IR 05000373/1979023
| ML19247B216 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 06/18/1979 |
| From: | Spessard R, Walker R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19247B208 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-373-79-23, NUDOCS 7908080194 | |
| Download: ML19247B216 (4) | |
Text
.
e
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION.ST) ENFORCEMEh7 REGION 1II P.eport No. 50-373/79-23 Docket No. 50-373 License No. JPPR-99 Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company P. O. Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facili',y Name:
La Salle County Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Inspection At:
La Salle Site, Marseilles, IL Inspec'. ion Conducted:
May 25, 29-30 and June 1, 1979
[-
Ifl,
%!
-D - ), $ - ) N, Inspector:
R. D. Walker X Hrd -
6/['/7f Approved By:
R. L. Spessard, Chief
'
Reactor Projects Section 1 Inspection Summary Inspection on May 25, 29-30 and June 1, 1979 (Report No. 50-373/79-23)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unmannounced preoperatior._1 inspection consisting of review of station operating procedures and a plant walkthrough. The inspection involved a total of 20 inspector-hours onsite by one h7C inspector.
Results:
No items of noncompliance were identified.
500 320 790808019 7
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- G.
J. Diderich, Assistant Plant Superintendent
- E.
E. Soitzner, Administrative Assistant
- C.
W. Shroeder, Asistant Technical Staff Supervisor
- R. H. Raguse, Senior Operating Engineer
- J.
C. Renwick, Operating Engineer
- J.
G. Marshall, Operatir.g Engineer
- G.
W. Reardanz, Senior Quality Assurance Inspector
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Operatint "-acedure Review a.
The inspector reviewed procedure LAP 240-1 "Use of Locks on Valves".
The inspector found several typographical errors and unclear component names on this procedure which the licensee has agreed to correct.
The inspector also considered the procedure inadequate, in that the list is not in agreement with the licensee's Piping and Inst rumen-tation Drawings.
The inspector infor med the licensee that this discrepancy needs to be resolved prior to issuance of an operating license.
This matter is unresolved.
(373/79-23-01)
b.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's procedures to ascer-tain if procedural controls exist governing the use of spool pieces and blank langes.
The licensee's Piping and Instrumentation Drawings show many such items in use, and notes within these drawings often call for the spool pieces to be in place only during reactor shutdowns. The spool pieces must be removed and liant flanges installed during reactor operation. The licensee replied that control procedures for these items are not complete. The inspector informed the licensee that this matter needs to be resolved prior to issuance of an operating license.
This matter is unresolved.
(373/79-23-02)
c.
Th>: inspector reviewed proced e LAP 900-4 " Equipment Out of Service" and procedure LAP 900-12 " Caution Card" to ascertain if tags placed on equipment provide potential for obscuring necessary status indication, such as indicator lights, parameter indications, etc.
The inspector found-2-500 321
.
.
that such potential does exist and informed the licensee that changes in the tagging methods which eliminate this potential should be considered. The license is looking into these changes. This matter will be reviewed during subsequent inspections.
(373/79-23-03)
d.
The inspector asked the licensee to identify what proce-dural methods will be used to assure that the proper valve / breaker / switch alignment checklists are run after each reactor outage.
The inspector stated that some torm of control should be implemented within the Master Outage Checklist to provide this assurance. The licensee stated that this type of procedare control had not been developed yet.
The inspector will review this matt er at a later date.
(373/79-23-04)
T' e inspector reviewed selected operating procedures whiti e.
ill be used to return Engineering Safety Feature Systems
-
to service after automatic initiation.
The purpose of this review Nas to verif" that these procedures give specilic precaut ns against overriding or bypassing Engineered Safety Features by the operator, unless specific plant conditions require such an override or
-
bypass. The plant ope:atir.g procedures have not addressed this matter. The licensee stated that his intent had been to provide this control in Administrative procedures or Standing Orders.
The inspector stated that it would be necessary to provide these controls iithin the body of the applicable operating procedures and. hat tne precautions should give the operator criteria for determining when such an override or bypass may or must be implemented.
The basis for this requirement can be found in ANSI 18.7 which the licensee is committed to.
The inspector will review this item at a later d. ate.
(373/79-23-05)
3.
, Plant Walkthrough The inspector conducted a plant wtlkthrough on May 30, 1979, to review the status of plant equipment and general nousekeeping.
The inspactor noted that the plant was extremely dirty. The inspector discussed with the licensee the 10 CFR 50 Appendix B requirements for cleanliness and the FSAR commitments to good housekeeping practices found in Reg Guide 1.39 and ANSI N45.2.3.
The inspector informed the licensee that during subsequent inspections specific components would be reviewed to assure that cleanliness requirements identified in these documents are
- 3-
[)00 322
.
,
,
being properly adhered to.
The inspector urged the licen ee's station management to meet with station construction management to develop a coordinated plan to improve general housekeeping conditions. The inspector reiterated that his specific concerns involve safety related components, but cautioned that general cleanliness should be improved also.
The inspector interviewed a control room operator during the course of his plant walkthrough to ascertain if the operator had ready access to and was capable of obtaining alarm proce-dures in a timely manner. The inspector asked the operstor to show him the alarm procedures for four dif ferent alarms that were activated on the control alarm panels.
The aperator was unable to produce any of the alarm procedures even though these procedures bad been approvea and distributed.
The inspector informed the licensee of this situation and indicated that it was not clear if the fault was within the procedure indexing system, the operator training program, or if the procedures were simply not available to the operator.
The inspector stated that whatever the problem is, it needs to be corrected prior to issuance of an operating license. This matter is unresolved.
(373/79-23-06)
4.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on June 1, 1979. The inspector summarized the purpose and the scope of the inspection findings. The inspector asked for the current, estimated fuel load date. The licensee estimated the spring of 1980, but did not have a specific date.
-4-
.,
-