|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Adams | | {{Adams |
| | number = ML20148N222 | | | number = ML20197E364 |
| | issue date = 03/28/1988 | | | issue date = 06/03/1988 |
| | title = Insp Rept 50-298/88-06 on 880201-29.Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Actions on Previous Insp Findings, Operational Safety Verification,Ler Followup,Ie Bulletin 84-02 Followup,Monthly Surveillance & Maint Observations | | | title = Ack Receipt of 880427 Ltr Informing NRC of Steps Taken to Correct Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-298/88-06 |
| | author name = Bennett W, Holler E, Plettner E | | | author name = Callan L |
| | author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) | | | author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| | addressee name = | | | addressee name = Trevors G |
| | addressee affiliation = | | | addressee affiliation = NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT |
| | docket = 05000298 | | | docket = 05000298 |
| | license number = | | | license number = |
| | contact person = | | | contact person = |
| | document report number = 50-298-88-06, 50-298-88-6, IEB-84-02, IEB-84-2, NUDOCS 8804060397 | | | document report number = NUDOCS 8806080274 |
| | package number = ML20148N188
| | | document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, NRC TO UTILITY, OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE |
| | document type = INSPECTION REPORT, NRC-GENERATED, INSPECTION REPORT, UTILITY, TEXT-INSPECTION & AUDIT & I&E CIRCULARS | | | page count = 2 |
| | page count = 9 | |
| }} | | }} |
|
| |
|
| Line 19: |
Line 18: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:. _ _ ._____ - | | {{#Wiki_filter:- |
| ' | | 7, |
| . | | &, $. |
| APPEN0!X 0 f) , S . MK L E M REGUL COP.Y C0."J:15510h REGION !Y NRC Inspection Report: 50-293/88-06 License: DPR-46 Cockat: 50-298 1.icensee: Nebriska Public Power District (NPPD)
| | In Reply Refer To: M%kn ~3E Docket: 50-298/88-06 Nebraska Public Power District ATTN: George A. Trevors Division Manager - Nuclear Support P,0. Box 499 Columbus, NE 68601 Gentlemen: |
| P. O. Box 499 Columbus, NE 68601 facility hame: Cooper NJelear Station (CN5) | | Thank you for your letter of April 27, 1988, in response to our letter dated March 29, 1988. We have reviewed your reply and find it responsive to the concerns raised in our Notice of Violation. -We will review the implementation of your corrective actions during a future inspection to detennine that full compliance has been achieved and will be maintaine |
| Inc,pection At: Cooper Nuclear Station, Nmah County, Nebraska Inspection Conducted: February 1-29, 1988 Inspectors .
| |
| . IT[th _
| |
| E. A. Plettner, Destdent !v rector, (RI)
| |
| 3// / Ofte'
| |
| ''k d$:,n62W ~ ~
| |
| Wl/k p i.' . R , at: rine t t , Sen m - P++, acnt : n e. p e c t o r', (ET)~ "~ Date
| |
| *
| |
| /p9 roved: f_ ,
| |
| E. J, Iblier, Chie.', Prejc:t wtion C,
| |
| $ d_I k Date Reactor Projects Division 8804060397 000329 PDR ADOCK 05000290 G PDR
| |
| ,
| |
|
| |
|
| . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - - _ _ | | Sincerely, Original Signed By L.7. Ceullan L. J. Callan, Director Division of Reactor Projects cc: |
| _
| | Cooper Nuclear Station ATTN: Guy Horn, Division Manager of Nuclear Operations P.O. Box 98 Brownville, FEbraska 68321 Kansas Radiation Control Program Director Nebraska Radiation Control Program Director l |
| ;
| | RIV:DRP/ SRI DRP/PE C:DRP/C / D:DR b RWBennett GLMads n , GHoller LJCallan |
| ;
| | ; /q /88 J;d 6 / 1 /88 g/)/88 f/3/88 8606000274 080603 DR ADOCK 050 8 g f(OI 4 |
| | - - - - - - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - - _ -- |
| | |
| | , |
| | .. |
| - | | - |
| . ; | | - |
| i 2 I Inspection Summary ;
| | . |
| j '
| | . . |
| ! Inspection Conducted through, 1987 (Report 50-298/86-06) l Areas Insoected: Routine, unannounced inspection of licensee actions on ! | | ;st.. ,. |
| previous inspection findings, operational safety verification, licensee event i report followup, IE Bul?; tin 84-02 followup, monthly surveillance and i maintenance observations, radiological protection, and securit Results: Within the areas inspected, three violations were identified (failure to vei *y jet pump operabili e, paragraph 3, failure to follow fire
| | * |
| '
| | - |
| l protection p.o adures, paragraph 3, and failure to perform adeqr '
| | , |
| eview,
| | , |
| ,
| | s Nebraska Public Power District -2- ' |
| paragraph 3). ;
| | m . |
| i 1 l i t i~
| | ; |
| !
