ML20202E946

Insp Rept 50-331/97-17 on 971111-1222.Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Operations,Maintenance,Engineering & Plant Support

ML20202E946
Person / Time
Site:	Duane Arnold
Issue date:	01/02/1998
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20202E929	List: IR 07100111/2012022 ML20202E925 ML20202E946
References
50-331-97-17, NUDOCS 9802190093
Download: ML20202E946 (16)

See also: IR 05000331/1997017

Text

' ..

$

.

..

1

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION lil

Docket No:

50 331

License No:

DPR-49

Report No.

50 331/97017(DRP)

Licensee:

IES Utilities Inc.

200 First Street S.E.

P. O, Box 351

Cedar Rapids, IA 52406-0351

i

Facility:

Duane Amold Energy Center

Location:

Palo, lows

Dates:

November 11 December 22,1997

Inspectors:

C. Lips, Senior Resident inspector

M. Kurth, Resident inspector

Approved by:

R. D. Lanksbury, Chief

Reactor Projects Branch 5

9002190093 990102

PDR

ADOCK 03000331

Q

PDR

~

_

,,

.

..

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Duane Amold Energy Center

t.'RC Inspection Report No. 50 331/g7017(DRP)

This inspection report included resident inspectors' evaluation of aspects of licensee operations,

eng'neering, maintenance, and plant support areas.

Operations

e

The licensee's completed and planned actions for cold weather protection were adequate

to protect plant components and systems from cold weather. (Section 02.3)

There was one instance of concom regarding operator attention to detsil during

performance of routine surveillance testing. An operator did not question the

unreasonably low filter train differential pressure during the standby gas treatment

surveillance test. Otherwise, the conduc' of operations was professional and focussed on

safety as evidenced by error free performance during infrequently performed evolutions.

These infrequently performed evolutions included receipt of new fuel and emergent repair

of a steam line draln. (Section 01.1)

The licensee maintained the reactor core Isolation coolir.? system in the proper standby

readiness condition. Minor discrepancies were promptly ruolved. (Section 02.2)

Maintenance

e

The inspectors identified that the licensee did not follow the procedural controls in the

engineered maintenance action process for an activity where relay coils were replaced

with those with a different voltage rating. (Section M1.2).

The licensee promptly responded to 125 Vdc bettery charger problems. (Section M1.3)

e

The licensee identified four examples where problems were encountered during routine

planned maintenance. The causes appeared to be related to weak pre-job planning or

new procedure revisions. T he inspectors concluded that problems were properiy hsndled

es they came up. Hmever, these problems represented an increase in the number of

work planning problems over that typically encounterei and resulted in safety-related

equipment being out of service longer than necessar';. (Section M1.4)

The licensee promptly resolved the emergent equipment issues that occurred during the

period. Engineering department personnel provided appropriate support where

requested. Maintenance activities were property prioritized and completed in a timely

manner. (Section M2.1)

Enaineerina

The inspec. ors were concemed whh the licensee's performance in planning and

e

implementing control building chiller 100 percent load testing. Specifically, the inspectors

were concemed that the licensee did not perform a safety evaluation pdor to the test and

did not have test controls in place during the test. (Section E1.1)

2

• ,

4

,

<.

Plant Suncort

e

The licensee's Respiratory Protection Program was inadequatoY implemented. Several

individuals required to be quellflod to wear respirators had expired qualifications.

(Section R5.1)

e

The fire watch performed duties appropriately. The required areas were toured in the

required times in accordance with the licensee's fire plan. The inspectors had no -

concoms. (Section F1)

i

3

.

. .

.

s.

.

l

,,

.

k

Resort Detalle

!-'

Summary of Plant Status

j

}-

The plant began this inspection period at 100 percent power. On December 5, igg 7, plant power

was reduced to approximately 80 percent for several hours to allow repair of a steam leak. The

leak was in a steam line drain for the high pressure coolant injection (HPCI) system. The plant

was operated at approximately 100 percent for the remainder of the period,

,

i

l. Operations

i

01

Conduct of Operations

,

l

- O ', ,1

General Comments (71707)

'

I

a.

