IR 05000373/1980030
| ML19347B885 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 08/20/1980 |
| From: | Shepley S, Spessard R, Walker R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19347B878 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-373-80-30, 50-374-80-19, NUDOCS 8010160145 | |
| Download: ML19347B885 (9) | |
Text
..
> '
.
i
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
i
j Report No. 50-373/80-30; 50-374/80-19
!
Docket No. 50-373; 50-374 License No. CPPR-99; CPPR-100
Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company
Post Office Box 767
<
Chicago,-IL 60690 Facility Name:
LaSalle County Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At:
LaSalle Site, Marseilles, IL
!
17 th h July 25, 1980 Inspection Condu ted: J no
,
.J,roug
'
l
/ r"mt' ', 8 ' < < " N - - fW D
s'20-80
,
7. kalker "
Inspector. R
/
~ /:'rf sad ;~
a. '
.*
/
S.
'
epley
$ - 2. - 80
/
Cs -
Approved By:
'. L. Spessard, Chief
[%h rojects Section 1
/'
Inspection Summary i
Inspection on June 17 - July 25, 1980 (Report No. 50-373/80-30; 50-374/80-19)
Areas Inspected: Routine, resident inspector, preoperational inspection
,
consisting of a review of licensee action on previous inspection findings, IE Bulletins and IE Circulars received by the licensee since last inspection, overall preoperational test program review, plant procedures review, preoperational test review, activities preparatory to license issuance, and a plant walkthrough including 'perational status review. The inspection involved a total of 90 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspectors including 38 inspector-hours onsite during off-shifts.
Results: One item of noncompliance (Deficiency - failure to comply with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V - Paragraph 9) was identified.
,
!
--
-
-
,
-, _ - _ _ _., _ _
,,
..
.. - _,
__.,.,, _, _ _ _ _ _ _
_
-
.
-
-
.
.
!
,
'
DETAILS
,
i l
l 1.
Persons Contacted i
j R. Holyoak, Station Superintendent
L. J. Burke, Site Project Superintendent-R. D. Kyrouc, Quality Assurance Engineer
j G. J. Diederich, Station Operating Assistant Superintendent l
- R.
D. Bishop, Technical Staff Supervisor C. W. Schroeder, Assistant Technical Staff Supervisor i
R. Raguse, Senior Operating Engineer
)
J. M. Marshall, Operating Engineer
J. Renwick, Operating Engineer j
W. Huntington, Technical Staff I
H. J. Hetschel, Technical Staff T. Shill, Technical Staff
- C.
Reed, Vice President Nuclear Operations l
- A. W. Kleinrath, Manager Station Construction
- F.
A. Palmer, Division Manager Nuclear Stations a
j
- D. L. Shamblin, Representative for Manager Station Prajects
- L.
O. DelGeorge, Nuclear Licensing Administrator l
L. J. Burke, Station Construction Superintendent l
E. E. Spitzner, Administrative and Support Services Assistant
{
Superintendent
G. E. Groth, Construction Engineer l
J. W. Gieseker, Construction Engineer
The inspector also interviewed other licensee employees including j
members of the technical, operating, and construction staff, as well
}
as certain licensee contractor employees.
- Denotes persons present at management interview onsite.
]
- Denotes persons present at management meeting at Commonwealth l
Edison Company Corporate Headquarters on July 3, 1980.
i 2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
'
i a.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (373/78-17-01): Station Housekeeping Procedure LAP 900-15 did not establish or identify individual responsibilities for assuring plant cleanliness conditions on a j
day-to-day basis.
The inspector re-reviewed LAP 900-15 and an implementing memorandum dated May 5, 1980, Subject: Housekeeping,
To: ALL DEPARTMENT HEADS, From: The Station Operating Superin-J tendent. The inspector determined that individual responsibili-ties are assigned for assuring plant cleanliness conditions on a day-to-day basis.
.
b.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (373/79-44-10): The HPCS pump motor breaker alarm was on whenever the pump breaker was open which
'
is a normal condition, whereas the other 4 ECCS pump motor i
i
-2-i
_ -,,.
.
_ _ - _
_ _. _ _
.
, _.. _,
- _ -
!
<
.
