IR 05000373/1996006

Insp Repts 50-373/96-06 & 50-374/96-06 on 960525-0622. Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Plant Operations, Maint,Engineering & Plant Support

ML20134C700
Person / Time
Site:	LaSalle
Issue date:	09/17/1996
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20134C693	List: IR 05000373/1996006 ML20134C689 ML20134C697
References
50-373-96-06, 50-373-96-6, 50-374-96-06, 50-374-96-6, NUDOCS 9609270367
Download: ML20134C700 (18)

Text

._ _ _

.

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,

REGION lli l

l l Docket Nos: 50-373, 50-374 l License Nos: NPF-11, NPF-18 Report Nos: 50-373/96006,50-374/96006 Licensee: Comed

Facility

LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 Location: 2601 N. 21st Road Marseilles, IL 61341 Dates: May 25 - June 22, 1996 Inspectors: P. Brochman, Senior Resident Inspector K. Ihnen, Resident Inspector H. Simons, Resident Inspector A. Walker, Lead Engineering Inspector T. Ploski, Senior Emergency Preparedness Analyst R. Jickling, Emergency Preparedness Analyst S. Orth, Radiation Protection Specialist A. McQueen, Emergency Preparedness Analyst, Region IV W. Maier, Emergency Preparedness Specialist, NRR N. Stinson, Emergency Preparedness Specialist, NRR J. Roman, Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety Approved by: Bruce L. Jorgensen, Acting Chief, Projects Branch 5 Division of Reactor Projects

9609270367 960917 PDR ADOCK 05000373 G ppg n

-

- -

.

.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY l LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 NRC Inspection Report 50-373/96006(DRP); 50-374/96006(DRP)

This integrated inspection report included aspects of licensee operations, maintenance, engineering and plant support. The report covers a four week period by the resident inspectors plus several announced inspections by regional specialist inspectors, including an inspection of the biennial ,

emergency preparedness (EP) exercise by regional EP analysts supported by NRR EP specialists and an RP inspecto .

Plant Operations

.

Inspectors identified that the Unit I and 2 drywell post-accident H,/0, (hydrogen / oxygen) monitors were not being operated consistent with the ,

methods described in the updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR),

and the changed mode of operation had not been analyzed as required by 10 CFR 50.59. This was a violation. (01.2) '

. A control rod mispositioning event occurred on May 28, 1996, due to a personnel error. (04.1)

. On June 17, 1996, the number of operating shift crews was reduced from six to five, and shift length was changed to 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> for management personnel. Shift length remained at 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> for union personne (06)

Maintenance i

.

Trouble-shooting failed to find the cause of amperage and voltage oscillations on the Unit 1 Division 1 125 volt DC system. This was classified as an Inspection Follow-up Item. (MI.1)

. General Electric (GE) RMS-9 overcurrent trip devices on four 480 Volt GE breakers were not functioning properly, causing the circuit breakers to trip prematurely. This was classified as an Inspection Follow-up Ite (M2.1)

. The licensee performed a thorough audit on LaSalle's readiness to implement 10 CFR 50.65, the " maintenance rule". (M7)

Enoineerina

.

A licensee-initiated review revealed several instances of differences between facility operations and the UFSAR. NRC Inspection Follow-up Items were initiated on these finding (E2.1)

,

_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ - - . .... - . - - -

.

.

Plant Support

.

Performance during the 1996 Emergency Preparedness exercise was goo Emergency classifications, offsite notifications and offsite protective

,

action recommendations were correct and timely. Transfers of command and control of event response were orderly and timely. Many exercise i participants were pre-staged in meeting rooms, so that the timeliness of ;

their arrivals at assigned response facilities was unrealisti The

'

decision to evacuate non-essential personnel from the site was untimel Some responders assigned to the Operational Support Center failed to demonstrate adequate concern for simulated, abnormal inplant radiological conditions. Several controllers of inplant teams provided information to a few teams in a improper manner. (P4)

. On June 15, 1995, a failure of the chemical waste (WZ) evaporator resulted in a spread of contaminated water and sludge to the evaporator room and surrounding hallway . On March 24, 1996, failure to perform a required hourly fire watch was evaluated and classified as a non-cited violation. (F8)

. Inspectors found an inadequate boundary to a contaminated area in the reactor building which was promptly corrected by Radiation Protection personne (RI)

.

