IR 05000373/1980037
| ML19339C679 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 10/03/1980 |
| From: | Shepley S, Spessard R, Walker R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19339C678 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-373-80-37, NUDOCS 8011180860 | |
| Download: ML19339C679 (14) | |
Text
__
l
..
i O'
'
u s *uctt^a atout^'oav co""'ss'o"
~0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
J Report No. 50-373/80-37
.
Docket No. 50-373 License No. CPPR-99 d
Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company-Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: LaSalle County Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Inspection At: LaSalle Site, Marseilles, IL Inspection Conducted: July 28 through September 5,1980 W W d urerL Inspectors: R.D.WalNr, Senior esident Inspection
/0b/Pc v
9/ Mn n S. E. Shipley, Resident Inspector
/eb //c.
ha-4 Approved By:
R. L. Spessard, Chief,
/c'[3 /Tc Projects Section 1 Inspection Summary Inspection on July 28 - September 5,1980 (Report No. 50-373/80-37)
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, l
l preoperational tes.t program records, observance of preoperational testing, i
Emergency / Abnormal procedures, inspection requirements for verifying license application, response to headquarters request, inspection activities prepara-tory to license issuance, and a plant walkthrough/ operational status-review.
The inspection involved a total.of 194 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC
<
inspectors including 84 inspector-hours onsite during off-shifts.
Results: No items of noncompliance were identified.
i 8011180860
, -,..
-
-
-.
.
'
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- R. Holyoak, Station Superintendent
- R. D. Kyrouc, Quality Assurance Engineer G. J. Diederich, Station Operating Assistant Superintenden.
R. D. Bishop, Technical Staff Supervisor C. W. Schroeder, Assistant Technical Staff Supervisor R. Raguse, Senior Operating Engineer J. M. Marshall, Operating Engineer J. Renwick, Operating Engineer W. Huntington, Technical Staff H. J. Hetschel, Technical Staff T. Shill, Technical Staff E. E..Spitzner, Administrative and Support Services Assistant Superintendent G. E. Groth, Construction Engineer The inspector also interviewed other licensee employees including members of the technical, operating, and construction staff, as well as certain licensee contractor employees.
- Denotes persons present at management interview onsite.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Noncompliance Item (373/80-16-11): The inspector reviewed the licensee's corrective action with respect to this item of non-compliance which was concerned with failing to properly control con-ditions such that the cleanliness of the reactor vessel was properly controlled and such that the 1A Diesel Generator Air Start System Air Compressor Electric Drive Motors were properly protected from the weather. The inspector found the licensee's corrective action to be adequate and implemented.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (373/79-15-14): The inspector had identified errors in procedure LOP-HP-01E "High Pressure Core Spray System Electrical Checklist." The inspector has reviewed Revision 3, dated May, 1980, of this procedure and found the errors corrected.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (373/79-15-15): The inspector had identi-fied errors in procedure LOP-HP-01M "High Pressure Core Spray System Mechanical Checklist." The inspector has reviewed Revision 3, dated May, 1930, of this procedure and found the errors corrected.
(Closed) Noncompliance Item (373/80-24-09): The inspector had found the licensce's corrective action on this item which involved failure to have a procedure to remove control rods from the reactor vessel to-2-
._
.
' '
be inadequate in Inspection Report 50-373/80-30 because it failed to address plans to improve the effect; 2 ness of the licensee's management control systems as related to the Station Operations / Construction interface. The licensee has submitted and implemented a supplemental response which the inspector has reviewed and found to be adequate.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (373/79-38-17): Final inspector review of IE Circular 77-15. The inspector verified that the circular was received by the licensee management, that a review for applicability was performed, and that appropriate action was taken or scheduled.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
3.
Review of IE Bulletins Received Since Last Inspection Report The licensee received IE Bulletins 80-18, 80-19, and 80-20 since the last inspection report written by the inspector. The inspector veri-fied that IE Bulletin 80-18 was received by the licensee for infor-mation only.
This bulletin will not be applicable to the licensee when the con-struction phase of the plant is completed and the startup/ operating phase is entered; therefore, the licensee need not provide an answer to the bulletin for the inspector's review prior to license issuance.