4*
breakers only alarm when the breaker is closed which indicates a pump start. This item promoted operator confusion and was
,
i against the station's black alarm panel conce pt.
This alarm has
'
been rewired and tested.
The annunciator alarm window has olso
been changed to reflect the proper status of the HPCS pump
!
motor breaker. The alarm now comes up when the HPCS pump is l
started.
!
j c.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (373/79-23-06): The inspector deter-i mined by interviewing a control room operator that he was i
unable to find the proper alarm procedures to correct alarms in
the control room.
The inspector has determined the licensee has taken the following action to correct this item:
(1) The books containing the Operational Abnormal (LOA) Proced-ures that are in the control room have been relabeled to identify them by control room panel and annunciator panel.
The books have been indexed to the annunciator panel coordinates.
'
7 (2) The annunciator panels have been labeled in an X, Y grid coordinate manner such that the operator can readily identify the grid coordinate to the alarm procedure number.
l lI (3) The operators have received training to refresh them with the details concerning how to use and find the LOA proced-
'
ures.
i The inspector has interviewed several operators and determined that they can find and use the alarm procedures.
,
j d.
(Closed) Unresolved Itams (373/79-15-07, 373/79-15-08, 373/79-
<
15-09, and 373/79-15-10): Minor errors in LOP-WR-01E, LOP-WR-01M, LOP-WR-02, and LOP-WR-04 respectively. The inspector reviewed Rev. 2 of LOP-WR-01E dated March 1980, Rev. 1 of LOP-WR-01M i
dated March 1980, and Rev. 2 of LOP-WR-02 dated April 1980.
.
The errors have been corrected in these revisions. LOP-WR-04 has been deleted and incorporated into LOP-VP-09, Rev. O dated
,
June 1979, which corrects the errors made in LOP-WR-04.
(Closed) Unresolved Items (373/80-05-03, 373/80-24-07, and c.
373/80-16-04): Final inspector review of licensee response to i
IE Circulars 80-01, 80-09, and 80-11.
The inspector verified that the Circulars were received by the licensee management, that a review for applicability was performed, ar.' that if the
circular was applicable to the facility, appropriate corrective actions were scheduled or taken.
f.
(0 pen) Noncompliance (373/80-24-09):
Failure to have a required procedure to remove contrcl rods from the reactor vessel, as a
i l
,
-3-
'
I
-
-
,,
_
_ _ _ _
-
_ _ -..
_
_,
,.
. - _. - _ _
.
required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V and the Commonwealth
Edison Company Quality Assurance Manual. The inspector reviewed the licensee's response to this item of noncompliance dated June 25, 1980, and found that it was unacceptable in that the response did not adequately address plans to improve the effec-tiveness of the licensee's management control systems as related to the Station Operations / Construction interface when performing activities affecting quality.
Subsequent to this determination of an inadequate response, the inspector informed the licensee's onsite management of this finding and the NRC, Region III management requested a meeting with the licensee's corporate management to address the concerns involved.
A meeting was held with the licensee's corporate management on July 3, 1980, in which the Senior Resident Inspector and his Section Chief outlined the problems and discussed resolutions of them.
Subsequently, the resident inspector met with onsite management and participated in a meeting with licensee contractors to discuss the problems. The inspectors had not received the licensee's supplemental response to this noncompliance as of the close of the inspection; therefore, this item remains open pending final review of that letter.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
3.
Review of IE Bulletins Received Since Last Inspection Report The licensee received IE Bulletins 80-14, 80-15, 30-16, and 80-17 since the last inspection report written by the inspector. The inspector verified that IE Bulletins 80-14, 80-15, and 80-17 were received by the licensee for information only. Thesc bulletins will be applicable to the licensee when the construction phase of the plant is completed and the startup/ operating phase is entered; therefore, the licensee should provide an answer to the bulletins for the inspector's review prior to license issuance. Final review of the licensee's response to IE Bulletins 80-14, 80-15, and 80-17 are assigned Open Item Numbers (373/80-30-01). (373/80-30-02) and (373/80-30-03).
The inspector verified that IE Bulletin 80-16 was received by the licensee with a response required. The time period for the licensee's required response had not lapsed and the licensee is still formulating the required response. The inspector will review the licensee's response to this bulletin under Open Item Number (373/80-30-04).