High pressure washer hoses extended under the reactor building truck-bay doors and were not removed when not in use, a poor radiological work practice. (RI)

f r

!

l

,

. . . _ . _ - . - - _ _

.

Report Details Summary of Plant Status i

'

Unit 1 operated the entire inspection period at power levels up to 100 percen . Unit 2 operated the entire inspection period at power levels up to 100 l percen Operations 01 Conduct of Operations 01.1 General Comments (71707)

The inspectors conducted frequent reviews of ongoing plant operation The inspectors also followed up on several plant event .2 Poor Safety Focus in Operation of the Drvwell H_,IQ, Monitors

'

a. Inspection Scone (71707)

'

The inspectors conducted routine observations of the main control room activities and identified that the Unit I and 2 drywell post-accident H,/0, (hydrogen / oxygen) monitors were being operated in continuous mod This was not consistent with the methods described in the updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR). Follow-up inspection activities were i performed to assess the issu b. Observations and Findinas On June 13, 1996, the inspectors noted that the drywell post-accident H,/0, monitors in both units were being run continuously. The inspectors discussed this with a reactor operator (RO) and unit supervisor (SRO), and were informed that the H,/0, monitors were being run continuously to monitor the oxygen levels in the suppression poo This action was directed by the operating department daily orders, rather than a normal operating procedure. The existing system operating procedure (LOP-CM-02, "Startup, Operation and Shutdown of the Post LOCA Primary Containment Atmosphere Hydrogen and Oxygen Monitoring System,"

Revision 14) covered operating in a post-accident condition or for periodic surveillances, as this is a standby system and normally not operating. The inspectors determined that the H,/0, monitors had been run in this manner for more than a year. The R0 stated he had raised questions to operations management several times on whether the lens color of the monitor's containment isolation valves should be changed from open-red to open-green [ red being the abnormal position and green being the normal position], but had not received a respons j- .

i

i a

The inspector interviewed the cognizant system engineer who stated that

the station had a long-standing problem with unexpected changes in suppression pool 0, concentrations. When the monitoring system was run

weekly, to perform Technical Specification (TS) surveillance 4.6.6.2, l the suppression chamber 0 concentration would occasionally be found i above the 4% TS limit. TInis would place the unit in a 24-hour shutdown

' statement to re-inert the suppression pool. The engineer also stated

-

that the H,/0, monitors were run continuously during a special test i procedure which was used early in 1996 to validate engineering's proposed solution to the problem, which will be to install new

! additional monitors to run continuously and perform the TS monitoring l function. The existing monitors will only perform a post-accident j monitoring function. These modifications were scheduled to be. completed i at the next Unit I refueling outage (spring 1998). The engineer also i stated that the special test procedure had been closed out and was not .

being used to run the monitors continuously, but that operations 4 management had chosen to run the monitors continuously and directed this <

j in the daily orders to the operating crew I

! UFSAR Section 7.5.2.2.2.1, "Drywell Hydrogen and Oxygen Monitoring i Subsystem," subsection Operational Considerations, Revision 5, stated, i in part, "During normal operation, the system is maintained in a standby i mode." Title 10 to the Code of federal Regulations, Part 50.59(b)(1)

! requires, in part, that licensees maintain records of changes in the facility "to the extent that these changes constitute changes in the facility as described in the safety analysis report." These records must include a written safety evaluation which provides the bases that the change does not involve an unreviewed safety question. The failure to perform a safety evaluation on the method of operation of a system which was different than described in the UFSAR is a violation of 10 CFR 1 50.59(b)(1) (VIO 373;374/96006-01(DRP))

c. Conclusion There was little potential safety consequence with the continuous operation of the H,/0, monitors. This event was of concern because operations department management directed long-term operation of a safety-related system, in a manner outside plant procedures and contrary to the UFSAR, without performing a safety evaluatio Operational Status of Facilities and Equipment 02.1 Enaineered Safety Feature System Walkdowns (71707)

The inspectors used NRC Inspection Procedure 71707 and IDNS risk-based worksheets to walk down accessible portions of the Class IE battery syste The walkdowns included the battery rooms, the charger areas, and the divisional switchgear rooms. In the control room; the inspectors used logs, annunciators, and component status lights to verify the proper alignment of the systems and associated components. In the reactor and

._ _ .. - -. _

_- ._ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ .

