ML20148D963: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
StriderTol Bot change
StriderTol Bot change
 
Line 18: Line 18:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:- ___ ___ ___.
{{#Wiki_filter:__
__
- ___ ___ ___.
                                  U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
                                  OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENF0FCEMENT
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENF0FCEMENT
                                                REGION IV
REGION IV
    Report No. 50-298/78-15
Report No. 50-298/78-15
    Docket No. 50-298                                 License No. DPR-46
Docket No. 50-298
    Licensee:                 Nebraska Public Power District
License No. DPR-46
Licensee:
Nebraska Public Power District
i
i
                              P. O. Box 499
P. O. Box 499
                              Columbus, NeSraska 68601
Columbus, NeSraska 68601
    Facility Name:             Cooper Nuclear Station                                                             ,
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
Inspection At:
                                      E. H. Johrson, Reactor Inspector                                 Date
Cooper Nuclear Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska
                                        "T.N.de.I%                                                      'l/o.l,a
Inspection Condt . _ ,. : August 28-30, 1978
                              Ffo G. H. Verduzco, Reactor Inspector (Training)                         Date
I
  Approved By:                              7[v& 8,. cv                                               9/a/W   ;
Principal Inspector: T.N A
                                    'G. L. Madsen, Chief, Reactor Operations and                       Date
9Itt f,8
                                                                                                                  '
E. H. Johrson, Reactor Inspector
                                        Nuclear Support Branch
Date
l Insoection Summary
"T.N.de.I
  Inspection on fugust _28-30.1978 (Report No. 50-298/78-15)
'l/o.l,a
  Areas Inspected               Routine, Unannounced inspection of plant operation 3; and
%
  safety reiltWmaintenance activities. The inspection involved twenty 'five (25)
Ffo
  inspector-hours on-site by one inspector.
G. H. Verduzco, Reactor Inspector (Training)
  Results:   0' the two areas inspected no items of noncompliance or deviations
Date
  were noted in one area. One deviation (failure to maintain a fire door in an
7[v& ,. cv
  operable ste:us as required by National Fire Code - Details, paragraph 2) was
9/a/W
  noted in one area.
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
l
l
                                                      g 3:600 6
g 3:600 6
                                                            . _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. _ _ -
- - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


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

Latest revision as of 12:58, 11 December 2024

IE Inspec Rept 50-298/78-15 on 780828-30 During Which 1 Item of Noncompliance Was Noted:Failure to Maintain 2 Fire Doors in an Operable Status as Req by Natl Fire Code
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

REC System Weld Leak

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.