing the required personnel monitoring equipment
and protective clothing.
Radiation and/or contaminated areas were properly
posted and controlled based on the activity levels within the area.
Radiation monitors were utilized to check for contamination.
No violations or deviations were identified in this area.
1
10.
Security
The NRC inspectors observed security personnel perform their duties of
vehicle, personnel, and package search.
Vehicles were properly authorized
and escorted or controlled within the protected area (PA).
The PA barrier
had adequate illumination and the isolation zones were free of transient
material.
Compensatory measures were implemented in a timely manner when
equipment failed.
These observations verified that the physical security
plan was being implemented in accordance with the requirements established
in the CNS Operating License.
The licensee implemented a cipher pad system for personnel entry into the
PA.
The NRC senior resident inspector monitored the implementation of
these new procedures.
No violations or deviations were identified in this area.
11.
Exit Interviews
An exit interview was conducted on February 1, 1988, with licensee
representatives (identified in paragraph 1).
During this interview, the
NRC senior resident inspector reviewed the scope and findings of the
inspection.