| | .bcc to DM8 (IE-01) |
| !
| | bec distrib. by RIV: |
| | RR R. D. Martin, RA 't SectionChief(DRP/C). Lisa-Shea,RM/ALF |
| ' | | ' |
| .
| | RPSB-DRSS MIS System RIV File- . Project Engineer, DRP/C RSTS Operator W. Long, NRR Project Manager DRS G. F. Sanborn,- E0 DRP |
| ,
| | , |
| l i i 1 !
| |
| , : | |
| >
| |
| I | | I |
| !
| |
| ,
| |
| e I l f
| |
| -
| |
| h
| |
| !
| |
| i r
| |
| P 1 >
| |
| ! ;
| |
| .
| |
| '
| |
| i
| |
| '
| |
| .
| |
| : ,
| |
| ; .
| |
| -
| |
|
| |
|
| _ -_
| | > |
| . .
| | |
| ,
| |
| ! | |
| 3 L i
| |
| i | | i |
| . | | - |
| .
| | ; |
| i DETAILS i
| | ; |
| i Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Employees !
| | i e |
| * R. Horn, Division Manager of Nuclear Opere'ons .
| | , |
| "J. M. Heacham, Senior Manager, Technical Supp., I
| | f |
| '
| |
| *LuAnn Bray, Regulatory Compliance Specialist
| |
| *G [. Smith, Manager, Operations Quality Assurance
| |
| *R. D. Black, Supervisor, Operations
| |
| *D M. Norvell, Manager, Maintenance
| |
| *M. D. Hamm, Supervisor, Security !
| |
| '
| |
| 'R. Brungardt, Manager, Operations
| |
| *E. M. Mace, Manager, Engineering i The NRC inspectors also interviewed other licensee employees during the l course of the inspectio l
| |
| * Denotes tnose present during exit interview March 1, 1988, t Licensee Action on Previous Insrection Findings ;
| |
| (Closed) Violation 298/8601-01: Failure to Have Procedures for ,
| |
| Preventative Maintenanc [
| |
| t This item involved the lack of Preventative Maintenance (PM) procedures l for all of the plant equipment that could affect nuclear safety. Cooper ;
| |
| Nuclear Station did not have pr( iures which pre;cribed the manner in i which the existing PM program ht , ten developed, or which required the e station program to be maintained trent with changing vendor [
| |
| recommendations. Corrective acu taken by the licensee was to initiate a PM upgrade program. The prograu nsisted of comparing the existing station PM requirements to the ven, recommendation, and resolving the differences either by generating ..e PMs or surveillance procedures, or by an engineering evaluation to provide a doct.mented disposition for not performing vendor recommended actions. The NRC Resident Inspector (RI)
| |
| reviewed Cooper Nuclear Station's Operation Manual Procedure 0.24
| |
| "Generating and Dispor.itioning Vendor Manual Change Requests," Revision 2 dated July 30, 1987, and CNS Procedure 0.25, "Vendor Manual Change Order Review and Approval," Revision 3, dated December 23, 1987 to verify that formal procedure controls for maintaining the program were implemente Vendor manuals relating to plant equipment that could affect safety were reviewed to verify that vendnr manual updates had been receive This item is close .. . _ _ - _- __ .- -
| |
| . | |
| | |
| (Closed) Open Item 8724-01: Labeling Deficiencies This item identified labeling deficiencies among System Operating Procedures (SOP) 2.2.23, "120 V/240 V AC Instrument Fower System,"
| |
| Revision 14, dated December 28, 1986, Appendix "B" Breaker and Fuse Index, Revision 12; S0P 2.2.24, "250 V DC Electrical System," Revision 13, dated February 6,1986, Appendix "B" Breaker and Fuse Index, Revision 10; S0P 2.2.25, "125 V DC Electrical System," Revision 16, dated February 20, 1987, Appendix "B" Breaker and Fuse Index, Revision 10; and 50P 2.2.26,
| |
| "24 V DC Electrical System," Revision 7, dated March 5,1987, Appendix "B" Breaker and Fuse Index, Revision 4. The licensee's corrective actions were to issue correct labels on the breaker boxes and submit new revisions to Appendix "B" for each of the S0Ps listed above. The RI reviewed the latest revisions to the'above S0Ps dated January 14, 1988, and compared those revisions to various breaker panels to verify that licensee's corrective actions were completed and adequat This item is close . Operational Safety Verification The NRC inspectors observed operational activities throughout the inspection period. Control room activities and conduct were observed to be well controlled. Proper control room staffing was maintaine Discussions with operators determined that they were cognizant of plant ;
| |