The inspector verified that IE Bulletins 80-19 and 80-20 were received by the licensee with a response required. The time period for the licensee's required response to IE Bu'.letin 80-20 has not elapsed and the licensee is still formulating the required response.
The inspector will review the 11 see's response to this bulletin under Open Item Number (373/80-37-01).
The inspector verified for IE Bulletin 30-19 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 information discussed in the licensee's written response was accurate, and that corrective action taken by the licensee was as described in the written response.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
4.
Review of IE Circulars Received Since Last Inspection Report The following IS Circulars have been issued since the last inspection report written by the inspector:
80-16, 80-17, 80-18, 80-19, and 80-20.
The inspector verified the licensee has initiated a review of i-3-
__ _
.
IE Circulars 80-16 and 80-18 for applicability, but this review has
not been completed. Final review of the licensee's response to these IE Circulars remains open with Open Item Numbers (373/80-37-02) and (373/80-37-03) for 80-16 and 80-18 respectively. The inspector found that IE Circulars 80-19 and 80-20 were not sent to this licensee because they are not applicable to reactor facility licensees. The inspector verified for IE Circular 80-17 that the cf reular was received by the licensee management, that a review for applicability was per-formed, and that if the circular were applicable to the facility, appropriate corrective actions were taken or were scheduled to be taken.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
5.
Preoperational Test Program Records The inspector reviewed the licensee's preoperational test records program. As a part of this review, the inspector:
a.
Checked the licensee QA Manual and administrative procedures to verify that (1) administrative controls have been established for maintaining preoperational test procedures and results, corrective and preventive maintenance records, design changes and modification documents, component, system, and structure
turnover records, during the preoperational testing period, and (2) responsibilities have been assigned to assure these records are being maintained.
b.
Verified the licensee's procedures are being implemented by selecting a sample of specific records and observed that these are being maintained in accordance with the specified administra-tive controls, Inspectedthelicensee'sstoragefacilitiesandsystebsir.cluding c.
storage locations, physical controls, filing systems, transmittal
,
documentation, access control, accountability and updating methcds
'
for conformity with the specified requirements.
d.
Interviewed the assigned record custodians for knowledge of procedures, requirements, and responsibilities.
,
e.
Compared the record retention periods as established by the applicant, along with the controls for assuring these retention periods, with the specified requirements.
As a result of this review, the inspector ascertained that the li-censee's program for records control is currently in accordance with SAR commitments and Regulatory requirements, 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII r.nd Reg. Guide 1.88, and that these controls as applied
-4-
_
.
I
.
to records genereted during the preoperational test program are i
currently being acequately implemented. The inspector communicated to the licensee certain minor concerns which the licensee has success-
.
fully addressed.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
,
6.
Observance of Preoperational Testing On August 14, 1980, the inspector observed the 10 start preoperational test of the "0" Diesel system. The system failed the test due to equipment malfunction. The test was re-run without any repairs and the system passed the test. The test procedures seemed adequate. The inspector observed the following:
a.
A proper procedure was used.
b.
Minimum crew requirements were met.
-c.
All prerequisites were met.
d.
Proper plant systems were in service.
e.
Testing was performed as required by the procedure.
f.
The test sequence was adequately coordinated.
g.
All data was collected for final analysis.
The applicant wrote a deficiency on the system as a result of the first test.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
7.
Emergency / Abnormal Procedure Review The inspector reviewed the licensee's emergency / abnormal procedures to ascertain whether they are prepared to adequately control safety related functions in the event of system or component malfunction indication. The inspector reviewed these procedures to:
a.
Verify that administrative controls have been established for the review, approval, and periodic updating of these procedures.
b.
Verify that the scope of the procedures were adequate to address all functional areas within regulatory requirement found in Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision ~2, February 1978, Appendix A,
-
items 5 and 6.
c.
Verify that the procedures content was. adequate for the following procedure categories:
I-5-
_ --
.
(1) Procedures for. correcting abnormal, offnormal, or alarm
.
conditions.
(2) - Procedures for combating emergencies and other significant
~ events, i.e.,
those procedures which specify operator actions o
involving manipulation of plant controls to prevent an accident, to prepare for anticipated acts of nature, or to reduce the consequences of an accident or a hazardous condition which has already occurred or developed.
d.
