IR 05000373/1981040
| ML20039D167 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 12/15/1981 |
| From: | Reimann F, Shepley S, Walker R, Wright G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20039D162 | List: |
| References | |
| TASK-2.K.3.13, TASK-2.K.3.15, TASK-2.K.3.18, TASK-2.K.3.21, TASK-2.K.3.22, TASK-2.K.3.27, TASK-TM 50-373-81-40, IEB-79-28, IEB-80-09, IEB-80-9, IEC-77-06, IEC-77-6, IEC-79-28, IEC-80-14, IEC-80-9, IEC-81-12, IEC-81-14, NUDOCS 8112310379 | |
| Download: ML20039D167 (17) | |
Text
,
..
.
,
-
,
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Report No. 50-373/81-40 Docket No. 50-373 License No. CPPR-99 Licensee:
C%conwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: LaSalle Coun~ty Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Inspection At:
LaSalle Site, Marseilles, IL
"
Inspection Conducted: October 4 through November 13, 1981 h. kd.
J/
Inspectors:
R. D. Walker S. E. Sh p e
/5-h j
~
d't,-e -~ll -
G. C. Wright L/)MM/S
/
/
/) ~ 4
-
S C b +F
/ -j
/ > / 6"l Approved By:
F. W. Reimann, Actin Chief
/2
/
Reactor Projects Section 1C Inspection Summary Inspection on October 4 through November 13, 1981 (Report No. 50-373/81-40)
' Areas Inspected: Routine, resident inspection, preoperational testing and man-agement meetings The inspection consisted of a review of licensee action on previous fisdings, IE Circulars and Bulletins received by the licensee since the last inspection, witnessing licensee training activities, preoperational test results evaluation, review of Deficiency Report System, inspection of activities preparatory to license issuance, and a plant walkthrough/ operational The insp'ction involved a total of 531 inspector-hours onsite status review.
e by three NRC inspectors including 122 inspector-hours onsite during off-shif ts.
Results: Of the seven areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviationi were identified.
Management Meetings: Two significant management meetings were held; the first was between the licensee and Region III representatives; the second was a joint meeting with the licensee, h7R, and Region III representatives to discuss substantive issues germane to. license issuance.
,
Sbo$?o$bfff PDR
_ _ _ _...
..
-_
..
..
.
o
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted B. B. Stephenson, LaSalle County Station Project Manager b,e R. H. Holyoak, Station Superintendent a,c R. D. Kyrouac, Quality. Assurance Engineer c G. J. Diederich, Station Operating Assistant Superintendent c R. D. Bishop, Administrative & Support Services Assistant Superintendent a,b,c C. W. Schroeder, Technical Staff Supervisor b,c J. M. Marshall, Operating Engineer c W. Huntington, Assistant Technical Staff Supervisor c H. J. Hentschel, Assistant Technical Staff Supervisor F. Lawless, Rad-Chem Supervisor e E. E. Spitzner, Startup Coordinator E. Stevak, Quality Assurance J.' M. Damron, Technical Staff Engineer J. Bowers, Onsite Nuclear Safety Engineering Group (ONSEG) c T. Borzym, Security Administrator c W. J. Shewski, Manager of Quality Assurance c J. J. Maley, Manager of Projects c C. E. Sargent, Nuclear. Licensing Administrator e J. S. Abel, Manager Station Nuclear Engineering Department c C. Reed, Vice President c T. E.-Watts, Project Sngineer b,c R. E. Jortberg, Director Nuclear Safety c D. L. Shamblin, Staff Assistant Project Manager's Office W. H..Donaldson, Assistant Construction Superintendent c B. R.-Shelton, Project Engineering Manager c L. O. DelGeorge, Director of Nuclear Licensing b,c The inspector also interviewed other licensee employees including members of the technical, operating, and construction staff, as well as certain licensee contractor employees.
a.
Denotes persons present at management interview conducted at the close of the inspection period.
b.
Denotes persons present at the management meeting held at the site on October 29, 1981.
c.
Denotes persons present at the management meeting held at the site on November 12, 1981.
2.
Licensee Action On Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved Item (373/81-00-72): Certain Administrative Procedures and Management Directives needed to be prepared and implemented to close TMI Task Action Plan I. A.I.2 requirement _per the Safety Evaluation Report (SER), Section 22.