| status and understood the importance of, and reason for, each lit annunciator. The NRC inspectors observed selected shift turnover meetings and noted that information concerning plant status was communicated to the oncoming operator On February 7,1988, the NRC Senior Resident Inspector (SRI) observed a reactor startup. The plant had experienced a reactor scram on January 28, 1988, which was documented in NRC Inspection Report 50-298/87-33. All conditions for startup were properly met and documented in General Operating Procedure (GOP) 2.1.1.2, "Technical Specification Pre-Startup Checks," Revision 7, dated December 10, 1987. The startup was conducted in a controlled, professional manner in accordance with GOP 2.1.1, "Cold Startup Procedure," Revision 48, dated December 10, 198 Some difficulty was initially encountered in verifying normal jet pump indication as required by GOP 2.1.1.2 and jet pump operability as required by Technical Specification (TS) 3.6.E.1. The December 10, 1987, revision to GOP 2.1.1.2 added a reference to CNS Surveillance Procedure (SP) 6.2.4.1, which does the daily jet pump operability check. When the surveillance test was run, it faile Subsequently, TS requirements were met when log readings for the previous startup were compared with actual readings. The SRI asked operations personnel how jet pump operability had been verified for previous startups and was informed that it had generally not been done until the reactor was at power. Subsequent questioning of other senior operators verified that the TS was not specifically checked until the reactor was at power, however, several operators stated that they checked
| |
| -
| |
| -.-__ _ _ _ _ _.__- _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . .
| |
| | |
| . - . . .-
| |
| .
| |
|
| |
|
| jet pump differential pressure to verify it was normal prior to startu This failure to verify jet pump operability prior to startup is an apparent violation (298/8806-01) of TS 3.6. Tours of a:cessible areas at the facility were conducted to confirm operability of plant equipment including the fire suppression systems and other emergency equipment. Facility operations were performed in accordance with the requirements established in the CNS Operating License and T ,
| | > |
| On February 8,1988, the NRC inspector was performing a normal routine plant inspection. While reviewing fire extinguisher monthly inspection tags for fire extinguishers located on electric welders and oxygen-acetylene welders, it was noted that inspections had not been performed during the month of January. Review of SP 6.4.5.17, "Fire Fighting Equipment Monthly Inspection," Revision 14, dated July 16, 1987, performed January 1988, confirmed that the monthly inspection had not been periormed on fire extinguishers located on electric and oxygen-acetylene welder Interviews conducted with the individuals involved verified that the surveillance procedure had not been performe The results of the interviews indicate the rocc cause of the missed surveillance to be both a programmatic problem and a personnel error. The programmatic problem is that no formal program exists to alert other individuals of surveillance requirements when the regularly assigned person is not available for an extended period of time. The personnel error in this case was that the individual regularly assigned for scheduling the surveillance forgot to update his desk calendar when the new year started. The desk calendar was the means he used to identify the time frame for the surveillanc Failure to perform SP 6.4.5.17, "Fire Fighting Equipment Monthly Inspection," Revision 14, dated July 15, 1987, Attachment "A," for fire extinguishers located on vario u electric and oxygen-acetylene welders during January 1988 is an apparent violation. (298/8806-02)
| |
| The RI reviewed the test results of completed SP 6.4.5.17 covering the time from August 1987 to January 1988. During the review it was noted that the "verified-by" block had not been initialed as completed on page 3
| |
| ,
| |
| i of Attachment E for 23 entries for the inspection performed during the month of December 1987. The "verified-by" block had not been initialed as completed on page 3 of Attachment E for 1 entry for the inspection perfonned during January 1988. The documents were reviewed by the surveillance coordinator and reviewed and signed by the system enginee The RI reviewed the test results of SP 6.4.5.1, "Fire Protection System monthly Inspection," Revision 44, dated March 19, 1987, and Revision 45, dated December 17, 1987 performed from August 1987 to January 198 During the review it was noted that an out-of-specifications reading was
| |
| '
| |
| l
| |
| <
| |
| l l | | l l |
| '
| |
| [ - - . - . - . - - . _ - - - _ .