Inacection Scone

!

The inspectors followed the guidance of Inspection Procedure 71707 and conducted

'

frequent reviews of plant operations. This included observing routine control room

i

activities, accompanying in-plant operators on daily rounds, attending shift tumovers,

crew briefings and special evolution briefings, and performing panel walkdowns.

bi

Observations and Findinas

-

3

The inspectors observed several routine crew briefings and two special briefings for

infrequently performed evolutions The two infrequent evolution briefings were for receipt

of new fuel and for a repair on the HPCI steam line drain. The inspectors observed good

communication and ivolvement among participants. There was appropriate emphasis

on safety. The evol nions were also well coordinated.

On December 5, igg 7, the inspectors identified one concem with a licensed operators

performance during a surveillance test. During monthly standby gar, treatment

surveillance testing, the operator was required to record filter train differential pressure.

The value indicated on the instrument in the control room was unreasonably low;

however, the operator did not question the reading. Subsequently, the inspectors

questioned the operator on the reading when other data taken during the test conflicted

,

.

with the differential pressure reading recorded eariier, The operator consulted with the

c

shift supervisor who directed that the gage be tapped. The instrument responded and

'

indicated a readhg that was consistent with the other data. The inspectors were

r

'

concemed with the operators attention to detailin this case.

.

c;

Conclusions

' There was one instance of concem regarding operator attention to detail during

3

performance of routine surveillance testing. Otherwise, the inspectors found conduct of

operations to be professional and focussed on safety.

4

,

-mm v-w m -, n

m,-w.---

+

.

.

.

.

.

02

C;:2:xl Status of Feelleties and Equipment

02.1 General Plant Tours ano System Walkdowns

- The inspectors followed the gu; dance of Inspection Procedure 71707 in walking down

sooessible portions of the following systems:

e

Standby diesel generators

e

River water supply -

Equipment operability, material condition, and housekeeping were noceptable in all

cases. Several minor discrepancies were brought to the licensee's attention and ware

corrected. The inspectors identified no substantive concems as a result of these

walkdowns.

07.2 Detailed Walkdown of the Reactor Core Isolation Coohna (RCIC) Systern

a.

l tsoection Scone (71707)

During the inspection period, the inspectors followed the guidance of Inspection

Procedure 71707 and conducted a detailed walkdown of the RCIC system to verify its -

standby readiness condition. The inspectors reviewed system diagrams, Operating

instruction (01) 150, " Reactor Core isolation Codng System," the Updated Final Safety

Analysis Report (UFSAR) description, and maintenance history,

b.

Observations and Findinas

The inspectors verified that the RCIC system components in the electrical lineup and

valve lineup were in the required position in accordance with 01150, * Reactor Core

Isolation Cooling System,' Attachments 1 and 2. The inspecters identified two globe

valves (V24-0059, RCIC Steam Supply Drain Line Trap DT 2408 Isolation and V24-0062,

RCIC Steam Supply Drain Trap Test Line Isolation) that were labeled as gate valves on -

the component database and system diagram (M 124). These minor discrepancies were

discussed with the licensee and prompt actions were taken to resolve the differences,

c.

Conclusions

The inspectors concluded that the licensee maintained the RCIC system in the proper

standby readiness condition. Minor component database and drawing discrepancies

were promptly resolved.

02.3 - Cold Weather Preparations

a,

lnspection Scope (71714)

The inspectors reviewed the licensee's program for pro'. acting safety-related systems

against the effects of cold weather. The inspectors reviewed applicable licensee

documentation, Interviewed operations staff, and conducted plant system walkdowns.

5

s

-

..

,

.

,

b.

QhattyMens_and Findinns

Uoontee personnel completed integrated Plant Operating instruction (IPol) 6, " Cold

Weather Operations," Revision 12, prior to the onset of cold weather.

.