Verify that the procedures as described in Item c. above are in the proper format as defined in ANSI N18.7 of 1976.
The inspector's findings with respect to each of these items are as follows:
a.
Administrative Controls
.
The inspector found that proposed Technical Specification 6.1.G.2 contains the requirements for the "Onsite Review and Investigative Function," that proposed Technical Specification 6.1.G.2.a.1 re-quires this review for procedures required by proposed Technical Specification 6.2, and that proposed Technical Specification 6.2.A adequately defines the appropriate procedures to be reviewed.
The inspector found that the following administrative procedures have been prepared, reviewed, and implemented per current regulatory requirements:
Procedure #
Revision Revision Date Procedure Title LAP 820-1
9-8-80 Station Procedures LAP 820-2
6-13-80 Station Procedure Preparation and Revision LAP 820-3
8-18-80 Procedure Distri-bution LAP 820-4
6-19-80 Temporary Procedure Changes LAP 820-6
10-23-79 Use of Procedure Deficiency Sheets LAP 820-7
1-29-80 Special Procedures LAP 1200-1
9-8-80 Onsite Review and Investigative Function LAP 1200-6-1 11-9-79 Onsite Review of
,
Procedures
-6-
,
, - -..
.
'
The above procedures adequately define the administrative controlt for procedures to meet the proposed technical specifications and other regulatory requirements.
b.
Procedure Scope
,
The inspector found from the review of the procedures that the term Emergency Procedure is not used in conjunction with procedures-which control plant parameters in any event, but are reserved for implementing the Generating Station Emergency Plan (GSEP). These procedures are designated as " Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures" (LZP). The inspector found that procedures predescribed as "Proce-dures for Combating Emergencies and Other Significant Events" in Section 6 of Appendix A of Reg. Guide 1.33 with three exceptions are defined as either " General Plant Abnormal Procedures" (LGA) or
" Operational Abnormal Procedures, Volume 1" (LOA). The three areas which differ from this format are:
(1) Reactor Trip. This procedure is defined as a General Operating Procedure (LGP) because the procedure is in effect a scram procedure for general operating conditions.
(2) Plant Fires. These procedures are (LZP) designated because they are implementing procedures for the GSEP.
(3) Loss of Protective System Channel. This area is covered by alarm procedures-(LOA, Volumes II through VII) which refer to a System Operating Procedure (LOP) for loss of the Reactor Protection System Motor Generator Set.
The inspector found that procedures described as " Procedures for Abnormal, Offnormal, or Alarm Conditions" in Section 5 of Appendix A of Reg. Guide 1.33 are defined as " Operational Abnormal Procedures" (LOA). The LOA's consist of seven volumes. The first volume is confin d to procedures described in Section 6 of Appendix A of Reg.
Guide 1.33 and Volumes II through VII are confined to annunciator procedures. The inspector has concluded from his review that the procedures have sufficient scope to meet the regulatory requirements; however, the inspector found that certain areas of the above pro-j cedures are being completely rewritten and reorganized per "NRC Action Plan Developed as'a Result of the TMI-2 Accident NUREG-0660" requirements defined in Task I.C.1 and I.C.8.
The specific areas to be rewritten are Inadequate Core Cooling, Loss of Main Feedwater, and Small Break Loss of Coolant Accidents. These three areas cut
"
across the boundaries of many of the licensee's current procedures and will necessitate a complete reorganization of the current licensee procedures that remain intact. This reorganization and rewriting will be reviewed by a team of NRC personnel headed by representatives of the Office of NRR, Division of Human Factors Safety, Procedures and Test Review Branch and is not a function of the inspector's current review.
-7-
.
.
c.
Procedure Content (1) The procedures identified in this ca;egory are annunciator procedures. The licensee currently has approximately 2000
,
of these procedures. The inspector has reviewed and found acceptableLin previous inspection reports approximately 200 of these procedures plus all. annunciator procedures associ-ated with the operators console (Control Room Panel 1H13-P 601). The inspector is holding open items from previous inspection reports to cover any concerns associated with these procedures.
(2) The procedures identified in this category are classified as Procedures for Combating Emergencies and Other Signifi-cant Events by Reg. Gu;de 1.33.
