ML19343C504

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
IE Insp Rept 50-409/81-01 on 801201-810131.Noncompliance Noted:Fire Barrier Not Maintained & Failure of Maint Personnel to Notify Control Room Operator Prior to Entering & Exiting Controlled Area
ML19343C504
Person / Time
Site: La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png
Issue date: 02/10/1981
From: Boyd D, Branch M, Forney W
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML19343C499 List:
References
50-409-81-01, 50-409-81-1, NUDOCS 8103240392
Download: ML19343C504 (8)


See also: IR 05000409/1981001

Text

.

F

-

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

REGION III

Report No. 50-409/81-01

Docket No. 50-409

License No. DPR-45

Licensee: Dairyland Power. Cooperative

2615 East Avenue, South

Lacrosse, WI 54601

Facility Name:

La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor

Inspection At: La Crosse Site, Genoa, WI

Inspection Conducted:

December 1, 1980 thru January 31, 1981

$boyd

Inspectors:

W. L. Forney

2 -/O 't'/__

f

MHu

M. W. Branc

2 -/C - f/

ghlC ~

2 -/CIl

Approved By:

D. C. Boyd, Chief

Projects Section 4

Inspection Summary

Inspection on December 1, 1980 thru January 31, 1981 (Report No. 50-409/81-01)

Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection of.the licensee's Operational

Safety; Surveillance; Maintenance; Refueling Activities; Refueling Surveil-

l

-lance;. Refueling Maintenance; Followup Action to Open Inspection Items,

Bulletins, Circulars and Items of Noncompliances; Review of Core Leading

Verification Procedures and Review of Physical Protection Controls. This

.

inspection involved a total of 488 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC in-

spectors including 70 inspector-hours onsite during off-shifts.

Results: Of the nine areas inspected, no items of nonccmpliance were noted

in the eight areas. Two items of-noncompliance were noted in the area of

,

[

refueling maintenance.

-

l

l

l.

i

. 81032I403Iht

.

.

.

. _

-

. _ .

.

DETAILS

1.

Persons Contacted

  • J. Parkyn, Assistant Plant Superintendent
  • G. Boyd, Operations Supervisor
  • L. Goodman, Operations Engineer
  • L. 'Krajewski, Health and Safety Supervisor
  • H. Towsley, Quality Assurance Supervisor
  • S.

Rafferty, Reactor Engineer

W. Angle, Process Engineer

  • M.

Polsean, Shift Supervisor

  • W. Novicki, Supervisor, Instrument and Electric
  • R.- Wery, QA Specialist
  • G. Joseph, Security and Fire Protection Supervisor
  • L. Kelley, Assistant Operations Supervisor
  • Denotes those present at exit interview.

~

. In addition, the inspector observed and held discussions with other

engineers, plant equipment' operators, reactor operators, assistants,

and plant attendants.

2.

General ~

During this refueling outage plant installed, (ATVS) Anticipated Transient

Without-Scram, modification. This modification makes LACBWR able to

withstand all A1WS events . including loss of main condenser as a heat sink.

No fuel damage was noted during this_ Core 7 fuel shuffle and reload.

Following refueling'of the core, plant completed type

"A" containment

leak test-satisfactorily.

Plant started Core Physics testing on January 10, 1981 but could not

~

,

complete 'until January 31, 1981 because of problems with Feedwater

. Check Valve and IB. force circulating pump vibration.

3.

Operational Safety Verification

The inspector observed control room operations, reviewed applicable logs

and conducted discussions ~ with control ' room operators during the months

. of December,1980 and January,1981. The inspector verified the oper-

ability of selected _ emergency systems, reviewed tagout records 'and

' verified proper return to service of af fected ' components. Tours of the'

reactor building and turbine building were conducted to observe plant

equipment conditions, . including potential fire hazards, fluid leaks,

-and excessive vibrations and to verify that maintenance-requests had

.

.- 2 -

.

-

,

- _ . -

,

m

.

L.

been initiated for equipment in need of maintenance. The inspector by

observation and direct interview verified that the physical security

plan was being implemented in accordance with the station security plan.

The inspector observed plant housekeeping / cleanliness conditions and

verified implementation of radiation protection controls. During the

months of December, 1980 and January, 1981, the inspector walked down

the accessible portions of the core spray and boron injection systems

to verify operability. The inspector also witnessed portions of the

radioactive waste system controls associated with radwaste shipments

and barreling.

These reviews and observations were conducted to verify that facility

operations were in conformance with the requirements established under

techaical specifications, 10 CFR, and administrative procedures.

No items of noncompliance were noted.

4.

Monthly Maintenance Observation

Station maintenance activities.of safety related systems and components

listed below were observed / reviewed to ascertain that they were conducted

in accordance with approved procedures, regulatory guides and industry

codes or standards' and in conformance with technical specifications.

