IR 05000298/1987009

Insp Rept 50-298/87-09 on 870401-30.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Action on Previous Insp Findings,Ie Info Notices,Operational Safety Verification & Monthly Surveillance & Maint Activities

ML20213G496
Person / Time
Site:	Cooper
Issue date:	05/08/1987
From:	Dubois D, Jaudon J, Plettner E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20213G462	List: IR 05000298/1987009 ML20213G459
References
50-298-87-09, 50-298-87-9, IEIN-87-008, IEIN-87-8, NUDOCS 8705180319
Download: ML20213G496 (10)

Text

i

.

APPENDIX U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION IV

NRC Inspection Report: 50-298/87-09 License: DPR-46 Docket: 50-298 Licensee: flebraska Public Power District (NPPD)

P. O. Box 499 Columbus, NE 68601

'

facility Name: Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS)

Inspection At: Cooper Nuclear Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska Inspection Conducted: April 1-30, 1987

.

Inspectors: . IMAs E. A. Plettner, Resident Inspector, (RI)

5/"/!/ 7 Date

%$ W~

D. L. DuBois, Senior Resident Inspector, (SRI)

s/Wr7 Date

/

Approved: _

h Tr;-Chief,

&

Project Section A, y

Date M

J./P./Jaut Gleat.to Project Branch hbh DOC 00 98 o PDR

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

' .

-2-Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted April 1-30, 1987 (Report 50-298/87-09) l Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of licensee action on previous inspection findings, IE Information Notices, operational safety verification, and monthly surveillance and maintenance activitie Results: Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were ,

identifie (

l l

,

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

_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - -________

.

• ,

3-DETAILS Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Employees

• G. R. Horn, Division Manager of fluclear Operations

• J. M. Meacham, Senior Manager, Technical Support

• R. Goings-Merrill,' Regulatory Compliance Specialist

• Brungardt, Manager, Operations

• Norvell, Manager, Maintenance

• E. Smith, Manager, Quality Assurance The NRC inspectors also interviewed other licensee employees during the '

course of the inspectio * Denotes those present during exit interview May 4,198 . Licensee Action on Previous inspection Findings The following items of noncompliance or deviation, open items, and unresolved items were reviewed by the NRC inspectors to verify that the licensee's responses to the items identified in previous inspection reports are in conformance with regulatory requirements, and that corrective measures were completed in a tinely manne (Closed)OpenItem(298/8422-02): Inadequate Re Orders. This item involved Pur t.hase Order (P0) quirements 231140. No discrepancies on Purchase were noted in the preparation ind handling of the purchase order. However, the order contained the words: "CitTR Required" with no explanation of the requirements. CMTR means " Certified liaterial Test Reports". The RI reviewed recent purchase orders containing a CMTR and verified that the requirements of the CMTR were listed on the purchase order This item is close (Closed) Violation (298/8527-01): Failure to Take Adequate Corrective Action for Deficiencies involving Safety-Related Equipment. This item involved the licensee's failure to take adequate corrective action for deficiencies involving safety-related equipment. Identified deficiencies included the following:

.

Failure to initiate action to replace a leaking drain shutoff valve on RHR Loop "A" Injection Lin _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ .

• .

i

I

!

. Failure to correct an incomplete valve lineup procedure for the RHR system, j . Failure to determine why the drywell spray outboard throttle valve limitswitchactuatingpinfellout(whichresultedintheburnupof d valve motor when the valve was shut) and whether similar plant valves had this proble . Failure to evaluate the valve for possible damage to its sea Corrective actions taken by the licensee included the following:

'

. Conducting discussions with personnel in the proper closecut of MaintenanceWorkRequests(MWR). '

,

. Submitting a Design Change Request (DCR) for approval, which will i replace the drain valve when plant conditions permit.

,

i . RevisingMaintenanceProcedure(MP)7.3.32,"LimitorqueLimitSwitch

Grease Removal and Replacement " to include a step that requires .

maintenance personnel to observn pin placement during gear i

'

installation and to verify the pin is functioning properly prior to installing the limit switch.

