IR 05000373/1978026
| ML19256A487 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 12/15/1978 |
| From: | Knop R, Shafer W, Walker R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19256A480 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-373-78-26, NUDOCS 7901080277 | |
| Download: ML19256A487 (11) | |
Text
.
~
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-373/78-26 License No. CPPR-99 Docket No. 50-373 Commonwealth Edison Company Licensee:
Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690
La Salle County Nuclear Station, Unit Facility Name:
Inspection At: La Salle Site, Seneca, IL October 24-26 and November 6-8, 1978 Inspection Conducted:
ine$,
~ '/
j k."D.5haf'ef
_l?
Inspectors:
ff.$'
j ). - t / - h,,
,
R. D. Walker
~
~I [
.
'
'
f1 i%
%
1. N.lJackiw
/>. l,l
'.
.
-
,.
' j). j(.. c h + / -
M. J. Oestmann
?.
,
ft %..s
-
Approved By:
R. C. Knop, Ch'lef Reactor Projects Section 1 Inspection Summary 6-8, 1978 (Rep _ ort No. 50-373/
Inspection on October 24-26 and November Routine, unannounced inspection to review the status 78-26)_
program, operational staffing, maintenance /
Areas Inspected:
of the preoperational test fire prevention / protection review, emer-surveillance procedure review, operator staff gency protection plan implementing procedure review, The inspection procedure review, and a plant tour.
training, plant involved 118 inspector-hours onsite by four NRC inspectors.No Results:
790109o777
.
.
.
DETAILS _
Part I 1.
Persons Contacted
- R. H. Holyoak, Plant Superintendent
- G. J. Diederich, Assistant Superintendent
- R. D. Bishop, Technical Staff Supervisor
- J. H. Harris, Training Supervisor
- T. J. Borzyn, Security Administrator
- A. W. Kief, Administrative Staff Assistant
- S. Motzney, Mechanic Foreman
- E. J. Stevak, Quality Assurance Inspector
- L. DelGeorge, Nuclear License Administrator The inspector also talked with and interviewed several other licensee including members of the technical, operations and mainten-employees, ance staff.
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Preoperational Test Pro _ gram The inspector reviewed portions of the La Salle County Station and to familiarize himself startup manual for technical content with procedures governing the facilities startup and preoperational The inspector will continue this review on testing phase program.
No items of noncompliance or deviations subsequent inspections.
were identified.
3.
Operational Staf fing Review The inspector reviewed the qualifications of certain Ifeensed oper-One technicians, and mechanics to ANSI 18.1 requirements.
area of concern identified by the inspector was the licensee's ators, position on qualifying the "A" and "B" cechanics and technicians to The licensee wants to review his position with ANSI 18.1 standards.
to qualifying these personnel or disqualifying these per-respect This concern sonnel from work involving safety related equipment.
No items of noncompliance will be reviewed in a future inspection.
or deviations were identified.
3.
Maintenance / Surveillance Procedure The inspector started a review of selected plant procedures for The review of these performing maintenance and surveillance.
-2-w
.
.
format and for scope of the procedures was for technical content,This review is in progress with no significant procedure program.
The review will continae on Lubsequent concerns established.
inspections.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Operating Staff Training The inspector reviewed the licensee's program relating to operating staff training to determine that, the licensee has trained the oper-ating staf f, a continuing program of training is being conducted, and the replacements to the original staff receive training or have the experience equivalent required for originally selected personnel.
The f ollowing training programs were reviewed:
Non-Licensed System Description Course a.
b.
Nuclear Theory Course Orientation Program c.
d.
Pre-Simulator Course The above identified courses were reviewed to determine if the training program was consistent with the FSAR training commitmeats Uhile reviewing these commitments as "lentified in Section 13.
the inspector determined that the following areas have not been These areas are considered open addressed to date by the licensee.
items, The licensee's pre-simulator training program as identified in the FSAR requires the use of Dresden administrative and technical a.
The licensee has not complied with this com=itment.
procedures.
In discussions with the licensee training supervisor the inspec-tor was informed that each licensee representative completing this course is trained on the use of the La Salle Administrative
~
and technical procedures, and that additional training for the
-
Dresden Administrative and technical procedures is considered The inspector concurred with the licensee's position, unnecessary.
however, it was pointed out that the commitment exists and it is incumbent upon the licensee to comply with the commitr.ents or change it.
In reviewing the licensee's orientation program the inspector b.
addressed noted that a fire protection training program was not The licensee by the licensee as committed to in the FSAR.
training supervisor stated that this open item would be corrected.
-3-
.
.
The licensee's FSAR identifies a pre-exam training course.
c.
