Text

Insp Rept 50-298/88-18 on 880627-0701.Deviation Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Routine Insp of Licensee Startup Testing
	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: ML20151N755; ML20151N763; ML20151N767;
References
	50-298-88-18, NUDOCS 8808090086
	Download: ML20151N767 (5)
	v • d • e

'. .

, .

.

-

.

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-

H. F. Bundy) Reactor Inspector, Test Programs

///v/W

Date

Section W ivision of Reactor Safety

?

I

f L

G. A. Pick' cactor Inspedtor, Operational Date

7/v//ft

Programs ection, Division of Reactor Safety-

,

l . . ,

Approved: ,

N

W. C. Seidle, Jhief, Test Programs Section Date

7/' /d'I

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 88072128

l PDR ADOCK 0

m- _ . _ _ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ . . ~ . . .

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

. , . . .

.

2

DETAILS

1. Persons Contacted

NPPD

.

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"

j' The NRC inspector verified that the shutdown margin procedure was

l

technically adequate and that the determination of the beginning of

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.

<

(

ML20151N767

Text

Navigation menu

Search