IR 05000373/1979009
| ML19259C332 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 04/12/1979 |
| From: | Spessard R, Walker R, Wright G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19259C323 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-373-79-09, 50-373-79-9, NUDOCS 7906140596 | |
| Download: ML19259C332 (5) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-373/79-09 Docket No. 50-373 License No. CPPR-99 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company P. O. Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name:
La Salle County Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Inspection At:
La Salle Site, Seneca, Illinois Inspection Conducted: February 21-22 and March 21-23, 1979
- gf - f-s !sa
,.
~; q
Inspectors:
R. D. Walker I. '
/
G C. Wrigh
!/Y
M( (/. fhMcN
/ A l7h,
-
..
Approved By:
R. L. Spessard, Chief Reactor Projects Section 1 Inspection Summary Inspection on Februtry 21-22 and March 21-23, 1979 (Report No. 50-373/79-09)
Areas Inspected: R utine, unannounced preoperational inspection consisting of review of operating staff training, station operating procedures, I&E inputs into the NRR review, and a plant walkthrough.
The inspection involved a total of 44 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspectors.
Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
2280 353 7906140596
..
,
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- R.
H. Holyoak, Plant Superintendent
- G.
J. Diederich, Assistant Plant Superintendent
- R.
D. Bishop, Technical Staff Superviser
- P. F. Manning, Technical Staff Engineer
- G. W. Reardanz, Senior Quality Assurance Inspector J. C. Renwick, Operating Engineer J. Harris, Training Supervisor
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (0 pen) Open Item (373/78-26): Operating staff training deficiencies.
Six of the eight items were closed.
Refer to Paragraph 3 for details.
3.
Operating Staff Training The inspector reviewed several open items in the area of operating staff training from 50-373/78-26.
The following items are considered to be closed from the above referenced inspection report as a result of his review (paragraph designations correspond with the report):
Pre-simulator Training Program.
The licensee's FSAR had a.
committed to training of personnel selected for simulator training on Dresden Administrative procedures and Technical Specifications. The licensee reviewed this commitment and found the benefits of such training to be negligible with respect to simulator training, and therefore, submitted amendment No. 24 to the FSAR which deletes the requirements for this training.
b.
Fire Protection Training. The licensee has now met the requirements of FSAR commitments by adding a section on fire protection to its General Employee Training Program.
Pre-cold License Exam Refresher Training.
The licensee has c.
developed a training program in this area which consists of systems review, theory review, procedure reviews, plant walkthroughs, and a short period on the simulator.
e.
On-The-Job Training. Thelibenseeredefinedhiscommitment in the area of on-the-job training in amendment No. 24 of the FSAR. The licensee's program, as implemented, meets the intent 2280 354-2-
.
.
.
of the latest FSAR revision.
The inspector cautioned that at a later date he would expect to see specific, documented examples of on-the-job training, f.
Training Program Evaluation Effectiveness.
The licensee had committed to an audit of classroom instruction by the training supervisor on a periodic basis. Amendment No. 24 of the FSAR changes this commitment to a review function versus an audit function. This change is consistent with the fact that the Quality Department has responsibility for audits and such audits of the training department are required to be performed per Quality Procedure 2-52.
Quality Procedure 2-52 requires that evaluations of the effectiveness of the training program will be made by the department heads as requested by the Station Superintendent. The training supervisor stated that training department effectiveness is further evaluated by student evaluation form inputs, informal training supervisor inputs from department heads and training supervisor classroom reviews, g.
Supervisor Evaluations of Job Performance.
The FSAR commitment has been changed per amendment No. 24 to state that such supervisor evaluations of employee job performance with regard to effectiveness of the training program is to be " informal."
The licensee was informed that during subsequent inspections the inspector would expect to see specific examples where training has responded to this " informal" evaluation.
Items d. " Fuel Handler Training" and g. " Replacement Training" from 50-373/78-26 are still considered to be open and will be reviewed during a future inspection.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Station Operating Procedure Review The inspector continued his review of station operating procedures for scope, content and formats such that the plant operating proce-dures are prepared to adequately control safety-related operations within applicable regulatory requirements.
The inspector specifically looked at several procedures that had been reviewed on previous inspections. The intent of this review was to ascertain the status of changes discussed with the licensee.
The inspector found that changes have been implemented on approximately 50% of the procedures reviewed and the remaining procedures have not.
The inspector discussed the results of this review with the licensee and the licensee stated that changes are being implemented only after system walkdown.
The licensee stated-3-2280 355
.
.
.
that to date, approximately 45% of the systems have been walked down and that the inspector would be provided with a list of procedures that were finalized as a consequence of this walkdown.
The list of procedures would help eleminate duplication of effort by the inspector during his review of the operating procedures.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
IE Input to NRR Review The inspector was asked to review the following items for the NRR Instrument and Control Branch.
a.
The implementation of divisional separation in conduit runs from junction boxes to Reactor Protection System and Primary Containment Isolation System instrument racks. The specific concern was the potential for losing divisional separation in the event that one of the D tetor Protection System buses were to be powered from its alternate power supply.
The inspector found that the Reactor Protection System alternate power supply is from 120 VAC auxiliary power supply bus 132B-1 which is powered from switchgear 132B via switchgear 152. These power supplies are all nondivisional, and there-fore, divisional separation is maintained in the instrument rack conduits refered to above in the event that either Reactor Protection System bus is powered by its alternate power supply.
b.
Non-safety related wiring from the process computer and DC power for both RPS divisions going to the backup scram solenoids in the same conduits. The inspector observed that backup scram solenoid C11-F110A is fed from panel 1H13-P609 which has cables 1RP077 and 1RP099 in them.
These cables are designated A2C for RPS channel A2.
Backup scram solenoid C11-F110B is fed from panel 1H13-P611 which has cables 1RP077 and 1RP099 in them.
These cables are designated B2C for RPS channel B2.
It appears that divisional separation is maintained and that no process computer cables are involved.
RPS functional wiring crossing over non-sdfety related cabinet c.
lighting wiring.
The inspector did not observe this condition, but the licensee stated that if it were observed that it was not a violation of their separation criteria.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Plant Walkthrough The inspector conducted a thorough plant walkthrough on February 21, 1979, to review the status of plant equipment and general housekeeping. The inspector noted that the plant was-4-2280 356
..
.
.
extremely dirty and that additional steps to maintain cleanli-ness in the spent fuel storage facility area would be required when new fuel is channeled and stored there.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on March 23, 1979. The inspectors summarized the purpose and the scope of the inspection findings. The licensee representatives stated that they felt improvement of refueling flocr cleanliness conditions had been achieved since the inspector reviewed the item and the inspector assured the licensee that he would be checking this item on his next inspection.
2280 M7
.
-5-