The procedures identified below as LASALLE were reviewed by the inspector to ascertain if they had the proper content to address the events listed below in Reg. Guide 1.33.
REG. GUIDE 1.33 LASALLE PROCEDURES Loss of Coolant LGA-01 Loss of Coolant (Fast Leak)
LGA-02 Loss of Coolant (Slow Leak)
LGA-03 Major Steam Leaks (Outside the Drywell)
LOA-NB-01 Primary System Leaks Loss of Instrument Air LOA-IA-01 Loss of Instrument Air LOA-IA-02 Loss of Normal Drywell Pneumatic Air Supply LOA-IA-05 Loss of 100# Drywell Pneumatic Air Supply Loss of Electrical Power LGA-12 Loss of Auxiliary Electrical (and/or degraded power Power i
sources)
LOA-AP-01 Loss of Sya.em Auxiliary Transformer, SAT 142 (242), During Power Operation LOA-AP-02 Failure of Bus 141Y (241Y)
or Bus 142Y (242Y) to Transfer to Unit Auxiliary Transformer, UAT 141 (241) Upon Loss of Power From System Auxiliary Transformer SAT 142 (242)
LOA-AP-03 Loss of a 4 KV ESS Bus LOA-AP-05 Loss of a 480 VAC ESS Bus LOA-DC-01 250 VDC System Failure LOA-DC-02 125 VDC System Failure LOA-DC-03 48/24 VDC System Failure Loss of Core Coolant Flow LGA-08 Loss of Recirculation From -
Single Pump LGA-09 Loss of Recirculation From -
-8-
,
.
, -
,
-
.
- -
-
.-
-
.
.-
.
-
.
.
.
.-
l
.
4.
..
Both Loops
'
LOA-RR-03 Reactor Recirculation Flow Control System Failure to Minimum Demand
'
Loss of Condensor. Vacuum
. LOA-CW-01 Loss of 1.11 Circulating Water Pumps-LOA-0G-05 Failure of the Steam Jet Air Ejector Steam Pressure Control
}
LOA 1(2)H13-P603-B201 DIV I Main Condensor Vacuum LO LOA 1(2) H13-P603-B212 DIV II Maia Condensor Vacuum LO Loss of. Containment Integrity LOA-PC-01 Loss of Primary and/or
Secondary Containment Integrity Loss of Service Water.
LOA-WS-01 Loss of Service Water Loss of Shutdown Cooling LOA-RH-01 Loss of Shutdown Cooling
'
Loss of Component Cooling and LOA-FC-01 Loss of Fuel ~ Pool Cooling
Cooling to Individual 10A-RH-02 Loss of Suppression Pool
,
Components-Cooling LOA-RH-03 Loss of RHR Service. Water
"
LOA-WR-01 Loss of Reactor Building Closed Cooling Water (RBCCW)
Loss of Feedwater and Feed-LGA-04 High Reactor Water Level water System Failure LGA-05 Low Reactor Water Level LOA-CD-01 Loss of Condensate Pump LOA-HD-05 Heater Drain Tank Level HI/LO LOA-RL-01 Failure of Reactor Water Level Control System in Auto or Single LOA-RL-02 Failure of the TDRFP M/A XFR Station LOA-FW-01 Loss of Feedwater Heaters LOA-HD-01 Loss of Pumped Forward Flow Heater Drain LOA-HD-02 Operation with Reduced
.)
Pumped Forward Heater Drain j
Flow'
Loss of Protective System Channel LOA 1(2)H13-P603-A508 RPS MG 1(2)
A Trouble I
LOA 1(2)H13-P603-B512 RPS MG 1(2)
B Trouble LOP-RP-02 Reactor-Protection System Bus A or-B Shutdown (Includes
"
,
Attachments A and-B)
- Mispositioned Control Rod LOA-RD-03 Mispositioned Control Rod or Rods (And Rod Drops)
LOA-RD-02. Uncoupled Control Rod LOA-RD-01 Stuck Control Rod Inability to Drive Control LOA-RD-01 Stuck Control Rod
Rods LOA-RD-02 Mispositioned Control Rod LOA-RD-04 Control Rod Drive System-
,
t
,
-9-f
-
. _.,
-
_
,
_._.
-
__
_ _.