The inspectors evaluated the intake structure, pump house, cooling tower valve houses,

cooling tower breaker houses, and the well water pump houses and found that they were

heated with unit heaters or portable heaters. Thermometers were vertfied to be in-place

at each location and were to be read by auxiliary operators during their daily routeds to

verify that area temperatures were adequate,

The inspectors verified that Attachment 1. * Plant Winterization Check List," of IPol 6 was

completed, signed and dated by the appropriate personnel. The inspectors identified no

discrepancies for cold weather preparations,

c.

Conclusions

The inspectors concluded that the licensee's completed and planned actions for cold

weather protection were adequate to protect plant components and systems from cold

weather.

.OS

Miscellaneous Operations lasues (92700, 92e03)

1

Od.1

(Closed) Inspection Follow Item (IFI) 50 331/9600410: The DAEC UFSAR defined the

,

rosloual heat removal system in the spent fuel pool cooling mode (RHF.4FPC) as the

!

altemate cooling path for the spent fuel pool. Questioning by the inspectors determmed

that the valve had only been tested during the initial plant t"'+sp testing, in

October 1996 DAEC determined by walkdown that operations personnel would be able to

line up RHR SFPC within a reasonable time, estimated to be between 4 and 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />.

The licensee also determined that all valves in the system had been cycled except

V34-001. On October 15,1997, DAEC successfully cycled valve V34 001. This item is

closed.

-08.2 (Closed)IFl 50-331/96006-04: The licensee had identified a potential UFSAR

discrepancy regarding the storage of fuel in the spent fuel pool and planned to obtain an

,

analysis from an outside vendor. Holtec Intemational analysis Hl 971708, " Criticality

Safety Evaluation of the Spent Fuel Storegs Rocks in the Duane Amold Energy Center for

. Maximum Enrichment Capability" concluded that spent fuel could be safety stored in -

either type of storage racks used at DAEC A UFSAR change was completed and will be

- submitted with the next cycle UFSAR update. This item is closed.

11. Maintenance

M1

Conduct of Maintenance

M1.1 General Comments

a. -

Inspection Scope (62707. 61726)

The inspectors observed or reviewed all or portions of the following work activities and

surymillances tests:

6

,.

..

.

.

.. .

\\

<.

.

Relay coil replacements for containment isolation valve logic, corrective

maintenance action request (CMAR) A38242

Monthly standby gas treatment system testing, STP 47LC01.M

e

e

125 Vdc battery charger maintenance, CMAR A36453

'A' and *B' control building chiller repair and testing

e

Safety-related instrument air compressor repair, CMAR A38348

e

o

HPCl/RCIC steam line drain leak repair

e

Rod block monitor maintenance and testing

Core Spray engineering change package

e

24 Vdc preventive maintenance, preventive maintenance action request

e

(PMAR) 1101482

M1.2 Failure to Use Enaineered Maintenance Action (EMA) Process for a Maintenance Activity

a.

Inspection Scope (62707)

The inspectors reviewed CMAR A38249 Ger the CMAR was authorized for work by the

control room. The work involved replau,ig relays for several containment isolation

valves. The inspectors also reviewed the TSs, post maintenance testing, and operability

testing.

b.

Observations and Findinas

The inspectors identified a discrepancy in the CMAR planning. The CMAR provided

instructions to replace existing 115 Vac relay coils with 120 Vac coils for several relays.

Although the co..s were being replaced with new coils of a different voltage rating, the

'EMA" block was marked *N' for not applicable. The inspectors were concemed that this

was not consistent wi.ii actministrative control procedure (ACP) 109.1, ' Engineered

Maintenance Action," Revision 6. The ACP specifies that the EMA process is used when

the change alters a component's model number, materiel specification, or design

characteristics.

The inspectors interviewed the maintenance planner, wo provided background

information to support the acceptability of the change in voltage rating. The inspectors

had no concems with the appropriateness of the change; however, the inspectors were

concemed that the EMA process as required by ACP 109.1 was not followed. This minor

violation is being treated as a non-cited violation, consistent with Section IV of the NRC

Enforcement Policy (50-331/97017-01(DRP)),

c.

