ML20151N767
| ML20151N767 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 07/14/1988 |
| From: | Bundy H, Greg Pick, Seidle W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151N759 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-298-88-18, NUDOCS 8808090086 | |
| Download: ML20151N767 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000298/1988018
Text
'.
.
.
,
.
-
.
APPENDIX B
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV.
NRC Insoection' Report:
50-298/88-18
Operating License: OPR-46
Docket:
50-298
Licensee:
Nebraska Public Power District
P.O. Box 499
Columbus, Nebraska 68601
Facility Name:
CooperNuclear: Station (CNS)
Inspection At: -CNS, Brownville, Nebraska
Inspection Cenducted:
June 27 through July 1, 1988
Inspectors:
//
_ -
A !x-
///v/W
H. F. Bundy) Reactor Inspector, Test Programs
Date
Section W ivision of Reactor Safety
?
f
7/v//ft
L
I
G. A. Pick' cactor Inspedtor, Operational
Date
Programs ection, Division of Reactor Safety-
,
l
. . ,
N
7/' /d'I
Approved:
,
W. C. Seidle, Jhief, Test Programs Section
Date
Division of' Reactor Safety
Inspection Summary
Inspection Conducted June 27 through July 1, 1988 (Report 50-298/88-18)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of the licensee's startup
testing.
Results:
The licensee's startup iesting following the Cycle 11 refueling
outage appeared to-generally be in conformance with NRC requirements and
l
licensee procedures.
One deviation involved failure to include a prerequisite
for performance of a test by appropriately trained personnel, paragraph 2.
No
violations were identified.
.~
l'
8808090006 880721
l
ADOCK 0
28
m-
.
-
.
. .
. .
.
. .
-
-
. . ~ . . .
-
.
-
._
_-
- -.
-
..
..
. .
. , .
.
.
2
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
.
- G. Horn, Division Manager, Nuclear Operating
- J. Meacham, Senior Manager, Technical Support
- R. Brungart, Operations Manager
- P. Ballinger, Operations Engineering Supervisor
- R. Gibson, Acting Quality Assurance (QA) Manager
.
- u. Smith, Licensing Supervisor
- L. Bray, Regulatory Compliance Specialist
J. Scheuerman, lead Reactor Engineer
NRC
- W. B. Bennett, Senior Resident Inspector
- Denotes those attending the exit interview on July 1, 1988.
2.
Startup Testing - Refueling (72700)
The purpose of thi- inspection was to verify that startup testing
following the Cycle 11 refueling outage (beginning of Cycle 12) was in
accordance with NRC requirements and licensee procedures.
In conjunction
with this, it was verified that results met acceptance criteria, and
deficiencies were resolved in a timely manner.
Pursuant to these
objectives, the NRC inspectors reviewed the following completed licensee
startup procedure and witnessed selected control room activities up to
96 percent of rated thermal power (RTP):
General Operating Procedure 2.1.1, Revision 52, "Cold Startup
Procedure"
The above procedure sequenced the startup activities and assured timely
data collection and analysis to verify subsequent reactor operation within
predicted core physics parameters.
In addition to specific reactor
physics tests discussed in detail below, the NRC inspectors reviewed data
for the following measurements / tests:
Nuclear Performance Procedure (NPP) 10.9, Revision 14, "Control Rod
Scram Time Evaluation"
Surveillance Procedure 6.4.1.3, Revision 7, "CR0 Coupling and
Integrity Check"
In attempting to ascertain the qualifications of the test personnel who
evaluated, reported, and approved NPP 10.9 above, the NRC inspector was
.
. . -
_ ~
. _ _
.
__ _ . _ - . _ _
..
.
. _ .
. _ _ _ __-
.
-
.
_.
-
-
. -
, . .
.
.
.
3
infomed that no specific criteria existed for determining and certifying
the qualification status of test personnel. Also, NPP 10.9 did not have a
prerequisite for performance of the test by appropriately trained
personnel as committed to by Section 2.11. "Test Control," of the CNS
Quality Assurance Program for Operation Policy Document, Revision 4.
This
document had been submitted to and approved by NRC, Region IV.
This
appears to be a deviation from a licensee commitment.
(298/8818-01)
a.
Calibration of Nuclear Instrumentation Systems and Core Thermal Power
Evaluation (61705/61706)
The purpose of this part of the inspection was to verify the
following:
The local power range monitor (LPRM) system h'ad been properly
calibrated to the local neutron flux.
The average power range monitor (APRM) system had been properly
calibrated to the core thermal power.