.. .

.

.

E s

I auxiliary buildings, several tours were made, including walkdown of accessible portions of safety systems and verification that selected

'

electrical components were in the correct position. No significant

! safety concerns were noted.

l 04 Operator Knowledge and Performance '

04.1 Control Rod Misoositioned Due to Personnel Error (71707)

{ The inspectors-reviewed the circumstances surrounding the control rod i mispositioning event that occurred on May 28, 1996. This event resulted

,

from a personnel error. The rod was supposed to have been withdrawn

- from position 6 to position 12. A Qualified Nuclear Engineer (QNE) and

,

an operator were at the control room panel. The operator told the QNE i that he would use " continuous rod withdrawal" to withdraw the rod;

however, he inadvertently pushed the " continuous insert" push button and i the rod inserted one notch. The QNE immediately recognized the error i and all rod movements were stopped. The operator was removed from rod

pulls for the remainder of the shift. The rest of the crew was briefed

on the importance of self-check and peer-check. When rod pulls were

! resumed, they proceeded without incident. There was minimal safety i significance associated with this specific event, but it was an example

! of a failure to self-chec Operations Organization and Administration (71707)

! On June 17, 1996, Comed reduced the number of operating shift crews from

six to five. Shift length for management personnel (senior reactor i operators) was changed to 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> (6 a.m. to 6 p.m. to 6 a.m.). Shift

! length for union personnel (reactor operators and auxiliary operators)

! remained at the current 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />. The title of the shift supervisor 1 position was changed from " shift engineer" to " shift manager" to more accurately reflect the roles and responsibilities expected by operations

,! department management. The sixth shift engineer was assigned to a

leadership position in the licensee's new "fix it now" program, whose objective is to work on non-complex maintenance tasks without all of the administrative burdens imposed by the normal maintenance planning and i preparation process. The inspectors reviewed these changes against l Technical Specifications and the UFSAR and determined that the licensee j remained in compliance with established requirement I Maintenance M1 Conduct of Maintenance M1.1 Unit 1 Division 1 125 volt DC a. Inspection Scone (62703)

.

Beginning on June 3,1996, Unit I began experiencing problems with the

division 1,125 volt DC system. Battery charger discharge high alarms were received and charger amps and voltage were observed to be

i i

!

-

.

. .

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ __

'

l

'

!.

,

oscillating. The inspector followed the licensee's investigation into

, the cause of the problem. This included observations of troubleshooting l activities and numerous interviews of the System Enginee ,

a l b. Observations and Findinas I

l The System Engineer was cognizant of the problem and was pursuing a i resolution. The System Engineer contacted experts on battery chargers

'

i i at the station, knowledgeable personnel at the Comed corporate office, l and personnel at the vendor. All of the personnel contacted believed

, the charger was functioning as designed and the problem was due to a large load on the system cycling on and off. The System Engineer

determined the Unit 1, division 1,125 volt DC system was operable due

. to the charger functioning properly and the batteries being sufficiently

charged. The System Engineer believed the problem was caused by a fire l protection inverter which was fed from the battery system. The inverter  ;

! was removed from o i ce and minor problems were found. While the i- inverter was out vi ervice, the problem with the 125 volt DC system ,

'