With respect to this open item, the inspector has reviewed the following items with findings as stated below:
_
-2-
-
-
- -
- -
-
- -
.
-
- -.
.
-
_---__ _ __---_. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _.. _ _. __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
.
..
.
.
a.
The inspector reviewed Vice President's Instruction 1-0-17 revised with an effective date of March 1, 1981 titled, " Company Policy Regarding Safe Operations and Adherence te Nuclear Procedures and Technical Specifications." The inspector found that this document adequately defines the primary responsibility of the Shift Engineer for safe operation of the plant under all conditions and c1carly establishes the Shift Engineer's command authority. Other elements of this policy are under review and will be covered in a subsequent report.
b.
The inspector reviewed Revision 7, dated July 14, 1981, of the licensee's Procedure LAP 200-1 titled, " Operating Department Organization." The inspector's review was to assure that this procedure adequately defines that the command function of the Shift Engineer or Senior Reactor Operator in charge of the control room is to be exercised from the control room and not the Shift Engineer's office. The inspector determined that the brocedure adequately addressed this concern and the licensee and the inspector agreed that the term " control room" as used in LAP 200-1 is the' area defined in FSAR Figure 13.5-1, " Diagram Of At The Controls Area," with the express stipulation that as long as a wall or any other form of visual and/or audio barrier exists between the areas defined in Figure 13.5-1 as " Control Room Unit 1" and " Control Room Unit 2;" that the SRO in charge of the control room shall be restricted to the areas applicable to the unit.
c.
The inspector reviewed the licenaee's training program to determine if the training program adequately emphasizes the Shif t Engineer's management function. The inspector found that the training program provided initial training on the Administrative Procedures governing the Shift Engineer's management function and the above referenced Vice President's Instruction. The inspector agrees that the Vice President's Instruction and Administrative Procedures do in effect adequately emphasize the Shift Engineer's management function and therefore, training on the instruction and the procedures adequately emphasizes the Shift Engineer's management function. The inspector also found that the licensee's training program requires retraining of personnel in this area periodically.
d.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's commitment requirements with respect to assigning administrative duties of the Shift Engineer to
.
other personnel as appropriate. The basis for the NRR reviewer's acceptance of this item was the licensee's FSAR, Appendix L, Item L.2 submittal which states that an Engineering Assistant to the Shift Engineer on duty will be a" signed with the sole function of this individual to relieve the Engineer of many purely administra-tive duties. The. licensee.
1 signed an Engineering Assistant or equivalent to cach Shift Engiacer at this time and has described the requirements of this individual in Procedure LAP 200-1,
" Operating Department Organization."
-3-
. -
- -
-
r
.
..
.
.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (373/81-30-06): High Pressure Core Spray System pump performance Technical Specifications need to be changed to conform with PT-HP-101 preoperational test results. Proposed Technical Specification 4.5.lc. now conforms to the preoperational test results and has been accepted by the Office of NRR.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (373/81-00-11): The Safety Evaluation Report -(SER), Supplement 1, requi. red the licensee to establish a formal record for each safety / relief valve that will include significant maintenance operaring information. The inspector reviewed Procedure LTS 1000-20, " Surveillance Program for Safety /
Relief Valves," Revision 0, dated October 7, 1981 and found that this procedure establishes and controls the appropriate record for each safety / relief valve and establishes an adequate method for recording the information.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (373/81-00-82): Complete work necessary to implement symptomatic emergency. procedures required by THI Task Action Plan Item I.C.8.
The licensee's commitments and the Office of NRR evaluation in the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) identified certain items for the Resident Inspector to verify as being complete.
The inspector reviewed each of these items with the following results:
a.
The inspector verified that Emergency Procedure LGA-03, " Containment Control," Revision 2, dated July 1, 1981 has the suppression pool
.
heat capacity limit identified via Figures LGA-03-G1 and LGA-03-G4
'
as required by the SER Supp1 ment 1.
b.
The inspector verified that Emergency Procedure LGA-02, " Shutdown,"
Revision 3, dated June 29, 1981 has both the minimum (47 psig) and maximum (131 psig) reactor pressure vessel pressure which assures sufficient alternate shut down cooling identified as required by SER Supplement 1.
c.