Conclusions

The inspectors had no operability concems with the work that was performed. However,

the licensee did not follow the procedural controls in this case.

M1.3 Ingpp..r_gble 125 Volt Direct Current (Vde) Battery Charaers Followina Preventive

Mejntenance

a.

Inspection Scope (62706)

The inspectors observed partial performance of preventive maintenance per

CMAR A36453 on the Division i 125 Vdc battery charger 1D12. The CMAR involved

replacing the firing board, sensing current limit board and amplifier board. Discussions

7

j

'

.

9

were held with electrical maintenance personnel, engineering personnel, and operations

personnel,

b.

Observations and Findinas

on November ig 1997, electrical maintenance personnel performed preventive

maintenance on the Division i 125 Vdc battery charger (1D12) by replacing the firing

board, sensing current limit board, and amplifier board in accordance with CMAR A36453.

The vendor recommended this preventive rnalntenance in response to the licensee's

concem for their need to make periodic adjustments to the battery charger. When the

work was completed, restoration of the 1D12 battery charger was attempted. The

battery charger failed to operate. The licensee removed the 1D12 battery charger from

service at that time and attempted to restore the backup battery charger (1D120). The

backup battery charger could not be restored due to the failure of breaker 1D10-03 to

close and prevented connecting the battery backup charger to the 125 Vdc distribution

panel. The inspectors verified that the licensee appropriately entered a 12-hour Limiting

-

Condition for Operation (LCO) in accordance with TS 3.8.B.2.b. The licensee promptly

responded by developing corrective actions to restore both battery chargers.

The licensee replaced the circuit boards that were changed out in the 1D12 battery

charger with circuit boards that were previously in use. The 1D12 cattery charger was

rectored and met all operating requirements for operability. The inspectors observed

good coordination between electrical maintenance personnel, engineering personnel, and

operations personnelin promptly restoring the 1D12 battery charger.

During the investigation of the failure of breaker 1D10-03 to close, electrical maintenance

l

personnelidentified a shorted diode in the battery backup charger. The diode was

i

replaced and the backup battery charger was retumed to service. The inspectors

observed that electrical maintenance personnel effectively identified the cause of the

breaker failure and appropriately replaced the failed diode.

The LCO was exited shortly after declaring the battery chargers operable. A root cause

investigation was being conducted by the licensee regarding the failure of the

1D12 battery charger to operate. This is considered an inspection follow up item

(50 331/g7017-02(DRP)) pending the results of the root cause investigation.

1

c.

Conclut 9nt

The inspectors concluded that the licensee promptly responded to the 125 Vdc battery

charger problems. The inspectors will review the licensee's root cause investigation

when completed.

M1A Recent Work Plannino issues

a.

luspection Scope (62707)

The inspectors observed routine maintenance activities, following the guidance of

Inspection Procedure 62707.

8

u

-

- -

-

-_-

'

.

e

b.

Observations and Findinas

During this inspection period, the inspectors observed that the licensee backed out of

several activities after they were started due to problems with planning of work activities

or procedures in another case, an LCO on the "A" control building chiller lasted longer

than expected due to coordination problems, in each case, the licensee identified the

wncem, documented the issue on an Action Request (AR), and ensured the plant was in

a safe condition.

The inspectors considered the licensee's actions in each case to be appropriate.

However, the inspectors were concemed with a potential adverse tren f in work planning

issues. The examples are listed below;

Work planning problems during maintenance on the *A* control t'uilding chiller

e

resulted in exiting the LCO on day 21 of 30, which was much later than planned.

The licensee held a post Job critique and planned to implement several corrective

actions.

During implementation of an engineering change package on a core spray

instrument, problems were encountered when testing per the new surveillance

procedure. The licensee backed out of the test and corrected the procedure.

(AR 972731972731

During scheduled work on the 24 Vdc system, problems with a new procedure

occurred. The licensee backed out of the activity and corrected the procedure.