'

returned, eliminating it as the sole cause of the problem. Chart recorders were set up to monitor various loads on the charger to find

the load which was causing the problem. After the recorder was j installed, the oscillations did not recur. The System Engineer believed i there was still a problem with one of two remaining fire protection '

i inverters which are powered by the battery. Preventive maintenance was l in progress on these inverters to correct the proble l 4 ,

c. [onclusion i The cause of the current and voltage oscillations was not positively >

l determined. The inspectors consider this an Inspection Follow-up Item j (IFI 373/96006-02(DRP)) pending review of the licensee's root cause ,

determinatio ~

j

! M1.2 1A and IB Diesel Generator Monthly Surveillance (61726)

!

l On June 5 and June.12, 1996, respectively, an inspector observed LOS-DG-l M3, Revision 31, "1B. Diesel Generator Operability Test," and LOS-DG-M2,

Revision 33, "lA Diesel Generator Operability Test." The inspector i walked down the diesel generators during the testing. Both diesel

! generators ran satisfactorily with no abnormal vibrations or leaks. In

both instances the non-licensed operators performing the surveillances ,

! followed the procedure and observed the diesel generator for potential j problems. All procedural and acceptance requirements were met.

'

M2 Maintenance and Material Condition of Facilities and Equipment

! M2.1 Premature Instantaneous Trio of GE 480 Volt Breakers (62703)

!

The inspector reviewed and followed licensee action on a circuit breaker i problem. On May 29, 1996, the licensee found during preventive i maintenance testing that the GE RMS-9 overcurrent trip devices

, on four 480 Volt GE breakers were not functioning properly. The

[:

i l

!

. - ,_ - _ - - _ _ __ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ . - . _ _ . . . _ - - - . _ .

- .

. __ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ __ ____ _ . - _ _ _ _

.

.

instantaneous trip function was tripping the circuit breaker prematurely. The failed breakers were used in the Control Room HVAC system and the Auxiliary Electrical Equipment Room HVAC system. The licensee promptly replaced these breakers with operable breaker '

The licensee conducted some tests on the circuit boards of two failed RMS-9 units and determined that a thin film of an unknown material on

'

the circuit board, around the sliding contacts, was causing the l

failures. The licensee sent two failed RMS-9 units to the manufacturer (GE) for further evaluation. GE informed the licensee that they found a polymer film on the circuit board, but did not determine its source or composition. GE informed the licensee that a potential reportable condition exists, and that the final determination and Part 21 Notification, if required, must be made by August 12, 1996. . The {

licensee had not yet received a final report from GE. Following receipt ;

of the final report, a regional specialist inspector will review the report and the licensee's actions with respect to the report. This issue will be tracked as an Inspection Follow-up Ites l (IFI 373;374/96006-03(DRS)).

.

! M7 Quality Assurance in Maintenance Activities a. Insnection Scone (40500)

The inspector reviewed and evaluated Site Quality Verification (SQV) :

Audit 01-96-04, dated June 5, 1996, concerning LaSa11e's readiness to implement the maintenance rule (10 CFR 50.65).

b. Observations and Find'.nas The audit appeared to be quite thorough and identified several l deficiencies and potential weaknesses. The audit concluded that while l the engineering department had a good understanding of its role in implementing the maintenance rule, other organizations did not. The i station's overall procedure to implement the rule was issued in mid- :

June,1996, but departmental procedures were yet to be written. Also,

!

while initial, informal training had been provided to station personnel, l the training department had yet to develop any formalized training on

the rul The audit did conclude that maintenance rule structures, systems, and components were acceptably classified and categorized in accordance with .

the guidance of NUMARC 93-01 and the regulations of 10 CFR 50.65. The !

temporary procedure used to perform the initial system classifications l

was acceptable and risk significance ranks were used. However, SQV was coccerned that the most up-to-date risk (IPE) numbers were not used.

!

l

!

l

._

.

.

c. Conclusion The audit was thorough and identified several areas of weakness. The NRC will conduct its own inspections of the licensee's implementation of the maintenance rule in the near futur N8 Miscellaneous Maintenance Issues (Closed) LER (373/95001): Residual Heat Removal (RHR) system inoperable due to shut instrument isolation valve. The inspectors reviewed this LER in Inspection Report 373/95004 and concluded that the LER was technically weak and insufficient. The licensee re-reviewed the LER and concluded that the event had never been reportable under 10 CFR 50.73; consequently, the LER was withdrawn. Based on the licensee's latest actions this LER is considered close III. Encineerina E2 Engineering Support of Facilities and Equipment E2.1 Licensee Review of UFSAR Accuracy (37551)

i

!

