IR 05000373/1990010
| ML20043H788 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 06/18/1990 |
| From: | Hinds J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20043H784 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-373-90-10, 50-374-90-10, NUDOCS 9006260444 | |
| Download: ML20043H788 (11) | |
Text
,
"
.
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION 111 Report Nos. 50-373/90010(DRP);50-374/90010(DRP)
Docket Nos. 50-373; 50 374 License Nos. NPF-11; NPF-18 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At:
LaSalle Site, Marseilles, Illinois inspection Conducted: April 24 through June 2, 1990 Inspectors:
T. Tongue R. Kopriva R. Lanksbury D. Jones R. Pulsifer F. Brush C. Pederson L.I.. \\ E T Q
/
Approved B -
linds,3r lef AIN1B1m
.
Reactor Projects 'ection IB Jate
!
Mgection Sunnary ins 50:pection from April 24 through June 2.1990 (Report Nos. 50-373/90010(DRP);
373790DTUTDRF7).
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced safety inspection by.the resident inspectors of licensee action on previously identified items; licensee event reports; operational safety; maintenance; surveillance; refueling activities; training effectiveness; report review; events; evaluation of licensee self-assessment capabilities, THI Action Plan requirement followup, meetings and other activities.
Results: Of the eleven areas inspecteh no violations were identified.
During the report period, Unit 1 operated at or near full power with no trips.
Two feedwater transients were promptly noted and corrected by the reactor operator.
The cause of the transients are being investigated by the licensee, Unit 2 continued through its third refueling outage which appears to be going smoothly. Two events that occurred during the inspection are described in the report and were attributed to procedural inadequacies.
The inspectors have a concern with the onsite review process that should have identified these inconsistencies prior to their occurrence.
9006260444 900618 ADOCK0500g4{3 FDR
--
1(
.
.
.
.
.
DETAILS
'
1.
Persons Contacted
- G. J. Diederich, Manager, LaSalle Station.
.l
- W. R. Huntington, Technical Superintendent
'
- J. C. Renwick, Production Superintendent
-
D. S. Berkman, Assistant Superintendent, Work Planning J. V. Schmeltz, Assistant Superintendent, Operations t
J. Walkington, Services Director
,
- T. A. Hammerich, Regulatory Assurance Supervisor-
-.
f W. E. Sheldon, Assistant Superintendent, Maintenance
- W. Betourne, Quality Assurance Supervisor J. Roman, Resident Engineer, Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety
- Denotes those attending the exit interview conducted on June 1, 1990, and at other times.throughout the inspection period.
.
The inspectors also talked with and interviewed several other licensee
employees, including members of the technical and engineering staffs,
reactor and auxiliary operators, shift engineers and foremen, and
electrical, mechanical and instrument maintenance personnel, and contract security personnel..
2.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified items (92701)
'
10 CFR Part 21 Notification: Nut failures in Battery Seismic Support Structure, i
The licensee informed the resident inspector of a 10 CFR 21 notification i
that would be forthcoming from Gould National Battery with. respect to a
failures in the nuts used with.the assembly of the battery support
,
structures, lhe nuts were supplied through the battery supplier (Gould)
for use with "Unistrut" style structural channels.
The nuts are unique
.
in that they are equipped with holding grooves and attached springs-designed specifically for the channels.
Upon torquing, it was found
,
that several of the nuts exhibited. failure by cracking across the nut.
This was icentified during assembly of the Unit 2 250 volt battery a
supports.. A survey was conducted on the other batteries at LaSalle and
no other failures were noted.
This may be applicable to other battery supaliers.in that this type of structure is-used in numerous. applications
'
wit 11n the industry, f
i No violations or deviations were identified.
3.
Licensee Event Reports Followup (92700)
Through direct observations, discussions with licensee personnel and-
.
- review of records, the following event reports were reviewed to determine e
that reportability requirements were fulfilled, immediate corrective.
'
action was accomplished, and corrective action to prevent recurrence had
been accomplished in accordance with Technical Specifications, i
l
'
r.
.
.
.
'
.
-
.
F a.
The following reports of nonroutine events were reviewed by the
inspectors.
Based on this review it was determined that'the events were of minor safety significance, did not represent program
.
deficiencies, were. properly reported, and were properly compensated
for. These reports are closed:
'
373/89025 01 Loss of Bus 142Y Due to~ Closing Switchgear Door and
,
Jarring Relays i
373/90005-00 Tire Detection Zone Out of Service Greater than 14 Days Without Submitting Special Report Due to Poor Communications'
.
.