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
4.
Review of IE Circulars Received Since Last Inspection Report The following IE Citculars have been issued since the last inspection repart writtea by the inspector:
80-14 and 80-15.
The inspector-4-
,
. -.
..
.
..-.
.
.
_. _ -.
._- -
-
. _ _ __ _
l
.
verified that the licensee has initiated a review of IE Circular
.
80-14 for applicability, but this review has not been completed.
Final review of the licensee's response to this IE Circular remains open (373/80-30-05). The inspector verified that the licensee reviewed IE Circular 80-15 for applicability and found it not applic-able.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
5.
Overall Preoperational Test Program Review Closure of Unresolved Item (373/78-17-01) in Paragraph 3.a. resolved the remaining concerns addressed in this review to ascertain that the applicant's administrative controls over preoperational testing have been developed in accordance with FSAR commitments and Regulatory requirements.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
6.
Plant Procedares Review Closure of Unresolved Item (373/78-17-01) in Paragraph 3.a. resolved j
the remaining concerns addressed in this review to:
Confirm that the scope of the plant procedures system is adequate a.
to control safety related operations with applicable regulatory requirements.
b.
Determine the adequacy of management control in implementing and maintaining a viable procedure system.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
'
7.
Preoperational Test Review The inspector completed his review of the following Preoperational Test Procedures:
PT-RH-101 Rasidual Heat Removal System PT-RI-101 Reactor Core Isolation Cooling System PT-MS-101c Automatic Depressurization System These test procedures were reviewed to determine the following, as required:
a.
Management approval.
-5-I
!
.,..
.
_,,. _,,, - -
,,. -, -
. - -,. -,.
_-,m
.--
........-.....-...._._.m....,.~.
-
.--
.
-
_
.._
_
. _. __ - _____
!
.
b.
Appropriate committee review.
,
c.
Procedure format.
j d.
Test objectives clearly stated - verify that all FSAR commitments are included.
!
,
Pertinent prerequisites identified, e.g.
e.
f (1) Required plant systems are specified.
I (2) Proper facility procedures are specified.
i i
(3) Completion of calibration checks, limit switch setting and protective device setting, included where applicable.
]
(4) Special supplies and test equipment specified.
!
j f.
Special environmental conditions, if any, identified.
}
d g.
Acceptance criteria against which the test will be judged are j
clearly identified and the procedure requires comparison of j
results with acceptance criteria.
l h.
The source of the acceptance criteria is identified, e.g.,
FSAR, T/S, Reg. Guide.
1 i.
Initial test sns are specif j
(1) Valve line-ups.
j (2) Electrical power and control requirements.
i (3) Temporary installations (instrumentation, electrical, and
,
piping).
'
l (4) Temperatures, pressures, flows.
{
(5) Water chemistry.
.
(6) Other.
I j.
The procedure includes reference to appropriate FSAR sections, T/S, drawings, specification, codes and other requirements.
,
k.
Step-by-step instructions for the performance of the procedure
'
.
are complete to the extent necessary to assure that test objec-
!
tives are met.
!
,
e 4.
!
i
' '
-6-I l
- _. -
-
. _.., _. -- _ _., _.. _ _ _..
..
. _,
,,.. _ _ _ -.. _... _... _ _,.
.
_
-_
.
. - -. -.
.
..... - - - -
- -_~
-
___.
.
--
i
.
I
l*
1.
Spaces are provided for initialing that all items, including prerequisites, are verified as having been performed.
I m.
Provision is made for recording details of the conduct of the
'
j test including observed deficiencies, their resolution, and
'
retest.
,
n.
Procedure requires that temporary connections, disconnections i
or jumpers be restored to normal or refers to another procedure.
i Procedure provides for identification of personnel conducting
.
o.
I the testing and evaluating the test data or refers to another
!
procedure.
Properational test procedures PT-LP-101 for the low pressure core spray system and PT-HP-101 for the high pressure core spray system have been reviewed during previous inspections by other NRC inspectors l
to complete the review of the ECCS preoperational test procedures.
The inspector discussed the review of these procedures with the licensee and stated that the few minor omissions in these procedures must be corrected which the licensee agreed to do.
