IR 05000409/1980011
| ML19345B222 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/13/1980 |
| From: | Boyd D, Branch M, Forney W, Ridgway K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19345B218 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-409-80-11, NUDOCS 8011260375 | |
| Download: ML19345B222 (6) | |
Text
._
a,W
<
s G
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-409/80-11 Docket No. 50-409 License No DPR-45
Licensee: Dairyiand Power Cooperative 2615 East Avenue, South
Lacrosse, WI 54601 Facility Name: Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor Inspection At: Lacrosse Site, Genoa, WI
.
Inspection Conducted: September 1-30, 1980 kNt.'
////l/f-Inspectors-W.
Forne
,
'V*
v
>i j
l%
M.W. Branch}.
/IM Ib.
'
'
.tL
.
Ilio!*b na K. R. RidgwI
/ c //4[a f
i D. C. Boyd y
C ief
/c//J/K Approved By: D.k Projects Section 4 Inspection Summary Inspection on September 1-30, 1980 (Report No. 50-409/80-11)
Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection of the licensee's operational safety; surveillance; maintenance; followup action on IE Bulletins; licensee event..eports; open inspection items; and plant trips.
The inspection involved a total of 270 inspector-hours onsite by four NRC inspectors including 33 inspector-hours during off-shift hours.
Results: Ofthesevenareasinspected,noitemsofnoncomplianceog deviations were found.
'801126037h
_.
.
o
,
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- R. Shimshak, Plant Superintendent
- J. Parkyn, Assistant Plant Superintendent G. Boyd, Operations Supervisor
- L. Goodman, Operations Engineer
- L. Krajewski, Health and Safety Supervisor
- H. Towsley, Quality Assurance Supervisor S. Rafferty, Reactor Engineer W. Angle, Process Engineer
- M. Polsean, Shif t Supervisor W. Nowicki, Supervisor, Instrument and Electrical
- G. Joseph, Security and Fire Protection Supervisor
- L. Kelley, Assistant Operations Supervisor
- P.
Shafer, Radiation Protection Engineer
_
P. Gray, Maintenance Supervisor
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
In addition, the inspector observed and held discussions with other engineers, plant equipment operators, reactor operators, assistants, and plant attendants.
2.
General The reactor was in a shutdown condition at the beginning of the month to repair control cod drives number 5 and 21.
On September 3, 1980 at 1617 hours0.0187 days <br />0.449 hours <br />0.00267 weeks <br />6.152685e-4 months <br />, the reactor was taken critical. On September 5,1980, at approximately 0709 hours0.00821 days <br />0.197 hours <br />0.00117 weeks <br />2.697745e-4 months <br />, the reactor received a " partial scram" followed at 0710 hours0.00822 days <br />0.197 hours <br />0.00117 weeks <br />2.70155e-4 months <br /> by a " manual full scram." The partial scram was received when control rod drive number 3 scram solenoid failed, repairs were made and the reactor was taken critical on September 5, 1980, at approximately 1630 hours0.0189 days <br />0.453 hours <br />0.0027 weeks <br />6.20215e-4 months <br /> and has continued to operate at power.
3.
Operational Safety Verification The inspector observed control room operations, reviewed applicable
,
logs and conducted discussions with control room operators during the month of September 1980. The inspector verified the operability of selected emergency systems, reviewed tagout records and verified proper return to service of affected components. Tours of the reactor buildings and turbine buildings were conducted to observe plant equipment conditions, including potential fire hazards, fluid leaks, and excessive vibrations and to verify that maintenance requests had been initiated for equipment in need of maintenance. The inspector by observation and direct interview verified that the physical security plan was being implemented in accordance with the station security plan.
.
2-
.-
-
___ _ _ _
i
.
.
l The inspector observed plant housekeeping / cleanliness conditions and
!
verified implementation of radiation protection controls. During the month of September 1980, the inspector walked down the accessible
portions of the partial. scram circuitry, systems to verify operability.
The inspector also witnessed portions of the radioactive waste system-controls associated with radwaste shipments and barreling.
These reviews and observations were conducted to verify that facility operations were in conformance with the requirements established under technical specifications, 10 CFR, and administrative procedures.
The inspectors had a concern with the licensee's radiological a.
work practices in the-following areas, (1) identification and posting of radiation " hot spots"; (2) identification and posting of "high radiation areas"; (3) employee self-frisking when exiting a radiological control area; (4) and proper donning /
removing anti-contamination clothing. These items have been brought to the attention of the Plant Superintendent, Radiological Protection Engineer, and the Health and Safety Supervisor who have committed to and initiated action to prevent future recur-rence. The licensee has identified, shielded, and posted the
. radiological hot spots and high radiation areas.that appear to have been caused by work associated with fuel element storage well modifications. Additionally, the licensee is conducting i
a retraining program for all-plant personnel which includes emphasis on proper self-frisking and donning / removing anti-
contamination clothing.
b.