In light of recent industry events in which utilities were found to be operating their facilities contrary to information contained in the i

updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR), the licensee has initiated i a systematic review of the UFSAR. The following is a list of the issues i identified by the licensee this report period. Pending NRC's resolution '

.

of how to disposition these licensee-identified issues, these issues j will be tracked by an inspection follow-up ites (IFI).

.

PIF 96-1748: UFSAR, Rev. 11-April 1996, section 9.1.3.1.1, the water level specified in the spent fuel pool over the spent fuel storage

racks is inconsistent with technical specifications and operating j procedure (IFI 373;374/96006-04a(DRP))

! .

PIF 96-1750: UFSAR, Rev. 7-April 1991, section 9.2.2.3, the UFSAR i does not recognize the use of fire protection water as a backup to i service water and is inconsistent with operating procedures. (IFI 373;374/96006-04b(DRP))

) -

PIF 96-1770: UFSAR, Rev. 7-April 1991, section 7.A.3.1.1.2, control power breaker in de cabinets are not lockwired per a commitment to IEEE-27 (IFI 373;374/96006-04c(DRP))

-

PIF 96-1776: UFSAR (various sections), UFSAR was not updated when a modification was made to Unit I but was scheduled to be updated after the modification was completed for Unit 2. The modification involved relocation of main steam tunnel therwcouples and a logic change for main steam tunnel leak detection. (IFI 373;374/96006-04d(DRP))

... _ - . -.

. - - . . . - . _ . . - - - _ - - . - _ - - _ . - - .

.

i

!

* Site Quality Verification (SQV) Field Monitoring Report 96006-0026 4 and Corrective Action Record (CAR) 01-96-032

UFSAR, Rev. 1-April i 1985, Section 7.A.2.1.1, subsection titled, " Access to Means for i Bvoassina (IEEE 279. Par.4.14)." instrumentation valves associated j with scram discharge volume level transmitters were not loc ~ked per a

commitment to IEEE-27 (IFI 373;374/96006-04e(DRP))

'

I Plant Sunnort R1 Radiological Protection and Chemistry Controls (71750)

a. Insoection Scooe The inspectors routinely observed and evaluated radiological protection activities and result b. Observations and Findinas

'On June 6, 1996, while touring the reactor building, the inspector observed an inadequate radiation control boundary in the Unit 1, High Pressure Core Spray pump room. The boundary for a contaminated area had increased in size due to ongoing maintenance. When moving the boundary to increase the area, an approximate 18-inch opening was left between the boundary and a wall in the room. There was no evidence of anyone entering or exiting the contaminated area through the opening. The inspector reported the problem to the Radiation Protection Department and the boundary was promptly correcte On June 11, 1996, while touring the reactor building, inspectors observed two hoses running from inside the reactor building under the truck-bay doors to high pressure washer equipment outside the reactor building. The hoses were being used to allow high pressure washing of various pieces of plant equipment, as part of the source term reduction effort at the station. At the time of the inspectors' observations, the high pressure washer was not in operation. The hoses were located in the openings for the railroad track and did not increase the opening at the truck-bay doors. It was learned from conversations with the Operations Manager that Radiation Protection had issued a letter stating that the hoses were to be removed from under the truck-bay doors when personnel were not present. The hoses were not removed and personnel were not present to monitor the hoses. There was potential for an unmonitored release point if one of the hoses broke and released its contents, although the significance was minimal as the hydrolase was' !

required to be connected to the clean condensate system. The inspectors' concern was the licensee's lack of oversight and lack of communication concerning the hose '

i

. ,

-. . , , _...

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ __ __ .

l .  !