The following items were considered during.this review:

the limiting

conditions for operation were met while components or systems were

removed from service; approvals were obtained prior to initiating the

work; activities were accomplished using approved procedures and were

inspected as applicable; functional testing and/or calibrations were

. performed prior to returning components or systems to service; quality

control records-were maintained; activities were accomplished by

qualified personnel; parts and materials used were properly certified;

radiological controls were implemented; and, fire ' prevention controls

were' implemented.

Work requests were reviewed to-determine status of outstanding jobs

.and to assure that priority is assigned to safety related equipment

maintenance which may affect system performance.

The following maintenance activities were. observed / reviewed:

-

Installation of ATWS modification (FC 50-80-02)~

-Modification of fire. protection equipment

Following completion of maintenance on the.ATWS modification, the.

inspector verified that these systems had been returned to service

properly.

1h> items of noncompliance were noted.

-3-

.

4

5.

Monthly Surveillance Observation

The inspector observed technical specifications required surveillance

testing on the Emergency Diesel Generators 1A and IB and verified that

testing was performed in accordance with adequate procedures, that test

instrumentation was calibrated, that limiting conditions for operation

were met, that removal and restoration of the affected components were

accomplished, that test results conformed with technical specifications

and procedure requirements and were reviewed by personnel other than

the individual directing the test, and that any deficiencies identified

during the testing were properly reviewed and resolved by appropriate

management personnel.

The inspector also witnessed portions of the following test activities:

.Bi-weekly surveillance testing of safety systems Channel No. 2 and of

area radiation monitors.

6.

Licensee Event Reports Followup

Through direct observations, discussions with licensee personnel, and

review of records, the following event reports were reviewed to deter-

mine that reportability requirements were fulfilled, immediate corrective

action was accomplished, and corrective action to prevent recurrence

had been accomplished in accordance with technical specifications.

LER 80-13, Excessive Leakage of Electrical Penetration //6

LER 80-14, Excessive Type "C" Leakage of Valve 73-25-021

LER 80-15, Excessive Type "C"' Leakage of Valve 54-25-006

LER 80-16, Violation of Fire Barrier

LER 80-17, Failure of Valves 55-26-006 & 55-25-003 to Pass

Type "C" Leak Test

No items of noncompoiance were identified.

.7.

IE Bulletin Followup

For the IE Bulletins listed below the inspector verified that the

written response was within the time period stated in the bulletin,

that the written response included the information required to be

~

reported, that the written response' included adequate corrective

action commitments based on information presentation in the bulle-

tin and the licensee's response, that licensee management forwarded

. copies of-the written response to the appropriate onsite management

representatives, that information discussed in the licensee's

written response was. accurate, and that corrective action taken by

the-licensee was as described in the written response.

80-21, Problems with Valve Yokes Supplied by Malcolm Foundry Co.

~

80-25, Operating Problems with Target Rock Safety-Relief Valves

No items of noncompliance were identified.

'

-4..

.

k .

.

8.

Plant Trips

Following the plant trips at 0442 of Janusry 16, 1980 and at 1557 of

January 16, 1980 the inspector ascertained the status of the reactor

and safety systems by observation of control room indicators and dis-

cussions with licensee personnel concerning plant parameters, emergency

system status and reactor coolant chemistry. The inspector verified

the establishment of proper communications and reviewed the corrective

actions taken by the licensee.

All systems responded as expected, and the plant was returned to core

physics testing at 0517 of January 16, 1980 and again at 2250 of the

same day.

No items of noncompliance were noted.

9.

Refueling Activities

The inspector verified that prior to the handling of fuel in the core,

all surveillance testing required by the technical specifications and

licensee's procedures had been completed; verified that during the

outage the periodic testing of refueling related equipment was per-

formed as required by technical specifications; observed four shifts

of the fuel handling operations (removal, inspection and insertion)

and verified the-activities were performed in accordance with the

technical specifications and approved procedures; verified that con-

tainment integrity was maintained as required by technical specifica-

tions; verified that good housekeeping was maintained on the refueling

area; and, verified that staffing during refueling was in accordance

with technical specifications and approved procedures.

No items of noncompliance were noted.

10.

Surveillance - Refueling

The _ inspector observed 'the five year overhaul of the diesel' high pressure

service water fire pumps and the surveillance testing of the source range

NI's to verify that the tests were covered _by. properly approved procedures;

.that-the procedures used were consistant with regulatory requirements,

licensee commitments, and administrative controls; that minimum crew

requirements were met, test prerequisites were completed, special test

equipment was calibrated and in service, and' required data was_ recorded

for final-review and. analysis;'that the qualifications of personnel

conducting the test were adequate; and that the test results were adequate.

No items of noncompliance were noted.

-5-

L.

.

.

f

11.