(AR 972808972808

During surveillance testing of the rod block monitors, certain steps of the

procedure did not address how to handle data that did not meet acceptance

criteria. The procedure was corrected.

c.

Conclusions

The inspectors concluded that problems in work planning and adequacy of procedures

were oroperly handled as they came up. However, these problems represented an

increase in the numt,er of work planning problems over that typically encountered and

resulted in safety related equipment being out-of service longer than necessary.

M2

Maintenance and Materiel Condition of Facilities and Equipment

M2.1

Plant Materiel Condition

a.

InJspection Scope (62707)

The inspectors reviewed several emergent work items to ensure appropriate operability

evaluations were performed, TS were met, repairs were made, and root causes were

determined where appropriate.

9

e

'

<

,

1,

.

b.

Observations and findinas

The inspectors noted that there were several emergent equipment issues during the

Inspection period, in two cases, the licensee entered a 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> shutdown LCO, but

repairs were completed before power was reduced. The inspectors observed appropriate

licensee response in performing repairs and to determine the root cause. The examples

are listed below:

-e

On December 3,1997, the "B" instrument air compressor (1K004) failed during

surveillance test NS30001, *lnstrument Air Compressors Monthly Functional

Test." The cause was an air Isak on a flHer, The licensee entered a 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />

shutdown LCO according to T8, The maintenance was completed and the LCO

was exited before power reduction was commencodi (AR 972763972763

e

On November 19,1997, the li ensee encountered problems with the 125 Vdc

battery charger following maintenance, Ses Section M1.3 (or detslis. The

licensee entered a 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> shutdown LCO according to TS. The LCO was exited

before power reduction was commenced. (AR 972655972655

e

On December 15,1997, the supply breaker for the Division i 125 Vdc battery -

charger opened unexpectedly during a preventive meintenance activity. The

breaker was declared inoperable and a new one was ordered. The Division I

loads were transferred to the altemate battery charger The inspectors vertfled

that the TS were met with the operable battery chargers.

(AR 972845972845-

e

On December 2,1997, an LCO was entered on the 'B' control building chiller

' when a large oil leak was discovered by a fire watch on rounds. This occurred

'

i day after the "A" chiller was ret'imed to service following a 21 day

Out of service. The "B' chiller was repaired promptly. (AR 972760972760

c.

Conclusions

The licensee promptly resolved the emergent equipment issues discussed above.

Engineering department personnel provided appropriate support where requested,

- Maintenance activities were property prioritized and completed in a timely manner. The

'

- control building chillers continue to be a challenge at Duane Amold.

M8

- Miscellaneous Maintenance issues (92902)

M8.1 (Closed) Unresolved item (URI) 50-301/96004 0t Instrument Used for TS Reading Not

in Calibration Program. As discussed in Inspection Report No. 50-331/96004, there were

no vendor recommendations for periodic calibration of spent fuel pool level instrument

Ll3413c This instrument was installed by a modification in 1990 without establishing

calibration requirements. The inspectors verified that instrument Ll3413 was not required

to be calibrated. Additionally, the inspectors verified that the instrument was indicating

property by comparing its reading to readings from redundant local instrumentetion. The

inspectors also reviewed other instrumentation used for TS surveillances and found no

- additional examples where the instruments were not periodically calibrated. This item is

closed.

!

10

-

_ , , , - - - - , - - - - - - - - - - - > -

'

.

'.

.

M8.2 (Closed) Licensee Ev3nt Report (LER) 50-331/97-12-00: Spurious RCIC Steam t.eak

Detection Isolation. The licensee determined the cause of the isolation to be a spurious

signal from temperature switch TDS 2445A. The switch was replaced and tested

satisfactorily. This item is closed.

111. Enoineerina

E1

Conduct of Engineering

a.

Inspection Scope (37551)

The inspectors evaluated cngineering involvement in resolution of emergent material

condition problems and other routine activities. The inspectors reviewed areas s' .:t as

operability evaluations, root cause analyses, safety committees, and self asst ssnients.