'

l R2 Status of Radiological Protection and Chemistry Facilities and Equipment R2.1 Material Condition Problem with Radwaste Evaporator Leads to Soill of Contaminated Water and Sludae (71750)

a. Inspection Scone On June 15, 1995, a failure of the chemical waste (WZ) evaporator resulted in a spread of contaminated water and sludge to the evaporator room and surrounding hallways. The inspectors reviewed the circumstances of the event and followed license actions to address the cause and consequence b. Observations and Findinas The liquids radwaste operator initially identified a potential problem when he noted the vaporbody level in the evaporator was low with unusually high feed flow. Then he observed a level increase in the sludge tank indicative of a leak in the room. A radiation protection technician (RPT) and another operator were dispatched to the WZ roo The RPT and the operator noted a small glandwater leak in the WZ evaporator pump room, and a major leak in the WZ evaporator room. The large leak was evident as a small amount of water was coming under the WZ evaporator room door into the hallway outside the room. In addition, the operator observed a major leak hitting the wall of the room. The WZ evaporator was secured to stop the lea An event investigation was started to determine the root cause of the leak. Comed began to develop a plan to recover the evaporator. The dose rates in the room were very high. On the first entry, the RPT )

encountered a dose rate of 5 R/hr just inside the room, at which point, I he turned back. High pressure washing was done from the doorway of the l room to unclog the floor drain which had become plugged with insulation !

which had come off of the evaporator. This allowed the water in the room to drai !

c. Conclusions Maintenance personnel had not been into the evaporator room to determine I the failure mechanism of the evaporator which caused this leak. The inspectors will follow up on the root cause of the evaporator incident when Comed enters the room to troubleshoot and repair the evaporato This will be tracked as an Inspection Followup Item (IFI 373;374/96006-05(DRS).

P3 Emergency Preparedness (EP) Procedures and Documentation P3.1 Review of Exercise Ob.iectives and Scenario (82302)

!

l The inspectors reviewed the 1996 exercise's objectives and scenario and l determined that they were acceptable. The scenario provided an adequate

!

! 8

.. -. - . - . . . - ..

- . _ . - _ - - ._ - - _ - . _ _ ._ - -_- -- .

l .

d i

framework to support demonstration of the licensee's capabilities to j implement its emergency plan.

i j P4 staff Knowledge and Performance in EP l

P4.1 The 1996 Evaluated Biennial EP Exercise i

~

a. Inspection Scone (82301) ,

,

Licensee performance was evaluated in the Control Room Simulator, l l Technical Support Center, Operational Support Center, Corporate

! Emergency Operations Facility, Emergency Operations Facility, and Joint

Public Information Center. Inplant teams were accompanied.

t j b. Observaticas and Findinas i'

' In the Control Room Simulator (CRS), the Shift Engineer (SE) properly i made Unusual Event and Alert declarations in a timely manner. The SE i

did not seek offsite confirmation that the seismic event had

. occurred, as was suggested in supplemental event classification j guidanc ,

!

! Notifications to State and simulated NRC officials were completed in l an adequately detailed and timely manner.

.'

! Communications between responders in the CRS and Technical Support

,

Center (TSC) were good. Transfer of command and control from the SE j to the TSC's Station Director (SD) was orderly and clear.

i Communications among the CRS crew were good.

t l The TSC was activated in an orderly manner. The SD effectively j managed activities and involved his staff in periodic update

, briefings, which were also audible in the Operational Support Center

(OSC). The TSC's status boards were effectively used for event a

chronology and action item ,

The SD correctly declared a Site Area Emergency following a i degradation in plant conditions, and State and simulated NRC 1

! officials were properly notified. -There was an orderly transfer of i i command and control to the Corporate Manager of Emergency Operations (CMEO) in the Corporate Emergency Operations Facility (CEOF). ;

A timely decision was made to assemble and account for onsite personnel; however, the subsequent decision to evacuate nonessential personnel was untimely (about 25 minutes). The untimely decision to

'

evacuate non-essential personnel will be tracked as Inspection Followup Item (IFI 373;374/96006-06(DRS)).

l Two offsite radiation survey teams were adequately briefed and i dispatched following the Alert declaration. The TSC effectively j

controlled these teams until the EOF assumed this responsibilit e'

i a

-. , ,, .