The inspector reviewed Emer3ency Procedure LGA-05, " Reactor Pressure Vessel Flooding," Revision 3, dated July 1, 1981 and found that:
(1) The primary containment pressure limit has not been inserted in this procedure as required by the SER Supplement 1.
The licensee now has this number and will insert it in the next revision to this procedure, which the inspector will review at a later date.
(2) The licensee was required by the SER Supplement 2 to modify this procedure because the single relief valve pressure response, which is used to determine that the reactor vessel is flooded solid if all reactor vessel level indication is lost, had not been determined. The procedure modification was to incorporate a provision to continue reactor pressure vessel flooding until some positive indication of' reactor pressure vessel flooding, other than relief valve pressure response, can be determined. The licensee has not made this modification to the procedure, but has obtained from-4-
-
- -
-
-
- - -
-
-
-
.
..
.
'
.
the Owners Group and their own engineering department values for reactor pressure vessel pressure which, if achieved with three or more relief valves open, indicates that the reactor vessel is flooded. The licensee will modify this procedure to insert these changes in the next revision to the procedure which will be reviewed by the inspector.
d.
The final plant specific operator action levels had not been finalized by the Owners Group for sequentially opening of safety relief valves to provide steam cooling to the reactor core in the event no injection systems were available and water level had dropped to the core midplane level. The licensee had committed to modifying his procedures to initiate the steam cooling opera-tion earlier in the reactor pressure vessel level response. The inspector reviewed Emergency. Procedure LGA-04, " Level Restoration,"
Revision 3, dated July 1, 1981 and has determined that the modifi-cation to this procedure has not been performed. The licensee intends to modify this procedure via a new revision to incorporate provisions to address this concern. The inspector will review the new revision to this procedure.
e.
The licensee has committed to provide a governing book in the control room with all necessary support procedures and docr.ments for the implementation of these symptomatic emergency procedures.
This book has not been developed. The inspector must review this item when it is developed.
f.
The licensee has committed to providing training on these procedures that consists of:
(1) Class room training on the use of these procedures which emphasizes the safety function of each item in the procedures and establishes in each operator's mind the basis for requiring each item in the procedures.
The irspector audited a one week training course on March 16-20, 1981 which performed the above. This course is presented to all SRO, R0, and STA candidates.
(2) Drill training for the operating crews which requires simulated responses to the emergency procedures and their supporting pro-cedures, The inspector has witnessed these drills performed with four of the licensee's six shifts and has reviewed the licensee's program for conducting the remaining drill training and found it acceptable.
Based on the above observations and reviews, the inspector concludes that training on the Symptomatic Emergency Procedures has been adequately addressed.
(Closed) Item of Noncompliance (373/81-30-05):
Security violation of access control area. The licensee and the NRC Region III Safeguards Section have determined that adequate corrective action for this item has been achieved.
-5-
- -
-. - - -
-
.
- - - -
-
.
.
.
-
- - -
______--_
_- -
_- -
-
i l
.
l (0 pen) Unresolved Item (373/81-15-10): No procedural instructions for
'
venting and aligning system instrumentation during system filling and venting. This is generic to all systems. The inspector was informed by the licensee that instrument lines are designed to be self filling.
The licensee said that instrument lines should remain full during per-formance of operating procedures which call for systems being drained and in any case the instruments would refill without special attention when systems were refilled. The inspector questioned this and asked for supporting information that would substantiate this claim since in many cases, the instrumentation is located on instrument racks 40 to 80 feet above where the actual instruments lines penetrate the system.
(Closed) Unresolved Items (373/81-00-33) and (373/81-00-69): The Safety Evaluation Report (SER), Sections 7.7.3.3 and 15.1 stated that Technical Specifications would be required for the Turbine Pressure Control / Bypass System and Turbine Level 8 Trips. The inspector has reviewed proposed Technical Specification LCO's 3.7.10, 3.3.8 and surveillance requirements 4.7.10, 4.3.8.1, and 4.3.8.2 and found the required Technical Specifica-tions on these items and that the Office of NRR had approved that portion of the Technical Specifications.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (373/81-00-62): Modifications to Diesel Generator required in the Safety Evaluation Report (SER), Section 9.6.3.4.
This item is redundant to Open Item (373/81-00-39) which will be used te followup on the issue ind Open Item Numier (373/81-00-62) is closed.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (373/81-00-97): Closure of cMI Task Action Item II.K.3, numbers 13, 15, 18, 21, 22, and 27.