_.,
,_
.
'
Flow Control Failure LOA-RD-05 Control Rod Drive Stabil-izer Conditions Requiring Use of-LGA-18 Transient with Failure to Emergency Boration or Scram (Greater than 25% Load)
Standby Liquid Control System (Below 25% Reactor Power)
LOA-SC-02 Initiation of Standby Liquid Control Fuel Cladding Failure or High LOA-PR-01 Release Rate Spikes After Activity in Reactor Coolant Power Change or Offgas LOA-PR-02 Release Rate Exponential with Power LOA-PR-03 High Release Rate LGA-16 Fuel Element Failure Fire in Control Room or Forced LOA-RX-01 Control Room Evacuation Evacuation of Control Room LOA-ZZ-05 Plant Operation with the Control Room inaccessible Turbine and Generator Trips LGA-10 Loss of Turbine Generator Load Greater Than 25%
LGA-11 Loss of Turbine Generator Load Less Than 25%
Other Expected Transients LGA-04 High Reactor Water Level That May Be Applicable LOA-NB-02 Failure of a Relief Valve to Seat Properly or Inad-vertent Actuation of a Safety Relief Valve LOA-NB-05 Recovery From an ECCS Initiation Under Post Accident Conditions Malfunction of Automatic LOA-RR-03 Reactor Recirculation Reactivity Control System Flow Control System Failure to Minimum Demand LOA-RR-04 Recirculation Flow Control Valve Failure Maximum Demand LOA-RR-05 Reactor Recirculation Flow Control Valve Lockout LOA-NR-01 SRM or IRM Insert or Withdraw Failure LOA-NR-02 LPRM Failure /LPRM High Flux or LPRM Downscale LOA-NR-03 Loss of Neutron Flux In-dication Malfunction of Pressure LOA-EH-01 Pressure Regulator Failure Control System-Upscale LOA-EH-02 Turbine. Control Valve Failure LOA-EH-03 Turbine Control Valve (S)
Failed Open Reactor Trip LGP 3-2 Reactor Scram a
- 10 -
,
.
-
.
.
.
-Plant Fires-LZP-810-1-Implementing Procedure for
-
Fire: Fire Marshall LZP-820-1 Implementing Procedure
for Fire: Fire Chief (Senior Shift
.
Foreman)
LZP-830-1 Implementing Procedure for Fire: Fire Officer No. 1 (Cognizant Maintenance Foreman)
LZP 850-1 Implementing Procedure for Fire: Fire Brigade LZP-860-1 Implementing Procedure for Fire:
Fire Company No. 1 (Maintenance Personnel)
Act of Nature (e.g., tornado, LGA-17 Bomb Threat Response flood, dam failure, earthquakes)
LOA-AA-02 Operation During Tornado Warning LOA-VC-01 Operation of Control Room HVAC During Hi Radiation, Smoke or Chlorine Detection i '
LOA-VE-01 Operation of Auxiliary Electric Equipment HVAC l
During High Radiation, Smoke or
Chlorine Detection i
LOA-ZZ-01 Operation During Earth-quake Conditions-LOA-ZZ-03 Failure of the Cooling Lake Dike Irradiated Fuel Damage LOA-ZZ-08 Irradiated Fuel Damage
While Refueling While Refueling (Fuel Handling Accident)
Abnormal Releases of LOA-PR-01 Release Rate Spikes Radioactivity Aiter Power Change LOA-PR-02 Release Rate Exponential With Power LOA-PR-03 High Release Rate Intrusion of Demineralizer LOA-NB-04 Reactor Coolant High Resin Into Primary System Conductivity (BWR Plants)
The inspec+.or addressed his concerns with these procedures to the licensee and was assured that the concerns will be pursued in the re-write and review discussed in b. above. The inspector verified that these procedures are in the proper format as defined in ANSI N18.7 of 1976.
It is understood that procedures that are affected by the NUREG-0660 requirements discussed in b. above, will no longer be in this format and that this is acceptable as determined by the Office of NRR review team.
No items;of noncompliance were. identified in this area.
- 11 -
-
~
..,.,m-.
-
e e +
.
.
.
..
8.