_ _ . - . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ ._ _ _.__ . _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .. _ _ _ _

.

l -

-

The TSC's environs staff continued to assess offsite Protective

,

Action Recommendations (PARS), but did not always effectively l communicate with EOF personnel.

, The OSC's Director and Supervisor maintained a good understanding of

^ priorities and kept the TSC informed of inplant teams' activitie Status boards were effectively used to track available resources and ,

l y team status.

.

OSC personnel failed to demonstrate adequate concern for simulated i high radiation and contamination level Examples included: 1

,

.

.

A team knowingly traversed a high radiation area without trying to identify an alternate route.

. .

Surveys of Turbine Building radiological conditions were not l initiated until about 90 minutes after the release bega ,

i

The inadequate concern for inplant radiological conditions was an Exercise Weakness that will be tracked as Inspection followup Item

.

(IFI 373;374/96006-07(DRS)).  :

Several instances were identified where exercise controllers j improperly provided scenario information. Examples included:

,

.

While enroute to a job site, a controller informed a team that  !

!-

repair efforts would be unsuccessful until a specific time later l in the scenario.

i

.

After a radiation protection technician demonstrated taking a radiation level reading, a controller provided a scenario data sheet containing readings for the next several hours.

i

.

A controller gave a technician a requested instrument readout that >

j was beyond the scale being used.

,

l Inadequate performance by controllers accompanying inplant teams will

be tracked as an Inspection Followup Item (IFI 373;374/96006-08(DRS)). '

'

I Inplant team briefings were adequate. However, teams were not always  ;

l instructed to use radios to contact the OSC. Several teams attempted '

to report their results either to the other facilities or used an l inplant telephone instead of their radios.

! The activation of the CEOF was timely. Transfers of command and

!

control of event response were orderly and timely. The CME 0  ;

effectively managed the CE0F's staff and provided good update

briefings. Communications'between CE0F staff and their TSC and E0F counterparts were good.

i

,

a u

_,.

. . _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ - _ _ _ _. _ .

[

.

i

!

'

l i CEOF staff displayed knowledge of computers and equipment with one minor exception. Status boards were not effectively used to record complete event chronology information or to track all higher priority tasks.

i The EOF was activated following the Site Area Emergenc Initial and j update briefings to EOF staff were good.

j The Manager of Emergency Operations (MEO) promptly and correctly i declared a General Emergency. Proper notifications were made to

! State and simulated NRC officials. The initial PAR was correctly l

,

revised following a shift in wind direction.

! The EOF assumed control of radiological survey teams and acceptably j used them to track the simulated release.

l Corporate public affairs staff issued two press releases prior to the

, staffing of the Joint.Public Information Center (JPIC). Two press l briefings were conducted at the JPIC. Overall performance by the i licensee's briefers was good; however, there were a few cases of l failing to respond to a question asked during the previous briefing.

l With the exception of an event chronology press release, press

! releases generally contained little information beyond boilerplate

text, such as definitions of the emergency classification. One news

release contained inaccurate information regarding onsite damage.

c. Conclusion

]1 l The exercise was a good demonstration of the licensee's capabilities to implement its emergency plan. Event classifications,

<

notifications and protective action recommendations were correct and !

timely. Transfers of command and control were appropriately l coordinated. Many exercise participants were pre-staged: the timing :

of their arrivals at response facilities was unrealisti The decision to evacuate non-essential personnel was untimely after onsite personnel were accounted for. Some OSC personnel failed to demonstrate concern for radiological conditions. Several controllers of inplant teams provided information in an improper manner. The licensee's initial post-exercise critiques were goo F8 Miscellaneous Fire Protection Issues (Closed) LER (373/96002): Hourly compensatory fire watch not performed on door 406. The licensee identified that an hourly fire watch had not been performed for 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> on March 24, 1996. Door 406 is located in the reactor building and the fire watch was unable to gain access to the reactor building because a secondary containment leak rate test was in

. progress. However, the firewatch failed to communicate this problem to his supervisor. Technical Specification 3.3.7.9 requires that a 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />

.

compensatory fire watch be established when the fire barrier between zones 2F and 3F is impaired (door 406).