This course to date has not been implemented.
d.
The licensee's FSAR commitment to develop a fuel handler training course has not been accomplished.
In the FSAR the licensee committed to developing on-the-job c.
training program during the pre-operational and startup testing phase of construction. This progran. has not been developed.
f.
The FSAR, relating to training program evaluation, requires that periodic audits by the training supervisor be accomplished.
This is not being accomplished as an audit function.
The licen-see training supervisor stated that he periodically monitors his instructors during the courses they are presenting, however, he does not document this monitoring function.
The licensee's FSAR identifies a program relating to replace-g.
ment training. A specific replacement training program is not identifiable.
The licensee's training supervisor stated that to-date replacement personnel are being required to take the same training courses as the original assigned personnel.
The inspector concurred with this type of replacement training, however the inspector informed the licensee that a replacement training program must be developed for future use when the original program will no longer exist.
h.
The licensee's FSAR identifies that supervisor evaluations of job performance will be accomplished in order to determine the adequacy of the training program.
In discussions with licensee representatives, the inspector was informed tha+ personnel evaluations are considered part of the personntJ *acords and as such, are not available for routine audit by the NRC.
The inspector informed the licensee at the exit interview that as long as the commitment for supervisory evaluation exists in the FSAR, a program of evaluations must be developed.
To verify the implementation of the initial training programs the inspector reviewed the trainir.g records of two individuals of each of the following job classifications:
principal staff members a.
b.
Reactor operator candidates Senior reactor operator candidates c.
d.
Maintenance craftsman-4-
.
.
Instrument and control technicians e.
f.
QA/QC technicians g.
Radiochemistry technicians h.
Radiation protection technicians 1.
Technical staff members The inspector conducted interviews with several of the individuals in the positions identified above. Through discussions with these licensee representatives, the inspector verified that the training records reflect the actual training received.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
_ Review of Plant Procedure The inspector followed up on open items identified in a review of plant procedures discussed in NRC IE inspection report No. 50-373/
78-21 of Septembet 13-15, 1978.
The open items were:
La Salle Administrative Procedure 820-1 did not address the a.
periodic review of procedures as required by ANSI 18.7, 1976.
Revision 6 to this procedure assures this requirement and the item is considered closed.
b.
La Salle Administrative Procedure made provisions to conduct a 50.59 review as required by the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 50).
Revision 10 to LAP 820-2 assures this require-ment and the item is considered closed.
The licensee's administrative procedure for assuring compliance c.
with ANSI 18.1 was deficient in that it did not identify within the plant central files the ANSI 18.1 qualification statement required by LAP 100-5 would be kept.
Subsequent revision of this procedure clarifies this item and the item is considered closed.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Fire Prevention / Protection Review The inspector reviewed the licensee's program to ascertain whether special work controls over construction, modification, and mainten-ance activities have been implemented and are a permanent part of facility procedures and practices. The inspector verified the fol-lowing:
-5-
.
.
.
Work control procedures which define responsibilities for fire protection inspections and overall implementation of a.
the Fire Protection Program have been written and are a administrative procedures.
part of the plant a special permit be initiated for Procedures require that Procedure LAP b.
activities involving welding and cutting.one individual in each welding 900-10 also requires that area be assigned fire watch responsibilities.
Fire inspections are conducted by the licensee's insurance In addition, the licensee's Maintenance Department c.
The inspector reviewed carrier.
conducts monthly fire inspections.
records of the fire inspection performed on October 3, 1978.
Other areas listed below are considered open pending further review:
Quality Assurance Program for fire protection.
a.
Fire Brigade Training Program.
b.
Fire Fighting Procedures.
c.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Plant To_ur facilities for famil-The inspectors conducted a tour of the plantiarization purp The inspectors noted that housekeeping program during construction. cleanliness was impro the plant appeared to be adequate for the construction period.
8.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Para-The inspector sun-the conclusion of the inspection.
Mr. R. C. Knop graph 1) at marized the scope and findings of the inspection.this time and did attend of the Region III office was onsite at the meeting.
.
-6-
.
.
Part II 7/3$[.n 5 s. m
/
. };;
Prepared by:
M. J. Oestmann.
'
M bb b
T. H. Essig, Chi f Reviewed by:
Environmental and Special Projects Section 1.
Persons Contacted R. Bishop, Technical Director F. Lawless, Lead Chemist Review and Comments on Licensee's Proposed EPIPs 2.
The inspector met with plant management on November 6, 1978, to discuss the licensee's proposed Emergency Plan Implementing1.
