IR 05000282/1982016
| ML20027D016 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Prairie Island  |
| Issue date: | 10/12/1982 |
| From: | Dubry N, Reyes L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20027D006 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-282-82-16, 50-306-82-16, NUDOCS 8210280171 | |
| Download: ML20027D016 (6) | |
Text
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Report No:
50-282/82-16; 50-306/82-16(DPRP)
Docket No:
50-282;50-306 License No:
DPR-42; DPR-60 Licensee: Northern States Power Company 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55401 Facility Name: Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Inspection At: Prairie Island Site, Red Wing, MN 55066 Inspection Conducted:
September 1-17, 1982 Inspector:
f-I. E. DuBry k
MN N
Approved By:
.
eyes, lef Reactor P jects Section 2B
/8
.1 FA
<
<
Inspection Summary Inspection on September 1-17, 1982, (Report No. 50-282/82-16; 50-306/82-16(DPRP)
Areas Inspected: Routine onsite regular and offshift inspection conducted by one resident inspector. Areas inspected included: Organization and Administration; Regional Request; Operational Safety Verification; Surveil-ance Observations; Maintenance Observations; Plant Trips; and an Operating Event.
The inspection included a total of 73 inspectcr hours onsite in-cluding 8 inspector hours onsite during off-shift hours.
Results: Of the seven areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or devia-tions were identified in six areas. One item of noncompliance was identified in one area (Operators found smoking and lack of posting in a safety related equipment area, - Paragraph 5).
8210280171 821013
~~
PDR ADOCK 05000282 O
.
DETAILS 1.
Personnel Contacted
- E. Watzl, Plant Manager
- A.
Hunstad, Staff Engineer
- R. Lindsey, Plant Superintendent, Operations and Maintenance G. Miller, Superintendent, Operations Engineering
- D. Mendele, Plant Superintendent, Engineering and Radiation Protection D. Schuelke, Superintendent Radiation Protection M. Klee, Superintendent, Nuclear Engineering A. Smith, Senior Scheduling Engineering K. Albrecht, Superintendent, Quality Engineering
- Denotes those present at exit interview.
The inspector also contacted a number of licensee contract employees and informally interviewed operations, technical, and maintenance personnel during the inspection period.
2.
Organization and Administration The inspector noted changes in the licensee's plant management, effec-tive September 1, 1982. This included the promotion of Mr. R. L. Lind-sey to the position of Plant Superintendent, Operations and Maintenance; and Mr. M. J. Balk to the position of Superintendent of Operations.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's onsite organization and confirmed that it is as described in Technical Specifications.
3.
Regional Requests The resident inspector was requested by Region III to determine what plans, if any, were being made by the licensee for the expansion of Low Level Waste Storage onsite. The licensee has recently (Spring 1982) completed the expansion and hardening of their onsite radwaste storage facilities to accommodate approximately 4 years of site gen-erated waste.
This new facility also has the capability of being modified to handle some hot cell storage and preliminary contingency plans have been con-sidered for further expansion of the storage area if necessary.
4.
Operational Safety Verification a.
General Observation Both units operated.outinely at power during the inspection per-iod.
However each unit experienced a reactor trip. Unit 1 and 2 tripped on September 5 and 12, 1982, respectively.
(Refer Paragraph 7)
-2-
.
b.
Control Room Observations
The inspector observed control room operations reviewed applicable logs and conducted discussions with control room operators, and ob-
,
served shift turnovers during the inspection period. The inspector
!
verfified the operability of selected emergency systems, reviewed equipment control records, and verified proper return to service of affected components, c.
Tours Tours of the auxiliary, radwaste, turbine, screenhouse buildings, and external areas were conducted to observe plant equipment con-ditions including potential fire hazards, fluid leaks and excessive
<
vibrations.
The inspector observed that equipment in 'need of main-tenance had work requests issued for timely repair. The inspector toured the security building and noted that the physical security plan was effective and that contingency plans were being implemented as needed.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Surveillance Observation
.
The inspector witnessed portions of surveillance testing of safety re-lated systems and components. The inspection ir.cluded verifying that the tests were scheduled and performed within Technical Specification requirements, observing that procedures were being followed by quali-fled operators, that LCO's were not violated, that system and equipment restoration was completed, and that test results were acceptable to test and Technical Specification requirements.
!
The inspector witnessed / reviewed portions of the following activities:
a.
"122 Diesel Fire Pump Weekly Test" Diesel failed to start on "A" train battery. The pump successfully started on the "B" train battery.
The "A" train battery was replaced and the pump tested satisfactorily on September 17, 1982.
b.
"12 Diesel Cooling Water Pump Test"**
Test was completed satisfactorily. This test was being done while the 22 Diesel Cooling Water Pump was out of service for maintenance.
c.
SP-1089 RHR Surveillance Test Test was completed satisfactorily.
d.
SP-2090 Contaminated Spray Pump and Spray Addition Valve Test j
i Test was completed satisfactorily.
-3-
.
...
_.. - - _ _ _ __
.
.
.
..
. ~..
.
.
.
.
..
-
- During the observation of the 12 Diesel Cooling dater Pump Test the inspector went to the local control station and found two operators smoking cigarettes. The inspector noted that the space was designated i
a vital area, the access doors were -labeled " Fire Doors", but "No Smok-ing" signs were not posted.