Mainterance - Refueling

The inspector verified maintenance procedures include administrative

approvals for removing and return of systems to service; hold points

for inspection / audit and signoff by QA or other licensee personnel;

provisions for operational testing following maintenance; provisions

for special authorization and fire watch responsibilities for activities

involving welding, open flame, and other iguition sources; reviews of

material certifications; provisions for assuring LCO requirements were

met during repair; provisions for housekeeping during and following

maintanence; and responsibilities for reporting defects to management.

The inspector observed the maintenance activities listed below and

verified work was accomplished in accordance with approved procedures

and by qualified personnel.

On December 2 and 3, 1980, during modification to Fire Protection System,

plant personnel violated fire barriers in the Turbine Building by drilling

holes without establishing the necessary fire watch patrol as required

by LACBWR Technical Specification'4.2.19.

This is considered an item of noncompliance

- The resident inspectors noted on January 6,1981 that two LACBWR main-

tenance personnel entered and exited a High Radiation Area in the full

flow demineralizer room violating the following items:

'l.

Failed to notify control room operator prior to entering and

exiting as requiredgby LACBkR's Operating Manual, _ Volume X,-

Section 2.7(2).

2.

Failed to replace the radiological control barrier when exiting

~

the area.

3.

Failed to complete the required information on the reverse side of

the Special Work Permit (SWP) when entering-and exiting the area,

as required by LACBWR's Operating Manual, Volume X, Section 6.5.3.

-l 4.

Failed to utilize the radiation montioring device provided for

.

continuously indicating the dose rate. in the area, as required by

1 LAC 3WR's Technical Specification 3.13.1.a.

This is considered an. item of noncompliance.

12.

Review of Plant Operation. during Refueling and First Startup after

Refueling

Prior -to 'pl' ant _ startupL af ter refueling outage the inspectors performed

a walkthrough inspection of the High Pressure Core Spray System and

-6-

.-

'

the Boron Injection System to ascertain that these systems had been

returned to service in accordance with approved procedures.

The inspectors also witnessed portions of first reactor startup after

the refueling outage and verified that startup was conducted in

accordance with technically adequate and approved procedures. The

inspector also witnessed plants response to rod motion and verified

that core parameters were in accordance with the requirements of the

plants Technical Specification.

No items of noncompliance were noted.

13.

BWR Core Loading and Verification Procedures TI 2515/40

Reviewed LACBWR's Fuel Reload Procedure and verified that procedure

had necessary. controls to assure proper fuel orientation. Core 7

reload could not be video taped as desired by procedure because of

technical problems that were encountered with the video taping camera

and equipment.

14.

Review of Licensee Response to IE Bulletin 80-24 (Prevention of Damage

Due to Leakage Inside Containment)

LACBWR's resporse did not completely answer the questions posed

a.

in IE Bu11etti 80-24 in the following areas:

1.

Bulletin asked licensee to identify any "open system" that

enters the containment building _and provided definition of

"open system" as defined in IE Bulletin 80-24,

~

2.

Bulletin asked for material types of these "open systems"

. and this information was not provided.

~ 3.

LACBWR's response dces not indicate that . redundant equirment

exists to detect leakage in any given area of containroent.

4.

LACBWR's response does not answer. quest' ion of providing

positive means for control room operators to determine flow

from Containment Sump.

5.

LACBWR's response does not indicate that licensee is committing

to establishing a monthly surveillance program for'the presently

installed equipment.

6.

_LACBWR's. response indicates that modification to present

-Technical Specifications may be necessary to provide enforce-

able criteria for Bulletin 80-14 compliance.

b.

The above items were provided to licensee and toLI&E~ Headquarters

and will be considered as Unresolved Item 81-01-01.

-7-

,

__

.- .

..

. _ _ _

_

-

.

,

..

<

15.

Survey to Dete.mine Existence of Adequate Emergency Procedure for

.

'

Copingt *.i ATSW Events at Operating Power Reactors (TI 2515/46)

-The inspe ars reviewed Emergency Procedures and interviewed operators

to verify satisfactory response to an (ATWS) Event. The following

Emergency Procedures were reviewed:

1.

Section 3.3 of LACBWR's Operating Manual, Volume I.

2.

Section 3.12 of LACBWR's Operating Manual, Volume I.

No items of noncompliance were noted.

16.

Unresolved Items

Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required

in order'to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of non-

compliance, or deviations.

Unresolved items disclosed during the

-inspection are discussed in Paragraph 3.

17.

Followup on Open Inspection Items

(Closed) OII 80-14-01 1/'The resident inspectors were provided with

-answers to their concerns with Cote 7 reload calculators.

18.

Exit Interview

.The inspector met with' licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)

'

throughout the month and summarized the. scope and findings of the

inspection activities.

1

_

%

E1/

IE. Inspection. Report No. 50-409/80-14, Paragraph 6.

,~

--8

-

.

--

r

-