374/89018-00 Battery Low Temperatures Caused by failed Damper and
. Low Outside Air Temperatures t
374/90003 00 Isolation of Shutdown Cooling During Initial Shutdown
',
Cooling Startup Due to Spurious High Flow-Signal 374/90004-00 Local Leak Rate' Test Minimum Pathway Leakage of Greater than 0.6 La Limits
,.
in addition to the foregoing, the inspector reviewed the licensee's
'
Deviation Reports (DVRs) generated during the inspection period.
This was done in an effort to monitor the conditions related to plant or personnel performance, potential trends, etc.
DVRs were
'
also reviewed to ensure that they were generated appropriately and i
dispositioned in a manner consistent with the applicable procedures and the QA manual.
!
!
, -
No violations or deviations were identified in this area, i
Operational Safety Verification (71707)
,
During the inspection period, the inspectors verified daily, and randomly
'
during back shift and on weekends, that the facility was being operated in conformance with the licenses and regulatory requirements and that the i
licensee's management control system was effectively carrying out its i
responsibilities for safe operation.
This was done on a sampling basis-through routine direct observation of activities and equipment, tours of s
the facility, interviews and discussions with licensee personnel, independent verification of safety system status and-limiting conditions for operation action requirements (LCOs), corrective action, and review of facility records.
On a sampling basis the inspectors daily verified proper control room l
staffing and access, operator behavior, and coordination of plant
t activities with ongoing control room operations; verified operator i
adherence with the latest revisions of procedures for ongoing activities;-
verified operation as required by Technical Specifications (TS);
including compliance with LCOs, with emphasis on engineered safety,
.
features (ESF)andESFelectricalalignmentandvalvepositions; monitored instrumentation recorder traces and duplicate channels for abnormalities; verified status of various lit annunciators for operator-
1 r
.
.
understanding, off-normal condition,)and corrective actions being taken; l
examined nuclear instrumentation (HI and other protection channels for proper operability; reviewed radiation monitors and stack monitors for abnormal conditions; verified that onsite and offsite power was available
as required; observed the frequency of plant / control room visits by the
station manager, superintendents, assistant superintendents, and other i
managers; and observed the Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS) for operability.
During tours of accessible areas of the plant, the inspectors made note t
of general plant / equipment conditions, including control of activities in
progress (mointenance/ surveillance),observationofshiftturnovers, general-' safety items, etc.
The specific areas observed were:
a.
Engineered Safety Features (ESF) Systems Accessible portions of ESF systems and components were inspected to verify:
valve position for proper flow path; proper alignment of power supply breakers or fuses (if visible) for proper actuation on an initiating signal; proper removal of power from components if-
,
required by TS or FSAR; and the operability of support systems essential to system actuation or performance through observation of instrumentation and/or proper valve alignnent.
The inspectors also visually inspected components for leakage, proper lubrication,
-
cooling water supply, etc.
b.
Radiation Protection Controls The inspectors verified that workers were following health physics i
procedures for dosimetry, protective clothing, frisking, posting, etc., and randomly examined radiation protection instrumentation for l
use, operability, and calibration.
,
i During the inspection period, the inspectors noted that the station
integrated radiation exposures (man-rem) to workers was higher than that scheduled.
This was previously acknowledged by station management and was attributed to scheduling of work-during the Unit
.
>
2 refuel outage that was ongoing during this inspection. Station management expressed optimism in that the man-rem exposure should L
fall back within the planned exposures in the near future.
l c.
Security l
The inspectors, by sampling, verified that persons in the protected area (PA) displayed proper badges and had escorts if required; vital
'
areas were kept locked and alarmed, or guards posted if required;
,
and personnel and packages entering the pA received proper search and/or monitoring.
I e.
Housekeeping and Plant Clean 14ess
,
The inspectors monitored the status of housekeeping and plant cleanliness for fire protection, protection of safety-related equipment from intrusion of foreign matter and gerieral protection.
l
l
.
.
'
,
!
.
'
.
'
t
!
The inspectors also monitored various records, such as tagouts, jumpers,
!
shiftly logs and surveillances, daily orders, maintenance items, various
chemistry and radiological sampling and analysis, third party review
.l results, overtime records, QA and/or QC sudit results and postings i
required per 10 CFR 19.11.
!
No violations or deviations were identified in this ares.
5.
Monthly Maintenance _ Observation (62703)
j
..
Station maintenance. activities affecting the. safety-related systems and-
!
components listed below were observed / reviewed to ascertain that they
,
were conducted in accordance with approved procedures, regulatory guides l
and industry codes or standards.and in conformance with Technical
>
l_
Specifications.
.
The following items were considered durind-this review:
theLLimiting.
!
u Conditions for Operation were met while components or systens were
!