Inspection Requirements for Verifying License Application Submittals for Licensee Training Staff Personnel (T1-2515/36). The licensee has identified five training instructors who will be involved in training on systems, integrated plant response, transients and simulator courses for the LaSalle County Nuclear Station. The inspector has determined that one of these instructors has taken the examination for a Cold Senior Reactor Operator's License, that license applications have been submitted for a Cold Senior Reactor Operator's License for three of these instructors, and that the remaining in-structor should have an application for a Hot Senior Reactor Operator's License submitted by May of 1981.
No iteas of noncompliance were identified in this area.
9.
Response to Headquarters Request
.
The inspector followed up on a Temporary Instruction concerning location of certain load centers issued by the Division of Reactor Operations Inspection, Office of Inspection and Enforcement. The temporary instruction requested followup to assure compliance with an NRR technical position that motor operated valves inside the p-imary containment that are required to be locked in position via i
pcsitioning of the breaker powering the motor on the valve must have the breaker being positioned outside of the primary containment. The inspector found that the licensee was in compliance with this NRR technical position.
r l
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
I 10.
Inspection Activities Preparatory to License Issuance (Status of Licensee Procedures and Preoperational Testing Program a.
Operating, Maintenance, Surveillance, Abnormal and Emergency Procedure Status j
The licensee projects 4858 procedures to be required in these I
areas. Currently the licensee has approved 4372 procedures, 424 procedures have been drafted but not reviewed, and 62 pro-cedures remain to be drafted.
b.
Preoperational Testing Program Status The licensee projects a total of 125 Preoperational Tests / System Demonstrations required for Unit #1 operation, of which 115 of these are specific to Unit #1 and the remaining 10 are specific
,
to Unit #2.
The licensee reported that 111 systems have been turned over for preoperational testing, that 107 Preoperational Tests and System
- 12 -
.
.
.
. _.
.
Demonstrations have been started, that 30 Preoperational Tests and System Demonstrations have been completed, and that the preoperational testing program is approximately 63% complete at this time. The licensee stated that final Preoperational Test or System Demonstration results for 1 test are ready for NRC review, i.e., the entire test is complete and the results have been reviewed and accepted by the licensee, c.
Deficiency Status The licensee is currently listing 1508 Station Operations de-ficiencies and 6173 Station Construction deficiencies as out-standing items. The licensee is still attempting to segregate these deficiencies into those that will impact fuel load and those that won't.
The licensee has reviewed approximately 1566 of these deficiencies for segregation and preliminary assessment is that 548 of those reviewed would need to be cleared prior to fuel load.
..
The inspector will continue to review this matter.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
11.
Plant Walkthrough/ Operational Status Review The inspector conducted walkthroughs and reviewed the plant opera-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 July 28, 1980 thrcugh September 5, 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 con-ducted to verify that facility operations were in conformance with the requirements established under 10 CFR and administrative pro-
,
cedures.
The inspector conducted tours of Units 1 and '. reactor, auxiliary, and turbine buildings throughout the period and noted the status of 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 problen areas were being turned over to a relieving shift.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
12.
Other Significant Events Involving the Resident Site Staff a.
Suport of Regional Office Staff Familiarization The inspectors supported a Region III program for familiarizing noninspector personnel on the regional office staff with actual
- 13 -
m
,-
., -
. _ -
' >s
'
\\i i &
-
.
.
field conditions'at the LaSalle County Nuclear Station. This
- -
involved lectures and tourt of the station on August 19, 26, and Se,tember 4,.1980,
b, SuR2 ort of Other Federal Agency ThebeniorResidentInspectorspentsixdaysinRock-Island, Illinois supporting Department of Justice activities during this inspection period.
c.
Support of Other NRC Offices The Senior Resident Inspector spent 3 days at NRC Headquarters attending meetings conducted by-the Office of NRR in which various open items on the LaSalle County Nuclear Station Unit
- 1 docket were discussed with licensee representatives.
d.
Support of Other IE Activities The Senior Resident Inspector spent 2 days at Dresden Nuclear Station witnessing Control Rod Drive System Testing requirements defined in IE Bulletin 80-17.
13.
Management Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (Denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection period. The inspector summarized
.
the-scope and findings of the inspection activities.
i I
a l
l 1-4-
-
,
, -
.
.
-
-