Plant " Fire Preventive Practices" (5 ACD 3.13) states in part that fire related signs are to be posted and smok-ing is not permitted in areas containing safety related equipment, ex-cept the Control Room.
In addition, there was active maintenance being performed in the adjoining Diesel Cooling Water Pump room. The above is an item of noncompliance.
(282/82-16-01)
_
,
_
_
No other items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Maintenance Observation Station maintenance activities of safety related systems and components listed below were observed / reviewed to ascertain that they were conduct-ed 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 systens were re-moved 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 qua-lified 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.
Following completion of maintenance on the 22 Diesel Cooling Water Pump, the inspector verified that the system had been returned to service properly.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Plant Trips During this inspection period the licensee experienced two plant trips, one on each unit.
At 1139 A.M.
(CDT), September 5, 1982, the Unit I reactor tripped from 1007. power due to a Lo-Lo Steam Generator level signal when an instru-ment air line soldar joint to a junction box separated causing a feed-water regulation valve to close.
Discussions with licensee personnel and review of the trip report concerning plant parameters, system re-sponses, and reactor coolant chemistry was done by the inspector. This trip promulgated a Reportable Occurrence when the Dose Equivalent Iodine-4-
- - -
-
._
-
.
..
. -.
.
-
---
-
.
-
-
'
..
specification limit (T.S. 3.1.D.I.a) for the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) was exceeded for about eight hours on September 6,1982. The licensee had maintained close scrutiny of. plant conditions following this trip because of past RCS history; there was no release during this event. The inspector reviewed the licensee's Event Identifica-tion / Investigation Report of this matter and the intended corrective actions to be taken by the licensee concerning RCS activity. The lic-ensee will be submitting LER 282/RO-82-16-03/L-0 within 30 days of the event. Concerning the reactor trip, the inspector reviewed corrective actions and repairs taken. The plant was returned to operation Septem-ber 5, 1982 At 1553 CDT, September 12,1982, Unit 2 tripped from 100% power when a lightning strike near the distribution yard caused the Unit 2 gener-ator output breakers to open. This resulted in a turbine trip - reactor trip. The inspector reviewed the trip report and discussed the event with licensee personnel to ascertain that reactor and safety systems responded as required. Appropriate actions were taken by the licensee and the reactor was taken critical, paralleled to the grid, and return-ed to 100% power on September 13, 1982.
.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Operating Event-An incorrect system restoration following mainter.ance resulted in an unplanned gaseous release.
a.
Sequence of Event A portion of the Volume Control Tank (VCT) system had been taken out of service to repair VCT inlet and outlet valves (CV-31201 and CV-31200). On September 3, 1982, when returning the system to ser-vice following the repair, the VCT vent valve (VC-15-27) was opened out of sequence, which allowed venting of VCT gasses to the Auxil-inry Building.
The operators doing the system restoration recog-nized and corrected their valving error immediately, however activ-
'
ity levels caused the auxiliary building to be evacuated and the special filtered ventilation system to be used to control the re-Icase. Minor contamination occurred on 15 people. They were de-contaminated and released, b.
Investigation and Conclusion The inspector was onsite during the event and observed the initial corrective action taken by the licensee and noted that an ENS notification was made by the licensee.
i The inspector subsequently interviewed health physics; operators, including those involved in the valving error; supervisory; and invest igative personnel; and reviewed the Work Request / Work Request Authorization, WR/WRA preparation procedure (5 ACD 3.2), and re-Icase data.
-5-
-.
_
. -.
-
-.
- - -
-
.
. - -
- - -
-. -
_..
~
..
.
The release totalled 12.5 Curies of noble gas over the five hour period from about 1000 A.M. (CDT) on September 3, 1982 The re-lease rate was approximately 3% of Technical Specification limits.
The Work Request / Work Request Authorization for this maintenance job was reviewed and the inspector found that a two step insert, F1 and F2, had been added between the completion of work and re-moval of the isolation tags steps. The inserted steps were well i
delineated and legible on the WRA and the procedure developing
the WR/WRA had been followed correctly.
The cause of the valving error and release appears to have been a
-
lapse by the operator and failure to follow the sequential steps for system restoration defined in the WRA. This appears to'have
been an isolated incident and did not impact on the health and i
safety of the public.
The licensee's planned actions to prevent future occurences of this type is to revise the WR/WRA preparation procedure requiring that if inserts or additions are made to Work Requests, that they be written in a sequential step format. The event will also be reviewed during the upcoming licensed and non-licensed training periods.
-
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
-.
9.
Exit interviews The inspector conducted interim interviews during the inspection period and met with Mr. Watz1 and other members of your staff, as identified in Paragraph 1, at the conclusion of the inspection.
t The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection activ-i ities.
No areas of concern were identified in six areas.
The cause of the unplanned release and the licensee intended corrective actions were discussed.
(paragraph 8)
Personnel found smoking in a designated vital area containing safety related equipment was addressed. The licensee acknowledged receipt of the item of noncompliance for a procedural vio-lation of posting and combustible material control in a safety related area.
(Paragraph 5).
-6-
'
I
- - -.
- =.
.. - -..,
.
-
-. - -,, - -... - - -,