,
removed from service; approvals were obtained prior to initiating:the
"
l work; activities were accomplished using approved procedu'ces anii were
,
I-inspected as applicable; functional testing and/or calibrations were
~
performed prior to returning components or systems to tervice; qeality
control records were maintained; activities were acce.nplished by
,
qualified personnel; parts and materials used were properly certifled; 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 and reviewed:
'
Unit 1 IB Instrument Nitrogen Pump Overhaul
-
IB Reactor Yessel Narrow Range Level Indication failure, Response
-
and Recovery
,
,
'1-Unit 2 2A Reactor Building Closed Cooling Water (RBCCW) Pump Replacement
-
'
28 Reactor Recirculation. Pump Seal Replacement'
-
l
<:
The inspectors monitored the licensee's work in progress and verified l
that it was being performed in accordance with proper procedures, and approved work packages, that 10 CFR 50.59 and other applicable drawing updates were made and/or planned, and that operator training was conducted in a teasonable period of tine.
No violations or deviations were identified, l
,
V
$
.
,
-
-
-
--
.
i
.
a
,
j e
t 6.
Monthly Surveillance Observation (61726)
The inspectors observed surveillance testing required by Technical-
'
Specifications during the inspection period and verified that testing was performed in accordance with adequate procedures, that test ~
instrunentation was calibrated, that Limiting Conditions for Operation i
were met, that removal and restoration of the affected components were
'
accomplished, that'results conformed with Technical Specifications and
.
procedure requirements and were reviewed by personnel other than the
-
indiv. dual directing the test, and that any deficiencies identified i
,
during the testing were properly reviewed an( resolved by appropriate J
management personnel.
'
l i
The inspectors witnessed portions of the following test activities:
-!
a Unit 1
-}
LIS-MS-3050 Unit 1 Main Steam Tunnel Area Vent High Differential
!
-
Temperature Isolation Instrument Channels B & D-
Monthly functional Test
~
-!
Unit 2 LTS-100-4 Unit 2 Inboard Main Steam Isolation Valves Drain
-
Isolation Valves Local Leak Rate Test LOS-RD-SR3 Control Rod Timing
!
-
LTp-1600-30 Single Rod Sub-critical Check L
-
'
LIS-RD-202 Unit 2 Control Rod Scram Accumulator Instrument
-
Calibration
,
>
Lip-RR-606 Unit 2 Steam Dome / Recirculation System Low Delta T
-
Cavitation Interlock Refuel Calibration f
No violations cr deviations were identified.
!
7.
RefuelingActivitier.(60710)
$
The inspection objective was to ascertain whether pre-refueling s
activities specified in the Technical Specifications have been conaleted
'
and whether refueling activities are being controlled and conducted as required by Technical Specifications and approved procedures, i
,
The licensee commenced reloading fuel into the Unit 2 reactor at -
'
!_
approximately 2:00 p.m. (CDT) on May 12, 1990.
By 7:30 p.m. on May 16, i
1990, fuel loading and core verificatior were complete. During that timeL frame, the inspectors oowncd cr.d-reviewed portions of the following
l refueling activities:
!
I Observed that the equipment checkout had been satisfactorily
'
.
completed
.
>
'
t
,
,,
.-
.
'
,.
r
.
.
'
- j
,
'
i
.
>
Observed the satisfactory completion of fuel receipt and' inspection
!
.
Refueling bridge interlocks tested satisfactorily
.-
Core monitoring during the refueling operation was in accordance
.
with Technical Specifications
.!
Fuel accountability methods were in accordance with established
.
,
procedures
!
Vessel and spent fuel storage pool water levels were as required by
.
Technical Specifications
'
,
Correct revisions of applicable procedures were in-use j
.
Qualifications were reviewed for personnel operating the. refueling
-!
.
bridge crane
.!
The ir.spector made observations of licensed personnel in the control
.
room for fuel move accountability, communications and awareness of surporting systems needed for refueling
Gaod housekeeping and loose object control were being maintained in
.
the refueling and spent fuel areas.
.
The inspectors observation and review of the licensee's refueling -
l activities noted no anomalies. The inspectors were aware of several good i
practices <uch as communications and repeat backs, documenting of fuel movement and cou dination between the fuel handlers and the operation's r
department.
No violations or deviations were identified in this area.
i 8.
TrainingEffectiveness(41400,41701)
[
The effectiveness of training programs for licensed and non-licensed
'
personnel was reviewed by the inspectors during the witnessing of the t
licensee's performance of routine surveillance, maintenance, and
operational activities and during the review of the licensee.'s response to events which occurred during the inspection period, personnel l
dppeared to be knoW1edgeable of the tasks being perforced, and nothing
was observed which indicated any ineffectiveness of traming.
l
.