| |
|
| |
|
| _ _ ._ . _ -_ __ . _ . _ . _ _
| |
| ,
| |
| , .
| |
| ,
| |
|
| |
| recorded in Attachment "A," page 7, Section E, performed on December 19, 1987. The main output amps reading for fire protection tank 1A was recorded as 0.16 amps with the limits printed next to the reading as (0-0.15 amps.) This procedure was reviewed by a shif t supervisor and the surveillance coordinator, and reviewed and signed by the system enginee The SRI reviewed GOP 2.1.1.2 "Technical Specifications Pre-Startup Checks,"
| |
| Revision 7, dated December 10, 1987, performed on February 7,198 During the review it was noted that Item 13 on page 5 was not signed as completed. This procedure was reviewed by the shift supervisor. The procedure does not require review in addition to that of the shift supervisor. The NRC inspectors were able to determine through interviews that the SPs and G0P had been completed as required. Failure to perform an adequate review of the SPs and G0P identified above is an apparent violation. (298/8806-03)
| |
| No other violations or deviations were identified in this are . Licensee Event Report (LER) Followup (Closed) LER 87-009, "Unanticipated Reactor Scram and Group Isolations Due to Low Reactor Vessel Water Level Caused by Inadvertent Manual Trip of the Operating Reactor Feedwater Pump."
| |
|
| |
| This event occurred when a station operator (nonlicensed) locally tripped !
| |
| the only running reactor feed pump during a local trip test for placing the second feed pump in service. This action resulted in a low reactor water level scram. Normal scram recovery procedures were implemented and the plant was placed into cold shutdown. A contributing factor to this event was a lack of human factor labeling of plant components and equipment. Corrective actions taken by the licensee included:
| |
| (a) discussion of the event with operations department shift personnel during weekly meetings, (b) a comprehensive review of plant :
| |
| component / equipment identification and the marking for human factors consideration, and (c) an engineering evaluation to determine the basis for the local trip test. The RI reviewed attendance forms for weekly meetings for operations department shift operating personnel and interviewed sev-~1 operators to verify that the event was discussed with
| |
| '
| |
| the required personnel. The licensee completed the plant component / equipment identification program in December 1987. All major plant components were appropriately labeled with large placards painted on the item to clearly mark the component. The licensee through its engineering evaluation determined that the local trip test should be performed during a startup after a planned outage. System Operating Procedure (S0P) 2.2.28, "Feedwater System," Revision 43, dated July 1,
| |
| '
| |
| 1987, contained the appropriate revisio This item is closed, i
| |
| .. . , , _ . . _ _ _ . _ , . , . _ , . _ m , _ _ , . . _ _ _ _ _ , . , . , _ _ _ , , . _ . . , _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ . , _ _ _ _ . , . _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ , _ . _ . , _ . . . , . _ . , , . . _ , , -
| |
|
| |
| . . . . ,_ . - - _ _ . - , , ._ . - ..
| |
| l
| |
| , . .
| |
| 7 IE Bulletin 84-02 IE Bulletin 84-02 concerns failures of General Electric Type HFA relays in use in class 1E safety systems. The licensee, in Letter NLS8400018, dated July 16, 1984, committed to replace all HFA relays assnciated.with safety-related systems at CNS during the Fall, 1984 refueling outag This bulletin was interpreted by the licensee to require changeout of AC HFA relays only. This bulletin was closed out in NRC Inspection Report 50-298/84-2 During review of the bulletin, the licensee determined that the bulletin required replacement of all (AC and DC) HFA relays. This error was discussed by the licensee with the SRI, and the licensee committed to issue a supplemental response to IE Bulletin 84-02 explaining the additional actions which will be taken in response to the bulleti The bulletin is considered open for purposes of trackin No. violations or deviations were identified in this are . Monthly Surveillance Observations The NRC inspectors observed and reviewed the performance of Surveillance Procedure (SP) 6.3.5.1, "RHR Test Mode Surveillance Operation,"
| |
| SP 6.2.4.1, "CS Test Mode Surveillance Operation," SP 6.3.5.5, "RHR Pump Opersbility Test," and SP 6.3.3.1, "HPCI Test Mode Surveillance Operation."