The effectiveness of the licensee's controls for the identification, resolution, and

prevention of problems were also examined.

E1.1

Testina on Control Buildina Chiller Without a Safety Evaluation

a.

Inspection Scope (37551)

The inspectors reviewed the details of a 100 percent load test on control bu'.' ding chillers

on November 19,1997. This review was conducted during the testing and included

documents such as TS, UFSAR, tagout, and CMAR.

b.

Observations and Findinas

l

The licensee intended to perform a 100 percent load test on the 'A" chiller. Due to low

natural heat load during winter conditions, the load needed to be artificially increased to

l

support this test. The licensee used tagout 971369 to fall open a control valve in the

heating loop to increase heat in the control building. The inspectors were concemed with

several aspects of the chiller testing:

,

l

e

The testing was not described in the UFSAR; however, the licensee did not

perform a safety evaluation.

There was no prncedure or acceptance criteria for the testing. The only controlin

place was a tagout on several valves in the control building heating loop.

The shift supervisor had established informal monitoring of the contrn! room

e

temperature. However, no specific plans were made on what to do if

temperatures went too high. Additionally, steps were not taken to monitor the

other areas affected by the test.

According to UFSAR Section 9.4.4.2, the control building ventilation system

e

serves the control room, cable spreading rocm, safety-related battery rooms, and

essential switchgear rooms. The inspectors were concemed that safety related

components in these rooms could have been adversely affected by the testing

unless a detailed review was performed prior to the test and formal controls were

in place during testing.

11

m

.

,

'

.

The licensee's testing was successfully performed with negligible increase in control

building temperatures, The inspectors recognized that the licensee made a change to

the notisafety-related heating loop for the building. The inspectors need to review this

issue further to determine whether the licensee was in violation of 10 CFR 50.5g or

10 CFR, Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XI. This is an unresolved item (URI)

(50 331/g7017-03(DRP)).

c.

Conclusiqat

The inspectors were concemed with the licensee's performance in planning and

implementing control building chiller 100 percent load testing. Specifically, the inspectors

were concemed that the licensee did not perform a safety evaluation prior to the test and

did not have adequate test controls in place during the test.

E8

Miscellaneous Engineering lasues (92902)

E8.1

(Closed) IFl 50-331/9600211: Discrepancy Between Updated Final Safety Analysis

Report (UFSAR) and Plant Configuration. The inspectors had Identified a long term

tagout on the fire protection system. This resulted in the system configuration not

matching the UFSAR. The licensee decided to incorporate the long-term tagout and

l

revised the drawing and UFSAR. This item is closed.

l

IV. Plant Suppod

R5

Staff Training and Qualification In Radiological Protection and Chemistry Controls

R5.1

Expired Resolrator Qualifications

a.

Inspection Scope

The inspectors reviewed qualification requirements and records to determine whether

licensed and non licensed operators had maintained qualifications consistent with the

licensee's program. This included a review of administrative control procedure

ACP 1411.20, " Respiratory Protection," Revision 5. The inspectors also reviewed the

accessibility of corrective lens inserts for respirators where required.

b.

Observations and Findinag

The inspectors identified that two licensed operating shift supervisors (OSS) and one shift

technical advisor (STA) had expired qualifications for radiological mask fit. Special

Order 97-01 required that members of certain job classifications, such as OSS and STA,

must be respirator and self-contained breatning apparatus qualified. ACP 1411.20,

Section 3.3(1)(b), required individuals to have been fit tested for respiratory protective

devices within the previous 12 months plus 30 days, in the case of the two OSS's and

the STA mentioned above, the mask fit was overdue by less than 1 nionth,2 months, arid

5 months, respectively. ACP 1411.20, Section 3.1(6)(a) required that respirator users

shall maintain current respirator qualifications. The failure to maintain current respirator

'

qualifications in accordance with ACP 1411.20 was a violation (50-331/g7017-04(DRP)).

12

)

k

, , ' .

.

.

The inspectors also noted discrepancies in the training records for several personnel from

other departments. The licensee initiated AR 972919972919to review the issue and determine

corrective actions,

c.