I

. Evaluating the valve for possible damage to its seat.

l The RI verified that adequate corrective actions were performed by the

'

licensee by review of the following:

J t . The RI performed interviews with the personnel involved and confirmed i

that training was completed on the topic of "How to Properly Close i Out a MWR." ,

,

. DCR 85-94, that identified and initiated the replacement of RilR-181, 4 Loop "A" Injection Line Drain Shutoff Valve.

!

j . Equipment Specification Change (ESC) 85-35 approved on 1 April 17,1986, which implemented the requirement of DCR 85-94. Work was completed on December 16, 1986, during the refueling outag . Systems Operating Procedure 2.2.69, " Residual Heat Removal System," l i

Revision 36, dated December 29, 1986, was revised to include Valve RilR.18 . A revised Procedure HP 7.3.32 "Limitorque Limit Switch Grease Removal and Replacement," Revision 1. dated March 21, 1986, was i l

issued. This procedure revision was approved and implemented 40 days !

later than the licensee's commitment date of February 1,1986 (

,

(reference CNS Letter No. NLS8500328).

}

(

_ _______-__ _

e

.

-5-

. No damage to the valve seat was confirmed by the zero leakage of the Drywell Spray Outboard Throttle valve during the Local Leak Rate Test I

performed on October 30, 1986, and December 8, 198 I This item is close (Closed)Openitem(298/8617-01): Use of Checkmarks to Denote Procedure Step Completion. This item involved the use of checkmarks to indicate performance of procedure steps. A person performing the steps would sign at the bottom of the page verifying that the checkmarks were made by hi In instances where more than one signature appeared on a page, it was indeterminable who performed which steps in the procedur In March 1986, the licensee cocinenced a major rewrite of all plant procedures using the newly developed "CNS Writers Guide." The guide provides specific instructions for the development of new procedures and upgrading present procedures. Included in those instructions is the f requirement that signatures or initials be used to document completion of L specific procedural steps. To date, approximately 10 percent of the 1400 plant procedures have been revised, approved, and implemented as -

recommended in the "CNS Writers Guide." The licensee estimates that the remainder of the plant procedures will be rewritten and upgraded by December 198 In the interim, when an older procedure is used and more than one person performs specified steps, each person will use a different symbol to indicate thnse steps that he complete This item is close (Closed)OpenItem(298/8617-02): Review of Completed Surveillance Tests. This item involved out-of-specification surveillance data that were not found during shif t supervisor's reviews, but were detected during a subsequent engineering review of Surveillance Procedure (SP) 6.3.12.1, performed on April 15 and 23, 1986. The RI reviewed surveillance tests conducted under SP 6.3.12.1, " Diesel Generator Operability Test," that were performed since April 1986 to verify that a complete and adequate review had been performed by shift supervisors and the surveillance coordinator. The RI conducted personal interviews with the individuals involved to confirm individual instruction on surveillance procedure revie This item is close (Closed)OpenItem(298/8627-04): Review of Procedure 2. This item involved the following discrepancies:

. Part V. Section B.7 stated that all parts of a previous section must be completed prior to completion of the steps in the next section.

. . ..

_-__-___-_ _

• .

-6 1

. A note to scram the reactor was located in a step where cooldown and depressurization was performed, In actuality, the reactor is manually scrammed prior to commencing cooldown activitie . A note stating, " Ensure that Step 12 is perfonned before Step 15,"

Wds located af ter Step 15 had been perfonne The RI reviewed General Operating Procedure (G0P) 2.1.4 " Normal Shutdown from Power," Revision 26, dated December 4,1986, to verify the following:

. Part V, Section B.7 was revised, in part, to read, ". . . all steps within a given section must be reviewed before starting the next section."

