IR 05000373/1981008
| ML19347F843 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 05/05/1981 |
| From: | Gwynn T, Reimann F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19347F842 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-373-81-08, 50-373-81-8, NUDOCS 8105260447 | |
| Download: ML19347F843 (4) | |
Text
.
.
- --
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
,
REGION III
,
Report No. 50-373/81-08 Docket No. 50-373 License No. CPPR-99 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Ccapany Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: LaSalle County Station, Unit 1 Inspection At:
LaSalle Site, Marseilles, IL Inspection Conducted: February 9, 10, and 11, 1981 PFlaN W
'
Inspector:
T. P. Gwynn 5//, r/
,
..- w
,s *
f Approved
F. W.
eimann, Acting Chief 4 ( /Q $ /
'
Reactor Projects Section IC Inspection Summary Inspection on February 9, 10, and 11, 1981 (Report No. 50-373/81-08)
Areas Inspected: Assist resident inspection of Preoperational Test Program Implementation, Design Changes and Modifications, Plant Maintenance during Preoperational Training, and Training of Preoperational Test Personnel.
This inspection involved a total of 30 inspector-hours onsite including 13 inspector-hours onsite during offshifts.
,
l Results: Of the three areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were
!
identified.
I i
!
.
i 8105260 4/f/
q
.
.'
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- R. H. Holyoak, Superintendent
- B.B. Stephenson, Project Manager
- R.
D. Bishop, Assistant Superintendent, Administrative and Technical Support Services
- R. D. Walker, Senior Resident Inspector, USNRC W. R. Huntington, Assistant Technical Staff Supervisor E. L. O'Connell, Modification Engineer
- E. J. Stevak, Quality Assurance J. H. Mcdonald, Training Supervisor D. M. Pristave, Systems Test Engineer J. M. Damron, Systems Test Engineer and others of the station staff.
- Denotes those present attending the exit interview.'
2.
Preoperational Test Program Implementation
-
a.
Training of Preoperational Test Personnel The inspector reviewed the training program established for the Systems Test Engineers (STE's), reviewed the training records of two STE's, and conducted personal interviews with these personnel to verify that training records accurately reflected training received-Particular attention was given to training in the areas
.
of administrative controls for testing, QA/QC indoctrination and applicable technical training.
The inspector found that the training program for preoperational test personnel was adequate and that training records accurately reflect the training received.
i b.
Plant Maintenance During Preoperational Testing
'
The inspector reviewed administrative procedures established to control plant maintunance during the peroperational test program.
In subsequent interviews with plant personnel, the inspector l
verified that personnel involved in preoperational test ac'.ivities l
were aware of the requirements, that maintenance activities were l
being controlled via the station work request program, and that maintenance activities were being reviewed to ensure that pre-operational testing results had not been affected by maintenance activities.
c.
Design Changes and Modification The inspector reviewed one design change package and one modifica-l tion package to determine if reviews, processing, and implementation had been performed according to procedural controls; that appropriate f
2-
'
,
,
,,,
,,.. -
,, -
.- -
-
., - -, - - - -
-
-,
-,
-
_
.._.
e
!
changes were made to preoperational. test procedures based on the design change package; andthat the cognizant System Test Engineer (STE) was aware of the change.
In addition, the inspector reviewed the' Jumper, Block, and Lifted lead Log to verify that. log entries reflected the current status of Jumpers, Blocks, and Lifted Leads.
(1) Documentation Reviewed (a) LAP 240-3, Electric Jumpers, Relay Blocks, and Lifted
.
Electrical Leads, Revision 4, dated December 9, 1980.
(b) LAP 820-1, Station Procedures, Revision 11, dated-September 8, 1980.
(c) LAP 1300-2, Plant Modifications Requiring Engineering Department Assistance, Revision 6, dated January 8,1981.
(d) LSU 000-0, LaSalle County Station Startup Manual Units 1 and 2, Revision 1, dated April 5, 1979.
(e) LSU 200-2, Testing Deficiencies, Revision 8, dated June 13, 1980.
(f) LSU 300-5, Duties and Responsibilities of the Deficiency Coordinator, Revision 1, dated January 17, 1979.
(g) LSU 400-4, Review and Approval of Startup Manual Procedures, Revision 3, dated October 2, 1979.
.
(h) LSU 500-3, Deficiencies and Abnormalities, Revision.1, dated August 2, 1979.
(i) Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO) Quality Assurance Manual, Quality Requirement 3.0, Design Control.
(j) CECO Quality Assurance Manual, Quality Procedure 3-2,
,
Design Change Control.
'
(k) CECO Quality Assurance Manual, Quality Procedure 11-2, i
Deveolpment, Performance, Documentation, and Evaluation l
of Preoperational and Startup Tests.
!
(
(1) Memorandum from R. D. Bishop, Administrative and Technical Support Services, Assistant Superintendent to System Test Engineers - Subject: Operating Design Change Request (ODCR)
Processing, dated March 23, 197 (m) ODCR No. PT-HP-101-3, dated June 20, 1979.
(n) Modification Package No. M-1-1-80-1, Initial Core Fuel Water Rod Modification, dated March 19, 1980.
i-3-
!
l
c
_ -
a J
(2) Findings (a) The inspector found that Operating Design Change Requests (ODCR's) had been used by the Systems Test Engineers for initiating design changes-resulting from preoperational test activities. This ODCR system had not been appr wed by the station superintendent, as required by LAP 820-1, and was not controlled through completion of the design change including QA review for disposition, as required by QP 3-2.
The inspector was informed by plant super-visory personnel that the 0DCR system was being replaced by the administratively controlled Field Change Request (FCR). This item is unresolved pending full implementation of the FCR and suspension of use of the ODCR at LSCS.
(50-373/81-08-01)
(b) The inspector noted that ODCR's were being used as part of the final preoperational test documentation package.
In addition, review of the ODCR log revealed that several
-
ODCR's had been either cancelled or rejected without their disposition being recorded and reviewed by the site QA superintendent. Had these change requests been issued via the administrative 1y controlled FCR, disposition and QA review would have been required.
(Refer to QP 3-2, Paragraph 5.1, last sentence). This item is unresolved pending proper disposition and QA review of all cancelled and rejected ODCR's.
(50-373/81-08-02)
No items of noncompliance or deviations were noted.
3.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required on order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance, or deviations. Two unresolved items disclosed during this inspection are discussed in Paragraphs 2.(a) and (b).
4.
Management Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
at the conslusion of +he inspection on February 11, 1981. The inspector summarized the scope id findings of the inspection.
l
-4-l
-.
.,
-
-,
.-.
,
-.