| |
|
| |
| SP 6.3.5.1 "RHR Test Mode Surveillance Operation," Revision 26, dated October 8, 1987; SP 6.3.4.1, CS Test Mode Surveillance Operation,"
| |
| Revision 21, dated September 11, 1987; and SP 6.3.5.5, "RHR Pump Operability Test," Revision 15, dated October 8, 1987. These surveillances were performed on February 7, 1988, to prove operability after testing and maintenance (described in paragraph 7
| |
| .
| |
| of this report), and prior to startu SP 6.3.5.5 verified
| |
| )
| |
| operability of RHR Pump "B' and flow verifications for Pump "B" and loop "B" (pumps "B" and "0"). These surveillances were performed by qualified operators who were cognizant of all surveillance requirements. Limiting conditions for operations were properly entered for the surveillance testing. .The SRI observed that the
| |
| ; operators performing the tests were aware of all precautions associated with the tests, and performed the tests in accordance with applicable procedures. All data was properly reviewed and verified
| |
| ! to be acceptable per the procedures and TS.
| |
|
| |
| l The RI observed in its entirety the performance of SP 6.3.3.1, "HPCI l Test Mode Surveillance Operation," Revision 27, dated October 29, 1987. The surveillance was performed on February 24, 1988, to meet the HPCI Pump Monthly Operability Requirement of T Testing was performed by two licensed reactor operators in accordance with the procedure which included minor changes as designated by a temporary procedure change notica The operators performed the procedure in a
| |
| ! | | ! |
| ,
| | L |
| | |
| \
| |
| ,. .
| |
| | |
| professional manner and were cognizant of all procedure requirement The NRC Resident Inspector reviewed the completed procedure to verify that all test results conformed with TS and procedtre requirement No violations or deviations were identified in this are . Monthly Maintenance Observation The NRC inspectors verified that the maintenance activities were conducted in accordance with approved procedures, regulatory guides, and industry codes or standards and in conformance with Technical Specification The SRI monitored maintenance action associated with "B" Residual Heat Removal (RHR) pump. On January 28, 1988, "B" RHR pump breaker tripped when the pump was started to transfer water following the reactor scram which occurred on the same day. Troubleshooting determined that there was a ground in the motor. The motor was subsequently removed and saipped to General Electric tc determine the source of the ground. It was subsequently determined that there was an "end turn" ground on one of the coils of the motor. No root cause for the ground has been determined as ye To ensure that the ground was not associated with other ECCS pumps, the licensee performed a polarization index mea:;urement on all ECCS pump motors to evaluate the insulatio In additica, an AC hipot test was performed on RHR pump "C" and "D" motors to demonstrate ample ground wall insulation strengt After testing proved operability of all other ECCS pumps, RHR "B" pump motor was replaced with another motor whict was equivalen The new motor was qualified by the licensee and replaced in accordance with Design Change 88-071 "RHR Pump Motor Replacement" and Maintenance Work Request 88-059 No violations or deviations were identified in this are . 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 RI reviewed an employee time report for assigned security personnel for February 10, 1988. The review was performed to verify that manning requirements stated in the security plan in the CNS operating license were in compliance. Site tours were conducted by the NRC inspectors to ensure that compensatory measures were properly implemented as required because of some nonfunctional security equipment. Tha PA barrier had adequate illumination and the isolation zones were free of transient m'ateria No violations or deviations were identified in this are . Radiological Protection Observations The NRC inspectors verified that selected activities of the licensee's radiological protection program were implemented in conformance with
| |
| -
| |
| | |
| .- -
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| facility policies, procedures, and regulatory requirements. Radiation work permito 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 contaminatio No vic ions or deviations were identified in this are . Exic Interviews An exit interview was conducted on March 1, 1988, with licensee representatives (identified in paragraph 1). During this interview the SRI and the RI reviewed the scope and findings of the inspectio .
| |
| }} | | }} |