. The r.ote stating, "The reactor may be scrammed at this time at the discretion of the Operations Supervisor . . .." was relocated to a step proceeding cooldown and depressurization of the reacto . A note stating, " Ensure that Step 12 is perfonned before Step 15 . . .." was relocated to Step No. 14 The RI concluded that the licensee's review and revision of 00P 2.1.4 was complete and adequat This item is close (Closed)Unresolveditem(298/8706-02): RilR Minimum Flow Orifice Removal. This item requested the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) to perfonn an independent review of the removal of RHR Minimum Flow Orifices to ensure no unresolved safety issues exist. In a letter dated March 27, 1987, from D. R. Muller, Project Director, BWR Project Directorate No. 2, Division of BWR Licensing, to E.11. Johnson, Director, Division of Reactor Safety and Projects, Region IV. NRR stated there were no unresolved safety issue This item is close . IE Information Notices The following Infonnation Notice was reviewed by the RI for applicability at CNS and to determine if the licensee had performed required actio (Closed) Infonnation Notice 87-08, " Degraded Motor Leads in the Limitorque DC Motor Operator." The notice was provided to alert recipients of potential defective DC motors installed in Limitorque motor operator The motors in question were manufactured by Peerless-Winsmith. The motors were fitted with nomex-kapton insulated leads that are susceptible to insulation degradation and subsequent short-circuit failures. Management

_ _ _ _ _ - - _ __ _

. . .

-7-of CNS discussed this item with Limitorque Company by telephone on March 10, 1987. A representative of Limitorque informed the licensee that Limitorque had previously qualified the new motor leads by analysis only and were presently qualifying the materials by testing. Limitorque expects that qualification testing will be completed by May 198 This Item is close . _ Operational Safety Verification The NRC inspectors observed control room operations, instrumentation, controls, reviewed , lant logs and records, conducted discussions with control room personnel, and performed system walkdowns to verify that:

. Minimum shift manning requirements were me . Technical Specification requirements were observe . Plant operations were conducted using approved procedure . Plant logs and records were complete, accurate, and indicative of actual system Conditions and Configuration . System pumps, valves, control switches, and power supply breakers were properly aligne . Licensee systems lineup procedures / checklists, plant drawings, and as-built configurations were in agreemen . instrumentation was accurately displaying process variables and protection system status was within permissible limits for operatio . When plant equipment was found to be inoperable or when equipment was removed from service for maintenance, it was properly identified and redundant equipment was verified to be operable. Also, the NRC inspectors verified that applicable limiting conditions for operation were identified and maintaine . Equipment safety clearance records were complete and indicated that affected components were removed from and returned to service in a correct and approved manne . Maintenance work requests were initiated for equipment discovered to require repair or routine preventive upkeep, appropriate priority was assigned, and Work Commenced in a timely manne . The conditions of the plant and equipment such as cleanliness, leakage, lubrication, and cooling water were controlled and adequately maintaine .

.,s-8-L

. Areas of the plant were clean, unobstructed, and free of fire hazard Fire suppression systems and emergency equipment were maintained in a condition of readines . Security measures and radiological controls were adequat The NRC inspectors performed a lineup verification of the following systems

l

. Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC)

. No.1 & 2 Diesel Generator Lube Oil (DGLO)

. No.1 & 2 Diesel Generator Diesel Oil (DGD0)

In preparation for performing the systems walkdown of DGLO and DGD0 for Nos. I and 2 Diesel Generators, the RI conducted a review of and comparison between the following licensee DGL0 and DGD0 system valve checklists and applicable as-built drawings:

. System Operating Procedure (SOP) 2.2.20 " Standby AC Power System

'

(Diesel Generator)," Revision 23, dated January 1,1987, Appendix "A" Valve Checklist No. 2

. As-Built Drawing Cooper-Bessemer KSV-46-5 for DGL0 System

. S0P 2.2.12. " Diesel Fuel Oil Transfer System," Revision 8, dated February 20, 1987, Appendix "A" Valve Checklist j . As-Built Drawing, Burns & Roe 2011 for DGD0 System