The inspector will verify that these omissions are corrected by review of the ECCS preoperational test results during subsequent inspections (373/80-30-06).
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
a
)
8.
Inspection Activities Preparatory to License Issuance (Status of f
Licensee Procedures and Preoperational Testing Program)
!
I
'
j a.
Operating, Maintenance, Surveillst.ce, Abnormal and Emergency Procedure Status
!
The licensee projects 4835 procedures to be required in these Currently the licenste has approved 4353 procedures, areas.
403 procedures have been drafted but not reviewed, and 78
'
procedures remain to be drafted.
i
b.
Preoperational Testing Program Status The licensee projects 115 Preoperational Tests / System Demonstra-
!
tions. The licensee reported that all of these procedures have been approved for use. The licensee reported that 101 systems have been turned over for preoperatior.a1 testing, that 96 Preoperational Tests and System Demonstrations have been started, that 17 Preoperational Tests and System Demonstrations have been completed, and that the preoperational testing program is approximately 56% complete at this time. The licensee stated that no final Preoperational Test or System Demonstration results are ready for NRC review, i,e.,
the entire test is complete and the results have been reviewed and accepted by the licensee,
i-7-
--
. _ - -
_ _ _
__
_
_
_ _ _ _ _
i
.
(
i c.
Deficiency Status
I The licensee is currently listing 1088 Station Operations deficiencies and 5823 Station Construction deficiencies as i
outstanding items. The licensee is still attempting to segre-gate these deficiencies into those that will impact fuel load i
l and those that won't.
The inspector will review the status of this attempt during a subsequent inspection.
f No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
i 9.
Plant Walkthrough/ Operational Status Review i
l The inspector conducted walkthroughs and reviewed the plant opera-i tions status including examinations of control room log books,
'
routine patrol sheets, shift engineers log books, equipment outage logs, special operating orders, and jumper tagout logs for the period of June 17, 1980 through July 25, 1980.
The inspector observed the operations status during 4 off-shifts during the same period as above. The inspector also made visual observations of the routine surveillance, functional, and preopera-tional tests in progress during this period.
This review was conducted
,
to verify that facility operations were in conformance with the requirements established under 10 CFR and administrative procedures.
'
The inspector conducted tours of Units 1 and 2 reactor, auxiliary,
.
and turbine buildings throughout the period and noted the status of l
construction and plant housekeeping / cleanliness. With respect to housekeeping / cleanliness, conditions appear to be adequate. The
-
inspector observed that fire hazards were being minimized.
The inspector observed shift turnovers to verify that plant component status and problem areas were being turned over to a relieving shift.
With respect to the above reviews and tours, the inspector had the following findings:
On July 1, 1980, the inspector found that Unit 2 Division III battery
,
charger was being fed from a temporary construction power supply and
at that this feed had not been logged in the Temporary Feed Log in the control room, as required by step 6 of the " Guidelines For the Control of Temporary Feeds to Permanent Equipment." This condition had existed since at least May 30, 1980, without the required equip-l ment status change notice being initiated. This item is considered to be an item of noncompliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V.
A subsequent review of this item by the inspector revealed that
,
i the appropriate equipment status change notice had been completed on July 7, 1980, that the station's QC Department had performed a QC
.
-8-
.-
-_
_
-_.
,-
- _, - -. - -
-., - - - - - - _.. - -.. _ -. - - - _ -,.. -
. _.
_
.
-
-...
.
_.
-
.._
-. - _ -.
-
- - _
!
E*
i
i s
surveillance of the temporary feed log with no other deficiencies j
found, that the licensee's QC department periodically performed j
surveillances of the temporary feed log, and that the employees I
responsible for initiating the equipment status change forms to input to the temporary feed log have been made cognizant of the i
requirement to complete these forms when the temporary feed has been l
,
j placed. The inspector considered these corrective and preventive l
l actions to be adequate; therefore, no response to this item is required.
l
,
!
j 10.
Management Interview i
i The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Para-J graph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection period on July 25.
t 1980. The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspec-tion activities.
.
I i
!
'
j t
)
i
!
<
!
e
!
,
3
4 i
i i
.
'
a i
i i
a
9_
4 l
'
r
)
"
-
J