IR 05000409/1978011
| ML20062E300 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/01/1978 |
| From: | Ridgway K, Warnick R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20062E297 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-409-78-11, NUDOCS 7812060077 | |
| Download: ML20062E300 (6) | |
Text
.
,
e
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-409/78-11 Docket No. 50-409 License No. DPR-45 Licensee: Dairyland Power Cooperative 2615 East Avenue - South La Crosse, WI 54601 Facility Name: La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor Inspection At: La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor Site, Genoa, WI Inspection Conducted: October 4-6, 1978 RTh.] k Inspector:
K. R. Ridgway
//[/pg ri R R d.) &
!
/99 //dkg Approved By:
R. F. Warnick, Chief Reactor Projects Section 2
//
Inspection Su= mary Inspection on October 4-6, 1978 (Report No. 50-409/78-11)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of Modifications reviewed by licensing; Maintenance; Spent Fuel Packaging and Shipping; and followup actions relative to IE Bulletins, Licensee Event Reports; and previous open inspection items. The inspection involved 23 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in the areas inspected.
.
7812060C77 e
.
,
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted R. Shimshak, Plant Superintendent
- J. Parkyn, Assistant Plant Superintendent G. Boyd, Operations Supervisor P. Wiley, Assistant to Operations Engineer W. Nowicki, Instrument and Electrical Supervisor P. Gray, Maintenance Supervisor H. Towsley, Quality Assurance Supervisor S. Rafferty, Reactor Engineer L. Papworth, Operations Engineer J. Gallaher, Security and Fire Protection Supervisor L. Kelley, Shift Supervisor D. Stalsberg, Shift Supervisor J. Kegerreis, Shift Supervisor L. Malcom, Consultant In addition, the inspector observed and held discussions with other engineers, shift supervisors, plant equipment operators, reactor operators, assistants and plant attendants.
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Modifications Two modifications of the plant which had required prior review by the Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation were reviewed to verify that the changes had been properly reviewed and approved and that:
Codes and standards specified in purchases and design had a.
been followed.
b.
Requirements specified by NRR in the approved applications had been complied with.
c.
Any applicable Regulatory Guides had been used.
The two modifications had been carried out under the licensee's Procedure, ACP-04.2, Facility Change Requests, and documented on Facility Change Form 1 that includes records of:
d.
Reason for the change and a description of it.
e.
Health and Safety Review-2-.
.
.
f.
Design Review and verification for applicable codes, standards, procedures and tests.
g.
QA review for QC require =ents in purchasing, welding, special tests, and inspections.
h.
Document change reviews for drawings, operating procedures, Technical Specifications and the FSAR.
i.
Approvals by the Plant Superintendent, Operations Review and safety Review Committees.
Since the Facility change procedure includes changes other than those reviewed by NRR, the FC form also includes a review required by-10 CFR 50.59 for unreviewed safety questions.
The two FC's reviewed were:
FC 76-35, The addition of the 120V AC noninterruptable bus lA.
FC 77-06, Activation of the High Pressure Core Spray System by Containment High Pressure.
Records reviewed indicated that the requirements of the FC had been carried out and procedures and Technical Specifications had been amended to reflect the system changes. Surveillance inspection procedures had been developed and were being carried out.
The inspector noted that the QA visual inspection procedure require-ment for FC 77-06 was not specified for the more complex system change in FC 76-35.
The QA final inspection of the latter was by operational tests only.
The inspector reported this inconsistency during the close out meeting.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
Maintenance The licensee's maintenance program was reviewed by the random selection of several tasks completed in 1978 on six syste=s.
During the selection of these particular tasks, the Maintenance Requests for 1978 were reviewed for tasks which were plant modi-fications or unreviewed safety questions which should be carried in the facility change system.
The licensee's maintenance program is contrelled through LACBb'R Administrative Procedures:
-3-
_
_
v
..
.
.
.