Conclusions

The inspectors were concemed that the licensee did not maintain control of personnel

respirator qualifications in accordance with program requirements.

F1

Control of Fire Protection Activities

a.

InsDection ScoDo (71750)

The inspectors accompanied a fire watch on routine rounds to evaluate adherence to the

licensee's fire plan,

b.

Qtti3Iygtlons and Findinal

The inspectors observed that the fire watch performed duties appropriately. The required

y

areas were toured in the required times and Iri accordance with the licensee's fire plan.

The inspectors had no concems.

As discussed in Section M2.1, a fire watch on rounds identified an oil leak on the control

building chiller. This was promptly communicated to the control room and enabled a

quick response to the problem.

V. Mananoment Meetinas

X1

Exit Meeting Summary

The inspectors presented the inspection results to members of licensee management at

j

the conclusion of the inspection on December 22,1997. The licensee acknowledged the

findings presented. The inspectors asked the licensee whether any materials examined

during the inspection should be considered proprietary. No proprietary information was

identified.

13

_

_ _ _ - _ _ _ ,

'

• .

,,

'.

,

PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED

Licensee

J. Franz, Vice President Nuclear

G. Van Middlesworth, Plant Manager

R. Anderson, Manager, Outage and Support

J. Bjorseth, Maintenance Superintendent

D. Curtland, Operations Manager

R. Hite, Manager, Radiation Protection

M. McDermot, Manager, Engineering

K. Peveler, Manager, Regulatory Performance

._

.

=

_

14

.

~

--

-

--

-

'

'

.

'

.

'

INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED

IP 37551:

Onsite Engineering

IP 40500:

Effectiveness of Licensee Controls in Identifying, Resolving, and Preventing

Problems

IP 61726:

Surveillance Observation-

lP 62703:

Maintenance observation

IP 62707:

Maintenance observation

IP 71707:

Plant Operations

IP 71750:

Plant Support

IP 71714:

Cold Weather Preparations

IP 92700:

Onsite Followup of Written Reports of Nonroutine Events at Power Reactor

)

Facilities

IP 92901:

Followup Operations

IP 92902:

Followup - Engineering

IP 92903:

Followup Maintenance

ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED

Opened

'

50 331/97017-01

NCV

Failure to follow EMA process

50-331/97017 02

IFl

125 Vdc battery charger failures

50-331/97017 03

URI

Testing of control building chiller without SE

50 331/97017 04

VIO

Failure to maintain current respirator qualifications

Closed

50 331/96002 11

IFl

Discrepancy between UFSAR and plant configuration

50-331/96004 01

URI

instrument used for TS reading not in calibration program

50-331/96004 10

IFl

Inconsistencies in spent fuel pool cooling mode

50 331/96006-04

IFl

Spent fuel pool rack criticality analysis

$0-331/9712 00

LER

Spurious RCIC steam leak detection isolation

15

_

,

s

'

,.

.

• .*

LIST OF ACRONYMS USED

-ACP'

Administrative Control Procedure

CFR

Code of Federal Regulations

CMAR

Corrective Maintenance Action Request

DAEC

Duane Amold Energy Center

EPAA

Engineered maintenance action

HPCI

High pressure coolant Injection

IFl

inspection followup item

IP

inspection Procedure

' Pol

Integrated Plant Operating Instruction

IR

inspection Report

LCO

Limiting condition for Operation

LER

Licensee Event Report

NCV

Non cited violation

NOV

Notice of violation

NRC

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NRR'

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations

01

Operating Instruction

OSS

Operations Ehlft Supervisor

RCIC

Reactor core isolation cooling

l

RHR SFPC

Residual heat removal-spent fuel pool cooling

l

STA

Shift technical advisor

l

STP

Surveillance Test Procedure

TS

Technical Specification

UFSAR

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report

URI

Unresolved item

Vac

Volts altomating current

Vdc

Volts direct current

16

. . -. . . . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

,