The inspectors had a-concern when'it was noted during routine
work / log review that the licensee had placed the " partial scram (individual accumulator oil level low low and individual gas pressure low low functions) circuitry" in bypass on September 9, 1980 for a period of 13 minutes. This action appears to be contrary to LACBWR Technical Specifications, Paragraph 4.2.6.8.
The licensee does not agree with the Resident Inspector's position. The Resident Inspector has contacted the Project Manager and provided the licensee and Resident Inspector
,
positions to Nuclear Reactor Regulation Division of Project
'
Management to obtain an interpretation / basis of acceptance of the technical specifications. Until this_information is received, this item is considered Unresolved Item 80-11-01.
c.
The Resident-Inspectors had a concern that the licensee was not
'
i conservatively maintaining the mainsteam bypass valve control setting to begin opening the bypass valve at an indicated
- pressure corresponding to a turbine inlet pressure 'not more than 15 pounds above its nominal value as required by LACBWR j
Technical Specification Paragraph 4.2.5.7.
This is considered Unresolved Item 80-11-02.
.
No items of noncompliance were noted.
-3-l
.
...
, - _ -
- -.
-
,
. _ - _ _.
-
r n
.
.
4.
Monthly Maintenance Observation Station maintenance activities of safety related systems and com- -
ponents listed below were observed / reviewed to ascertain that they were conducted 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 fot operation were met while components or systems were removed from sirvice; 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 qualified personnel; parts and materials used were properly certi-fied; 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 / reviewed:
Control Rod Drive Mechanism Number 5 repairs.
Control Rod Drive Mechanism Number 21 repairs.
Following completion of maintenance on the control rod drive mechanisms, the inspector verified that these systems had been returned to service properly.
No items of noncompliance were noted.
5.
Monthly Surveillance Observation The inspector observed technical specifications required surveillance testing on the Emergency Diesel Generators lA and IB; Diesel High Pressure Service Water Pumps and Nuclear Instrumentation and verified that t'esting was performed in accordance with adequate procedures, that test instrumentation was calibrated, that limiting conditions for operation were met, that removal and restoration of the affected components were accomplished, that test results conformed with technical specifications and procedure requirements and were reviewed by personnel other than the individual directing the test, and that any deficiencies identified during the testing were properly reviewed and resolved by appropriate management persennel.
The inspector also witnessed portions of the following test activities:
Bi-weekly surveillance testing of Channel No. 2 safety system, Channel No. 2 water level instrumentation, Channel No. 1 safety systems and fire suppression system monthly testing.
-4-
,
r
.
.
'
No items of noncompliance were noted.
6.
Licensee Event Reports Followup Through direct observations, discussions with licensee personnel, and review of records, the following event reports were reviewed to determine that reportability requirements were fulfilled, immediate corrective action was accomplished, and corrective action to prevent recurrence had been accomplished in accordance with technical specifi-cations.
LER 80-06 Gross Alpha Activity Exceeded Technical Specification Limits.
LER 80-07 Gross Alpha Activity Exceeded Technical Specification Limits.
LER 80-08 IB High Pressure Service Water Diesel Failed to Start.
No items of noncompliance were noted.
7.
IE Bulletin Followup For the IE Bulletins listed below the inspector verified that the written response was within the time period stated in the bulletin, that the written response included the information required to be reported, that the written response included adequate corrective action commitments based on information presentation in the bulletin and the licensee's response, that licensee management forwarded copies of the written response to the appropriate onsite management representatives, that infermation discussed in the licensee's written-.
response.was accurate, and-that corrective action taken by the licensee was as described in the written response.
IEB 80-15 Possible Loss of Emergency Notification System with Loss of Off-Site Power.
No items of noncompliance were noted.
8.
Followup on Open Inspection Item (OII)
(Closed) OII 80-06-NC-1: The licensee's response letter (LAC-7134)
was received and reviewed by the inspectors. The response appears to address the proper corrective action. Additionally, a change to ACP 04.1 was issued by the licensee to ensure that tne proper forms will be utilized for the accomplishment of any future facility changes.
!
9.
Plant Trips Following the plant trip on 5 September 1980 at 0709 hours0.00821 days <br />0.197 hours <br />0.00117 weeks <br />2.697745e-4 months <br /> the inspector ascertained the status of the reactor and safety systems by observation of control room indicators and discussions with licensee personnel concerning plant parameters, emergency system status and reactor coolant chemistry. The inspector verified the establishment of proper communica-tions and reviewed the corrective actions taken by the licensee.
-5-
.
.
.
,
.
, All systems responded as expected, and the plant was returned to
'
operation on 5 September 1980 at 1630 hours0.0189 days <br />0.453 hours <br />0.0027 weeks <br />6.20215e-4 months <br />.
No items of noncompliance were noted.
10.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance, or deviations. Unresolved items disclosed during the
'
^
inspection are discussed in Paragraph 3.
11.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph
,
1) throughout the month and at the conclusion of the inspection. The inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection activities.
4
4 t
,
$
-6-a
- -,,
,
,,
-
""
=
y'-
, _ -,, _, _ _