ACP - 17.3, Maintenance Requests ACP - 15.1, Installation and Removal of Jumpers, Lifting and Replacing Leads ACP - 15.2, Equipment Lock and Tag Control Maintenance work is controlled through written Maintenance Trocedures and Special Maintenance Procedures.
The twelve selected Maintenance Requests (MR) were reviewed for:
Compliance _with Technical Specifications requirements for a.
equipment removed from service.
b.
Administrative approvals and reviews prior to beginning work.
c.
Use of written-approved procedures d.
Inspection of work Testing and calibration when required e.
f.
QA review and records g.
Qualification of personnel h.
Unreviewed facility changes or an unreviewed safety question per 10 CFR 50.59.
The MR's selected included work on the following systems:
e 1.
Reactivity Control and Power Distribution J.
Instrumentation k.
1.
Emergency Core Cooling m.
Containment n.
Plant and Electrical Power During the review of MR's, the inspector noted that two of them involved temporary changes to equipment and that since the changes were temporary the Facility Change system had not been utilized to process them. These particular changes had been properly reviewed and approved before initiation of the work. There was also no formal administrative mechanism to assure that the equipment was
_4_
--
_
__
,
,,
,
.
returned to normal following the temporary change. This weakness in the maintenance system was discussed with the licensee and will be carried as an open inspection item.
One of the above temporary changes MR-1978, concerned the appli-cation of a restraint or gag to a Main Steam Relief Valve which had a small leak. A special procedure, 0-05-78, Gagging a Main Steam Relief Valve, had been developed and approved following a safety analysis and 10 CFR 50.59 Review.
In the safety analysis, the licensee justified the temporary restraintofoneofthethreeinstalledyplvesdiscussedin the SAR and Technical Specification (TS)- since og
- and two is needed to relieve the worst case pressure spike-}gfgpe valve valves meet the TS minimum required relieving capacity of 610,000 lb/hr at 1426 psig. RIII made an independent review of the licen-sees evaluation.
The inspector found the traceability of quality items used in maintenance jobs carried out early in 1978 to be unsatisfactory.
In mid-1978 the MR form had been revised to require the purchase order record of any parts or materials used to perform the task.
Work carried out under the revised MR form in late 1978 appeared to have satisfactory traceability of quality parts.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Spent Fuel Packagine and Shipping The licensee has not resolved the lack of fuel storage available to complete the Cycle 6 refuellng scheduled in early 1979.
Pro-cedures for this shipping campaign were not available for review.
The licensee is documented as a user of the NFS-4 shipping container, Certificate of Compliance No. 6698 and is also considering the use of the ATCOR Vandenburgh Cask, Certificate of Compliance No. 5805.
5.
Review of Special and Periodic Reports The inspector reviewed the following reports for timeliness of submittal and adequacy of information submitted:
Monthly Operating Data Report, July 1978 Monthly Operating Data Report, August 1978 Special Report No. 78-02, September 26, 1978.
The special report was submitted according to License Amendment 11 of the Technical Specifications which requires the sampling and 1/
Technical Specification 2.4.1 2/
DPR Ltr, LAC 4496 dtd 2/17/77 3/
PDR Ltr, LAC 4523 dtd 2/25/77 4/
DPC Ltr, LAC 4654 dtd 4/27/77-5-
s s
.
.
.
analysis of reactor coolant and off-gas activity whenever reactor power is changed by ma e than 15% within a one hour time period.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
6.
IE Bulletins IEB 78-10, the licensee had determined that no Bergen-Paterson hydraulic suppressors or restraints were installed or planned.
(Closed)
7.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representative (denoted in Para-graph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on October 6, 1978. The inspector summarized the scope and results of the inspection.
In response to certain items discussed by the inspector, the licensee agreed to review the administration of temporary facility changes to assure that all safety reviews are completed and the affected equip-ment or system is returned to normal at the completion of the work.
l l
l
!
l-6-i l