Procedures (EPIPs) at the La Salle County Nuclear Plant, Unit The licensee's twenty-eight proposed EPIPs were reviewed by the inspector utilizing guidance in (1) Annex B to Regulatory Guide (2) Section 1.101 " Emergency Planning for Nuclear Power Plants";
5.3.8 " Emergency Procedures"in ANSI N18.7-1972 " Administrative Controls for Nuclear Plants"; and (3) the licensee's Generating Stations Emergency Plan (GSEP).
The inspector discussed specific details on each EPIP with the Some of the connents dealt with the need t ining licensee (Table 1).
to complete the existing EPIPs once specific information per a i
routes, to radiation monitor readings, telephone numbers, evacuat on dio-and assembly areas becomes available. EPIPs for classifying ra lcula-active gaseous and liquid releases need simplified tables on ca tions and nomographs for ease in declaring a specific e f acilities, personnel decontamination, decontamination f acilities, classification.
fighting have yet to transportation of injured personnel and fire be prepared.
The licensee has also to prepare inventory and f acilities emergency equipment lists and periodic testing procedures for emergen communications system.
reviewed during a future inspection to ensure the situations.
-7-
,
.
were identified No apparent items of noncompliance or deviations during this inspection.
Table I, Status of LaSalle Attachment:
County Nuclear Station EPIP's L-8-
TABLE I STATUS OF LASALLE COUNTY NUCLEAR STATION EPIP'S NRC RIII Review Status Procedure Status EPIP No. (LZP)
Title.
100-1 Responsibilities for GSEP Title inconsistent with title used in Open FSAR; no separate EPIP's exist fo r Administrative Assistant, Operating Engineer, Training Supervisor and Health Physicist 100-2 GSEP Emergency Drills Need checklist for observer to use to Open prepare critique of drill; need tracking system for taking action on reconunendations f rom drill critique Need checklist for NSO to record Open 100-3 Emergenc Telephone vital information on emergency Numbe r Open Classification of a Noble Incomplete-awaiting information on 200-1 radiation monitor settings Gas Release Cumbersome - need revision to expedite Open 200-1, 2, Classification of Noble 3,64 Cas, Iodine, Liquid, and and simplify calculations, need to other GSEP Conditions identify person to do calculations *,
include information on tabular form for case of declaring emergency classi fica-tion; include Table 4.2-1 from Section 4.4 of GSEP so action levels can be identified.
200-3 Classification of a Liquid Correct the conversion from uCi to CJ in Open item F.4.1 Release Open Include specific actions to take f m -
200-4 Classification of other Section 4 of GSEP; include " General GSEP Conditions Emergency" in Attachment A GSEP Conditions
.
O O
t
..e
- 2-o NRC RIII Review Status Procedure St at us EPIP thi. (LZP)
Title 210-1 Itazardous Ilaterial Incidents Complete except for notification in Open item F.1.c and Attachment B Reporting 300-1 Station Employee List Need a personnel accountability Open checklist Open 300-2 CSEP Station Group Directory Needs updated directory 310-1 Station Director GSEP EPIP Incomplete, awaiting identification of Open hospital, ambulance, assembly areas Closed 320-1 Operations Director EPIP Complete Closed 330-1 Technical Director EPIP Complete Closed 340-1 Maintenance Director EPIP Complete Closed 350-1 Stores Director EPIP Complete 360-1 Administrative Director FPIP Complete except for guard office phone Open number in item F.4.c(2)
370-1 Security Administrator EPIP Complete except for 1;uard of fice phone Open number in item F.3.b.
400-1 Environs Monitoring Correct NRC Chicago Operations Office to Open DOE Chicago Operations Office in items F.1.d, e, F.2.a.
(5)
400-2 Environmental Surveillance Include Tech Spec References in 11 Open Stations Closed 400-3 Environs Sampling Supplies Complete
.
e
- 3-
- '"
EPIP No. (LZP)
Title Procedure Status g
410-1 Off Site Environs Director Need information on assembly points Open EPIP and evacuation routes Closed 510-1 Rescue Complete Closed 520-1 Personnel Injuries Complete 520-3 llandling Exposed and/or Not prepared yet Open contaminated casualties 530-1 Fi rs t aid, decontamination Not prepared yet Open and evacuation of exposed and/or contaminated casualties 540-1 Transportation of Injured Not prepared yet Open 610-1 Fire fight ing Not prepared yet Open Closed 710-1 Recovery Plan Complete Periodic Testing, Opera ing Not prepared yet Open and Maintaining Emergency Communications Systems Auditing inventory lists of Not prepared yet Open emergency equipment and supplies
-
Training and Retraining Not prepared yet Open in GSEP and First Aid
,
e O