The failure to perform a compensatory fire watch for 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> with fire door 406 impaired is a violation of Technical Specification 3.3. However, this licensee-identified violation is being treated as a Non-Cited Violation, because it meets the criterit in Section VII.B.1 of the NRC Enforcement Policy, NUREG-1600 (NCV 373/96006-09(DRP)). Manaaement Meetines i

X1 Exit Neeting Summary The inspectors presented the results of these inspections to comed management listed below at an exit meeting on June 21, 1996. Comed acknowledged the findings presente The inspectors asked the licensee if any materials examined during the inspection should be considered proprietary. No proprietary information i was identifie l

!

I

-

._

. I PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Comed l

• R. Querio, Site Vice President l

• D. Ray, Station Manager '

L. Guthrie, Operations Manager ,

P. Smith, Maintenance Superintendent l

• R. Fairbank, System Engineering Supervisor l

• P. Antonopoulos, Site Engineering and Construction Manager '

• D. Boone, Health Physics Supervisor

• R. Crawford, Work Control Superintendent

• J. Burns, Regulatory Assurance Supervisor

• Present at exit meeting on June 21, 1996.

INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED IP 37551 Onsite Engineering IP 40500 Effectiveness of Licensee Controls in Identifying, Resolving, and Preventing Problems IP 61726 Surveillance Observation IP 62703 Maintenance Observation IP 71707 Plant Operations IP 71750 Plant Support Activities IP 82301 Evaluation of Exercises for Power Reactors IP 82302 Review of Exercise objectives and Scenarios for Power Reactors

I

,

.

ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED Ooened 373;374/96006-01 VIO Failure to perform a 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluation for changing the method of operating the drywell H,0, monitors (01.2)

373/96006-02 IFI Battery charger oscillations (M1.1)

373;374/96006-03 IFI RMS-9 breaker trip device failure (M2.1)

373;374/96006-04 IFI Five licensee-identified disparities between the UFSAR and the plants' configuration or operation (E2.1)

373;374/96006-05 IFI Evaporator spill incident (R2.1)

373;374/96006-06 IFI Decision to evacuate non-essential personnel during a drill (P4.1.b.2)

373;374/96006-07 IFI Exercise Weakness related to inadequate concern for inplant radiological conditions (P4.1.b.3)

373;374/96006-08 IFI Performance by controllers accompanying inplint teams (P4.1.b.3)

373/96006-09 NCV Failure to perform hourly fire watch with an impaired fire barrier (F8)

Closed 373/95001 LER RHR system inoperable due to shut instrument isolation valve (M8)

373/96002 LER Failure to perform hourly fire watch with an impaired fire barrier (F8)

- - . _ - . - - - __ _ - . . . _ _ _

'

.

.

LIST OF ACRONYMS USED AR Action Request CAR Corrective Action Record CEOF Central Emergency Operations Facility CM Containment Monitoring CME 0 Corporate Emergency Operations Facility CRS Control Room Simulator DG Diesel Generator DRP Division of Reactor Projects DRS Division of Reactor Safety E0F Emergency Operations Facility EPRI Electric Power Research Institute EP Emergency Preparedness '

GE General Electric l IDNS Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety '

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers IP Inspection Procedure IPE Individual Plant Evaluation IFI Inspection Follow-up Item JPIC Joint Public Information Center l LER Licensee Event Report I

LOP LaSalle Operating Procedure LOS La Salle Operating Surveillance ME0 Manager of Emergency Operations NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission NUMARC Nuclear Utility and Resource Council OSC Operations Support Center PAR Protective Action Recommendations ,

PIF Problem Identification Form  !

PDR NRC Public Document Room QNE Qualified Nuclear Engineer R0 Reactor Operator RPT Radiation Protection Technician SD Station Director SE Shift Engineer SR0 Senior Reactor Operator SQV Site Quality Verification TS Technical Specification TSC Technical Support Center UFSAR Updated Final Safety Analysis Report WZ Chemical Waste l

l I

15