The inspector reviewed the modifications to the level instrumentation made by the licensee to prov de a common reference level for vessel level i
instrumentation required by Item 27 of TMI Task Action Item II.K.3.
The inspector found that the only level instrument that required modification was the fuel zone indicators and these have been modified such that in-strument level zero is 527.5", the same as all other level instruments.
The inspector also reviewed selected portions of the operator training program to assure that this modification is incorporated into the training program.
The above information closes TMI Task Action Item II.K.3, Number 27.
The licensee has installed and is testing the circuitry to allow for auto transfer of the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling System suction from the cycled condensate storage tank to the suppression pool.
In as much as the modification required by 011-81-00-28 is being accomplished, the procedures required by OII-81-00-97, Item 22, are no longer required.
The inspector will review numbers 13, 15, 18, 21, and 22 at a later date to close this open item.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (373/79-33-01): The inspector verified that a change to the FSAR haa been submitted. The amendment revised the On-The-Job training commitments contained in Section 13 of the FSAR pertaining to reactivity changes. NRR acceptance of the amendment is required for closure of the item.
-6-
_ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ -
-
..
.
.
-
.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (373/79-44-08): The inspector reviewed Procedure LES-MS-101 dealing with MSIV limit switch set point verification. The inspector asked the licensee to review and revise the procedure to eliminate potential confusion.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (373/81-15-12): The inspector verified that annunciator controls (i.e., silence, acknowledge, reset and test) have been high lighted on the main control panels to allow for easy reccgnition by the operators.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (373/81-30-07): The HPCS spray pattern question has been submitted to NRR for resolution.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (373/81-00-07): Dual CRD pump flow test has been submitted to NRR for review. The licensee is required, by Supplement 2 to the SER, to respond to NRR concerns in this area prior to fuel load.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (373,.1-00 '>6):
The inspector reviewed the test procedure for the RPS M-G set voltage / frequency protection modification.
All acceptance criteria were met.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (373/81-0d-88): The inspector reviewed the r
licensee's commitments pertaining to Degraded Core Training and has I
concluded that the commitments have been incorporated into the licensee's (
training program.
l (Closed) Unresolved Item (373/81-00-23): The inspector reviewed draft Procedures LTS 1000-21 and 22 pertaining to 18 month and 31 day surveillance testing of the TIP system explosive valve cartridges. The procedures address items required by the SER.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (373/81-00-12): The inspector reviewed licensee
Procedures LTS 900-1 through 5 and verified that a surveillance program for monitoring leakage from the reactor coolant system has been set up.
t (Closed) Unresolved Item (373/81-00-21): The inspector reviewed
'
Procedures LTS 100-3, and LST 81-72 pertaining t.o the leak rate testing of the Main Steam Isolation Valves. The inspector verified that all Main l
Steam Isolation Valves met the Technical Specification leak rate limit of
'
25 scfh.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (373/81-00-06): Verification that the Loose Parts Monitoring System is operational before power operation as required by the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) Section 4.4.3.
The inspector reviewed this item and found that the Loose Parts Monitor has been installed and a cal-ibration check has been performed on the system via Procedure LTS 600-5,
" Loose Parts Monitoring. Channel Calibratica," Revision 0,-dated October 14, 1980 to prove its operability. The inspector questioned whether a Technical Specification for the Loose Parts Detection System would be implemented as Regulatory Guide 1.133, Item C.5 suggests. The licensee did not know of any pending Technical Specifications on this item. The inspector discussed this with the Office of NRR Technical Specification reviewer, who indicated that draft Technical Specifications including-7-
_ _ _ _ _..
___ _ _
__
______-_______. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. _ _ _ _ _
'
.
.
.
.
surveillance operability requirements on this item, have recently been mailed to the licensee. The inspector will' review these draft Technical Specifications against the licensee's current operating verification for the system on a subsequent inspection.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (373/81-00-71): Administrative procedure changes required to fulfill the requirements of TMI Task Action Plan, Item I.A.1.1.
The inspector reviewed the following procedures:
a.
LAP 200-1, " Operating Department Organization," Revision 8, dated November 6, 1981.
b.
LAP 200-3, " Shift Change," Revision 5, dated August 31, 1981.
c.