. As-Built Drawing, Burns & Roe 2077 for DGD0 System

. As-Built Drawing, Cooper-Bessemer KVS-51-6 for DGD0 System i The review identified the following deficiencies:

! . S0P 2.2.20, Appendix "A" Valve Checklist No. 2, lists 18 valves that l were not numbered, labeled, or identified on applicable As-Built

! Drawing KSV-46- . S0P 2.2.12, Appendix "A" Valve Checklist, lists six valves that were not numbered or labeled on applicable As-Built Drawing 2011, Sheet 1.

!

. As-Built Drawing 2077 illustrates 4 valves that were not numbered or labeled and not listed on 50P 2.2.12, Appendix "A" Valve Checklis These deficiencies are similar to Violation 298/8614-01 that was documented in NRC Inspection Report 50-298/86-14, paragraph 5; and similar to Open Items 298/8626-01, 298/8636-04, and 298/8706-05 identified in NRC Inspection Reports 50-298/86-26, 50-298/86-36, and 50-298/87-06, respectively. These three items will be tracked as an open item pending j review of the licensee's corrective action when completed. (298/8709-01)

-_

e *. .

-9-l The tours, reviews and observations were conducted to verify that facility operations were performed in accordance with the requirements established in the CNS Operating License and Technical Specificatio No violations or deviations were identified in this are . Monthly Surveillance Observations The NRC inspectors observed Technical Specification required surveillance tests. Those observations verified that:

. Tests were accomplished by qualified personnel in accordance with approved procedure . Procedures conformed to Technical Specification requirement . Tests prerequisites were completed including conformance with applicable limiting conditions for operation, required administrative approval, and availability of calibrated test equipmen . Test data were reviewed for completeness, accuracy, and conformance with established criteria and Technical Specification requirement . Deficiencies were corrected in a timely manne . The system was returned to servic The RI observed the licensee's performance of the'following surveillance tests on the indicated dates:

. April 1,1987: Surveillance Procedure (SP) 6.2.1.1, "PCIS Reactor High Pressure Calibration and Functional / Functional Test," Revision 14, dated July 24, 1986

. April 13, 1987: SP 6.1.8, "RPS Turbine Control Valve Closure Calibration and Functional / Functional Test," Revision 15, dated May 6, 1983

. April 15, 1987: SP 6.1.19, "LPRM Calibration Test," Revision 7, dated March 21, 1986 The reviews and observations were conducted to verify that facility surveillance operations were performed in accordance with the requirements established in the CNS Operating License and Technical Specificatio No violations or deviations were identified in this are . Monthly Maintenance Observation The NRC inspectors observed preventive and corrective maintenance activities. Those observations verified that:

,

,

• , .

-

-10-

. Limiting conditions for operation were me . Redundant equipment was operabl . Equipment was adequately isolated and safety tagge . Appropriate administrative approvals were obtained prior to commencement of work activitie . Work was performed by qualified personnel in accordance with approved procedure . Radiological controls, cleanliness practices, and appropriate fire prevention precautions were implemented and maintaine . Quality control checks and post-maintenance surveillance testing were performed as require . Equipment was properly returned to servic The RI observed the licensee's performance of the following maintenance test on the indicated date:

. April 7, 1987: Work Item (WI) 87-0932, " Inspection and Cleaning of Suction..and Discharge Valves for Standby Liquid Control (SLC) Loop

'A' Pump"

. April 9, 1987: WI 87-1254, " Perform ESC 87-020 RPF Coupling Installation" These reviews and observations were conducted to verify that facility maintenance operations were performed in accordance with the requirements established in the'CNS Operating License and Technical Specificatio No violations or deviations were identified in this are . Exit Interviews Exit interviews were conducted at the conclusion of each portion of the inspection. The NRC inspectors summarized the scope and findings of each inspection segment at those meetings.