IR 05000298/1999012
| ML20217N200 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 10/22/1999 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217N198 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-298-99-12, NUDOCS 9910280133 | |
| Download: ML20217N200 (6) | |
Text
[7
,
.-
.
ENCLOSURE
'
l-U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
REGION IV
Docket No.:
50-298
' License No.:
DPR-46 Report No.:
50-298/99-12
Licensee:
Nebraska Public Power District Facility:
Cooper Nuclear Station Location:
P.O. Box 98 Brownville, Nebraska Dates:
September 27-30,1999 Inspector:
William A. Maier, Senior Emergency Preparedness inspector Plant Support Branch
'
Approved By:
Gail M. Good, Chief, Plant Support Branch Division of Reactor Safety.
t
!
9910280133 991022 PDR ADOCK 05000298 G
_ _ _
FT
,
.
2-SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Cooper Nuclear Station NRC Inspection Report No. 50-298/99-12 -
'This announced inspection focused on the licensee's emergency preparedness program and included a review of the emergency preparedness performance indicators.
- Cornerstone: Emergency Preparedness-No findings identified '
.
l l
l r
i l
m lr
,-
.
l-3-
-
Reoort Details l
1.'
REACTOR SAFETY '
' 1EP2 Alert and Notification System a.
- Incoectioa Scoce The inspector reviewed the licensee's commitments for testing the alert and notification system and discussed the design of siren testing equipment. The inspector reviewed
'
the siren test procedure and observed a routine periodic test of the system. The
' inspector also verified a " growl" activation of two sirens at their locations. Samples of siren test results and maintenance records for the last four calendar years were reviewed. ' Corrective actions related to alert and notification system testing were reviewed to ensure that they were properly tracked and action taken as appropriate.
I b.
Observations and Findinas The licensee tested the sirens by performing a growl test every other week and a three-minute full cycle test annually. Problems were reported to the licensee's communications division, which was tasked with siren maintenance. This division promptly responded to siren problems; correcting them in as little as 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> in some cases. Siren maintenance was documented in a system used by the communications division rather than the nuclear division. As a result, work requests in this system were not trended for analysis of repeat failures or evaluated for safety significance, common causes, maintenance effectiveness, and reportability. The testing and maintenance records indicated that:
. '
On two occasions sirens did not respond during the first test; however, these sirens tested satisfactorily during a retest. The next time the test was performed, the sirens failed again and required maintenance. There was no review of a common failure mechanism in these cases.
There was one example of a siren that had failed its test due to a
.
communications failure. Communications division personnel replaced a coaxial cable on the siren's' radio. The siren passed the maintenance retest but failed the next schoduled test, requiring a radio replacement. The effectiveness of the initial maintenance was not reviewed.
Failure records from the last 4 years showed five examples of repetitive siren
.
failures for either the same or similar causes.
. Siren retest printouts following maintenance were not recovered for review and
.
evaluation.
During one test of the sirens from the Atchison County, Missouri emergency
=
operations center, transmitter noise prevented the county from activating the sirens on three successive attempts, the fourth attempt being successful. This
...
J
p.
.
p
!
l l-4
failure was not evaluated for its severity or reportability. The radio exhibited similar transmitter noise the following month, even though the siren activation j
was successful that month.
j
\\
Further, during an annual audit, the licensee's quality assurance organization identified that siren failures were not captured on the station's problem identification reporting system. However, the emergency preparedness staff elected not to change its I
established system of siren repair and failure recording. Additionally, the inspector noted that a peer review performed the month prior to this inspection made a similar observation concerning the failure to document siren failures in the problem identification reporting system.
,
1EP3 Emeraency Response Oraanization Auamentation a.
Inspection Scope The inspector reviewed the licensee's commitments for the emergency response organization augmentation system, the procedure for and results of the bimonthly augmentation tests, and the calllists used for response augmentation. Corrective actions related to augmentation testing were reviewed to ensure that they were properly tracked and action taken as appropriate.
b.
Observations and Findinas No inspection findings were identified in this area.
4.
OTHER ACTIVITIES 40A2 Performance Indicator Verification Alert and Notification System a.
Inspection Scope The inspector reviewed the supporting data for the Alert and Notification System Reliability performance indicator. The inspector interviewed the licensee's emergency preparedness staff to understand the methodology used to interpret and report the data.
Siren testing records for the last two calendar years were reviewed.
b.
Observations and Findinas No findings were identifie P y
..
.
-5-I Emeraency Response Oraanization Drill / Exercise Performance
,-
a.
Inspection Scoce l
!
The inspector reviewed the supporting data for the Emergency Response Organization Drill / Exercise Performance indicator. The inspector interviewed the licensee's emergency preparedness staff to understand the methodology used to interpret and report the data. The inspector also reviewed drill and exercise scenarios and critique sheets and notification forms for drills and licensed operator requalification simulator scenarios for the second quarter of calendar year 1999.
b.
Observations and Findinas No findings were identified.
Emeraency Response Oraanization Readiness a.
Inspection Scope The inspector reviewed the supporting data for the Emergency Response Organization Readiness performance indicator. The inspector interviewed the licensee's emergency preparedness staff to understand the methodology used to interpret and report the data.
The inspector also reviewed drill attendance sheets for two samples of 26 key
'
emergency responders; one sample for the latest calendar quarter and one for the first calendar quarter of the current year.
b.
Observations and Findinos The inspector noted one discrepancy with the reported d$. The reported drill participation date for one key responder was one year and two weeks after this individual's actual participation date. This was due to the fact that the responder in question was qualified for two emergency response positions, one of wMch was a key
,
position and one which was not. The date recorded for this individual waa the more recent date for participation in the non-key position.
The inspector discussed this discrepancy with the on-site emergency preparedness coordinator. The emergency preparedness coordinator acknowledged that the current methodology for reporting this indicator had not discriminated between he two levels of qualification for the same individual and initiated Problem Identification Report 4-04496.
The discovery of this data did not change either the color or value of the performance indicator, because the responder's key position drill participation date was within the 2 year time limit.
40A4 Other (Closed) Inspection Follow-up Item (IFI) 50-298/9611-01: ability to warn personnel in high-no;se areas - The licensee had initiated Condition Adverse to Quality (CAQ)- 96-1045 to track this issue in its corrective action program. Corrective actions were ongoing and captured in Engineering Project Request 98-01 c.
..
-6-(Closed) Insoection Follow-uo item (lFI) 50-298/9812-01: w/ > emergency plan staffing and augmentation times - The licensee had properly submhted the revision to its emergency plan for this item.
40A5 Manaaement Meetinas Exit Meetina Summary The inspector presented the inspection results to Mr. P. Caudill and other members of licensee management at an ex!! meeting on September 30,1999. The licensee
'
acknowledged the findings presented. No proprietary information was identified.
1 l
!
i
!
!
l l