The calculations of core thermal power were performed correctly.
The Intemediate Range Monitors (IRMs) had been properly
calibrated.
Pursuant to these objectives, the NRC inspectors reviewed the
following procedures and associated data:
NPP 10.5, Revision 19, "LPRM Calibration"
NPP 10.1, Revision 18, "APRM Calibration"
NPP 10.2, Revision 13, "IRM Power Calibration"
"
The above calibrations and associated thermal power evaluations were
completed at the required ini;ervals and ceitciencies were
appropriately resolved.
However, the following discrepancies were
discovered in NPP 10.2 data completed on June 11, 1988:
The 0D-3 edit (computer report) was not attached as required by
Step 8.2.4.3, which was initialled as complete.
Work Item 88-3077 was noted in Step 8.2.7 as being initiated to
adjust the gain on IRC "C."
This was neither noted in the
discrepancy section, nor was it signed off on the procedure
approval sheet as being reviewed by the shift supervisor, as
required.
-
- - .
- - - -
..
. -
- - - - .. .
,
-
. --
.
.
- . --
.
._ .
-
-
-
.-
'
.
- '
<
.
.
-
4
The above minor documentation discrepancies did not have safety impact
and appeared to be isolated errors.
The licensee has committed to
performing remedial training in documenting test results to avoid
possible safety significant errors.
No violations or deviations were identified,
b.
Surveillarce of Core Power Distribution Limits
(61702)
This part of the inspection was conducted to verify that the plant
was being operated within the licensed power distribution limits.
Pursuant to this objective, the NRC inspectors reviewed the following
procedures and data:
NPP 10.7. "Core Thermal Limits"
NPP 10.13, "Control Rod Sequence and Movement Control"
P-1, "?eriodic NSS Core Performance Log"
0D-1, "Whole Core LPRM Calibration and Base Distributions"
00-10. "Gain Adjustment Factor Array"
The above data were well within the predicted values / core thermal
power limits.
The data reviewed were at the 50 percent power
plateau.
The data were reviewed to:
determine that alarms, error
messages or other inprocess messages were resolved; verify that the
transversing incore probe (TIP) data had been obtained after
normalizing the detectors and that all data had been accepted by the
computer; and verify that each time the computer had recovered from
an outage. 00-15, "Computer Shutdown and Outage Recovery Monitor,"
had been implemented.
Through discussions with the reactor engineering staff, the NRC
inspectors determined that the staff was knowledgeable about the
computer codes' limits and capabilities.
No violations or deviations were identified.
c.
Determination of Reactor Shutdown Margin
(61707)
The NRC inspector reviewed this area to determine that the licensee
is ensuring adequate shutdown margins throughout the operating cycle.
The NRC inspector reviewed the following documents:
Cycle Management Report for Cooper Station, Cycle 12, dated
February 26, 1988
,
l
NPP 10.16. "Shutdown Margin Evaluation"
NPP 10.8, "Reactivity Follow Check"
The NRC inspector verified that the shutdown margin procedure was
j'
l
technically adequate and that the determination of the beginning of
l
l
t
. .. .
,
,
-
.
+
5
cycle shutdown margin agreed with the Technical Specifications limit.
1he licensee had reviewed the data and had utilized the recommendations
of the fuel vendor in conducting the control rod withdrawal movements.
Discussions with the reactor engineering staff indicated that the
licensee had reviewed the data supplied by the fuel vendor.
The
procedure utilized to periodically check the amount of shutdown margin
available during power operations was technically adequate.
During review of completed NPP 10.16, "Shutdown Margin Evaluation,"
dated June 17, 1988, the NRC inspector questioned the licensee on the
technical adequacy of the procedure.
Subsequently, the licensee
explained why the identified differences existed between the
procedure and the Cycle 12 management report.
The licensee indicated
that it would-take measures to clarify a few administrative items
which made the procedure difficult to understand.
The licensee also
indicated that it would require the fuel vendor to submit, in the
future, a cycle management report which would be formatted to agree
with CNS procedures.
This is an open item (298/8818-02) pending
completion of corrective actions by the licensee and verification by
the NRC, that the licensee has taken appropriate followup action on
this matter.
No violations or deviations were identified.
3.
Exit Interview
The NRC inspectors met with licensee representatives denoted in
paragraph 1 on July 1, 1988, and summarized the scope and findings of this
inspection.
The licensee did not identify as propriatary any of the
information provided to, or reviewed by, the insptotors.
<
(