No violations or deviations were identified, 9.
ReportReview(90713and92701)
During the inspection period, the inspector reviewed' the licensee's
,
Monthly Performance Report for April 1990.
The inspector confirmed that the information provided met the requirements of Technical Specification i
6.6. A.5 and Regulatory Guide 1.16.
/
f F
i
,
.
_
.
'
,
.
!
The inspector also reviewed the following licensee reports:
LaSalle County Station Monthly Plant Status Report for. April 1990.
.
Weekly Pro-Active Management Reports
.
.
LaSalle Unit 1 Error Free Operations Monthly Committee Review Meeting
.
Minutes of April 12 and May 14, 1990 Annual Environmental Radiological Operating Report - 1989
.
LaSalle'Radwaste Error Free Operation's Committee Review Dated May 10,
.
,
1990
No violations or deviations were identified.
10.
Events (93702)
Unplanned Engineered Safety Feature Actuations i
a.
On May 2, during functional testing of the 2A Diesel Generator (D/G), the Division II bus was deenergized to simulate a loss of power. When the bus was re-energized by the D/0, the B train of the Emergency Makeup unit auto started.
This was caused by a loss of power to the process radiation monitors when the bus was deenergized, causing an auto start signal to be generated.
During a l
second test about two hours later, the event occurred again.
The
'
cause of these events was the plant responding as designed, however, the procedure used was inadequate in that it did not call out this
,
L as an expected actuation.
b.
On May 10, 1990, Unit 2 was defueled and the licensee was conducting associated surveillances.
While recovering from performing surveillance LTS-500-209, Division I Response Time Test, the Reactor Water Cleanup (RWCU) outboard isolation valve went shut when its associated electrical breaker to the motor operator was closed.
,
l This also caused the RWCU pump to trip.
The licensee reported the occurrence to the NRC in accordance with 10 CFR 50.72 (b)(2)(ii) and to the senior resident inspector. Their report stated that the procedure was deficient in that it did not t
l Call out resetting the Primary Containment Isolation System (PCIS)
signal that was present from the test and when the valve motor operator breaker was reclosed, thus, it functioned as designed and the valve went shut.
,
Knowing that this procedure had been carried out on at least several other occasions, the inspector questioned why it had not happened previously.
Review of the procedure revealed that the procedure had
+
undergone a major rewriting and reimplementing in February 1990 and this step was one of the modified areas.
r
.
__
.
e
.
,
The previous procedure revision was unclear in this area and left preventing unplanned isolations and pump trips to the test engineer without specific steps for guidance. The new procedure revision omitted removing the PCIS isolation signal and the affected valve was on a separate power supply from the other isolation signal relays.
This occurrence appears to be the first of this type and the attempt to clarify procedures is connendable. However, this does raise questions with the onsite review as this.is supposed to be the screening process to prevent this type of event.
During the previous inspections by resident insp(DRp). concern wasectors, referen Inspection Report No. 373/90003(DRP);374/90003 expressed about unplanned actuations of the primary Containment Isolation-System (DCIS). These unplanned PCIS actuations were apparently due to testing systems with procedures that had not been upgraded to reflect recently installed modifications. The two events described during this-report period appear to be a reflection on the onsite review process.
Normally, the process is structured such that inconsistencies should be identified prior to implementation of the procedure and without entirely depending on the procedure author to. identify problems. This matter will be considered during the review of the licensee event reports associated with those occurrences.
No violations or deviations were identified in this area.
11.
Evaluation of Licensee Self-Assessment Capability (40500)
The objective of the inspection was to evaluate the effectiveness of-the licensee's self-assessment programs.
The inspection focused on determining whether the licensee's self-assessment programs contribute to the prevention of problems by monitoring and evaluating plant-performance, providing assessments and findings, communicating and following up on corrective action reconnendations.
On Hiy 31, 1990, the licensee held their Unit 2 Onsite Error Free Review Heeting in preparation of the upcoming Unit 2 startup.
Licensee attendance included personnel from site management, representatives.from.
the dif ferent departments, and personnel' from the licensee's corporate office. The outage activities were discussed by the responsible in41viduals including work accomplished, outstanding work,needed to be -
ccmpleted, and status of the documentation governing the various work (fforts.
On May 5,1990, the inspector " tended one of several onsite review committee meetings pertaining.o the Unit 2 refueling activities.
The subjects discussed were found to be appropriate and were related to equipment matters necessary to the refueling of the reactor.
During the meetings, the inspectors had the opportunity to observe the interactions of the various site organizations and supervisors.
It was noted also that management controlled the meeting and that there existed open and constructive discussions on the differing topics.
The-attendees were from varying disciplines throughout the licensee's organization which ensured that a mixture of experience was available for self assessment and for making the review meeting beneficial.
'
l
F
'
.
.
.
No violations or deviations were identified in this area.'
12. Meetings and Other Activities (30702)
Management Meeting - LaSalle Radioactive Waste Tank Rooms On May 30, 1990, the senior resident inspector attended a management meeting in Region III between the licensee and the Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards (DRSS). The purpose of the meeting was for the licensee to present a status on a number of radioactive waste tanks and their respective rooms at LaSalle. During a recent ALARA team inspection, at LaSalle, it was found that several of=these rooms had radioactive sludge residue on the floors and additionally, two.of the tanks exhibited a degradation of their supports and were no longer plumb which resulted from the supports being exposed to harsh chemicals from. tank overflows early in the plant life.
The licensee provided a presentation discussing their assessment;of the radiological hazards, the affect on operations, options for cleanup, and controls in the future.
Illinois Department of Nut. lear Safety (IDNS) Meeting Onsite On May 14, 1990, the senior resident inspector attended a meeting onsite between the licensee and IDNS. The purpose of the meeting was for a routine update on the status of the upcoming installation of the IDNS Radioactive Gaseous Emission Monitoring System (RAGEMS) facility. The
!
reeting was an exchange of information and it appears that the facility
'
will be complete and operational in the latter part of-1990.
Management / Plant Status Meeting
.
A meeting was held on May 4 1990 onsite between the station manager, and members of the station staff with Mr. Wayne Shafer, Chief, Division of l
Reactor projects Branch I and the departing and newly assigned Senior Resident Inspectors.
!
L The meeting was used as a platform for presenting an overview of the
,--
plant status, its recent history and to discuss several significant.
'
issues. Mr. Shafer also presented an update on recent NRC activities.
'
The occasion was also used as an opportunity for the NRC p rsonnel to-tour the plant.
No violations or deviations were identified.
p 13. TH! Action Plan Requirement followup (25565)
a.
(Closed) THI Item 11.0.3.1 (Units 1 and 2): This item required the
-
licensee to perform a design and operational review of the reactor coolant and containment atmosphere sampling line systems to
-;
determine the capability of personnel to promptly obtain a sample
'
under accident conditions.
,
.
-
.
.
. _.
e
,J'
,
"
'
,
The-licensee installed a high radiation sampling system (HRSS) to
!
fulfill the requirenent of TMI Item II.B.3.1.
The HRSS provides
the capability to obtain samples from either Unit 1 or Unit 2 under
'
degraded core accident conditions without excessive exposure. The i
system was installed in the auxiliary building and consists of a-
!
-
liquid sampling subsystem and an air sampling subsystem.
,
i NUREG-0519. " Safety Evaluation Report related to the operation of I
LaSalle County Station Units 1 and 2", dated March 1981, docunented I
the acceptability the oost accident sampling and analysis system in g
meeting IMI Items II.B.3 requirenents given in NUREG 0737.. Based a
'
on the inspectors review of the Safety Evaluation: Report and the
't
'
licensee's Updated final Safety Analysis Report, Rev. O, dated April 1984. TMI' Action item 11.B.5.1 (Units 1 and 2) is closed.
,
b.
(Closed)TMIItem'lli.D.3.4.3(Units 1and2):
This item required
)
the licensee to review the control room habitability systems -
guidance of the standard review plan end regulatory guides 1.78
,
and 1.95, to assure that operators in the control room will be'
adequately protected against exposure.to unacceptable levels of-
- radiation during and after a design basis accident and to L unacceptable levels of hazardous chemicals released on or in the vicinity of the site.
As a result of the licensee's review, the licensee concluded that no-design modifications were necessary..NUREG-0519'.." Safety Evaluation-Report related to the operation of-LaSalle County Station, Units 1 6nd 2", dated March 1981, documented NRR's review and agreement with the licensee's conclusion.
Based on the inspectors review of the Safety Evaluation Report, and the licensee's Updated Final-Safety Analysis Report, Rev. O, dated April 1984, TMI Item 111.D.3.4.3 (Units 1 and 2) is closed.
'
,ExitInterview(30703)
The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1)-
during the inspection period and at the conclusion;of-the inspection period on June 1, 1990. The inspectors sununarized the scope and results q
of the inspection and discussed the likely content of this inspection 2-report.
The licensee acknowladged the-P.iormation-and did i at indicate that any of the information disckted during:the inspection could be considered proprietary in nature.
l i
11-4-
-