LAP 200-5, " Transfer of Control Room Command Function Between the Shift Control Room Engineer (SCRE) and Shift Engineer (SE) And/0r Shift Foreman (SF)," Revision 0, dated May 18, 1981.
The inspector found the following concerns were addressed in these procedures:
a.
The oncoming plant SRO comes to the control room and participate with the control room SRO (the SCRE) in the shift turnover inat
occurs at the beginning of the shift.
b.
In the event of an accident, the plant SRO assumes the position of control room SRO that was previously held by the STA/SCRE.
c.
Guidelines to assure an orderly transfer of control room command function between the STA/SCRE, plant foreman (SRO), and-shift-supervisor in the event of an abnormal or accident situation when the SCRE must assume the STA function.
The inspector found that the following Safety Evaluation Report (SER)
requirement has not been addressed by the licensee:
a.
The plant SRO returns to the control room at least once every two hours to assure that he is aware of the overall plant status and
any evolutions that are being carried out or are expected to be carried out by the control SRO.
The inspector understands that the licensee is pursuing relief from this requirement from the Office of NRR, Division of Human Factors. The in-spector will review the latter issue on a subsequent inspection.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (373/81-15-07): Minor problems with Operating Procedure LOP-RP-01, Reactor Protection System MG-Set Start-Up and ~
Operation."' The inspector reviewed Revision 1, dated November 2, 1981 of this procedure and found that it is acceptable.
(Closed) Noncompliance (373/81-30-11):
Inadequate protection for equip-ment. The inspector reviewed the licensee's submitted response, dated October 28, 1981, and made a tour of the plant to confirm housekeeping-8-
.
-.
._ ___
.
.
.
.
conditions. Housekeeping is an item that is checked periodically and will be looked at again in subsequent inspections.
Both the response and the current housekeeping conditions are considered adequate.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (373/81-00-91): The licensee has installed new environmentally qualified position indicating switches on the main steam relief valves. As such, the interim procedures are no longer required.
This item is considered closed.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (373/81-00-28): The inspector reviewed LaSalle Special Test-(LST) 81-75 to verify that the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) suction auto transfer modification had been installed and tested.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (373/81-00-30): The inspector reviewed electrical schematics 1E-1-4453AC, IE-1-4453AA and 1E-1-4231AC and verified that the power supply for the control rod position indicating system is from a con-tinuous uninterruptible power supply.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (373/81-15-11): Followup'on TMI Task Action Item I.D.1 Control Room Design Review Category A deficiencies to be corrected prior to fuel loading.
In Inspection Report No. 50-373/81-15,.the inspector closed all items in this category except the following:
Item A.I.a.
(A.1.(b)(2))*
Item A.1.b.
(A.1.(b)(4))*
Item A.1.c.
(A.I.(b)(8))*
Item A.I.d.
(A.1.(b)(9))*
Item A.2.b.
(A.2.(b)(2))*
Item A.2.c.
(A.2.(b)(4))*
Item A.2.e.
(A.2.(b)(7))*
Item A.2.h.
(A.2.(b)(10))*
Item A.3.a.
(A.3.(b)(1))*
Item A.3.c.
(A.3.(b)(3))*
Item A.3.e.
(A.3.(b)(6))*
Item A.4.b.
(A.4.(b)(3))*
Item A.4.i.
(A.4.(b)(9))*
Item A.4.j.
(A.4.(b)(10))*
Item A.4.k.
(A.4.(b)(11)(a),(b),(c), and (d)*
Item A.5.b.
(A.S.(b)(2))*
Item A.5.d.
(A.5.(b)(5))*
Item A.6.a.
(A.6.(b)(1))*
Item A.6.c.
(A.6.(b)(b))*
Item A.7.a.
(A.7.(b)(1)(d))*
Item A.7.b.
(A.7.(b)(1)(i))*
Item A.7.f.
(A.7.(b)(5)(a))*
Item A.7.h.
(A.7.(b)(5)(c))*
Item A.7.i.
(A.7.(b)(b))*
Item A.7.k.
(A.7.(b)(8)(b))*
Item A.7.1.
(A.7.(b)(8)(c))*
-9-
- -
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
.
-
.
Item A.7.m.
(A.7.(b)(9)(b)(c))*
Item A.9.b.
(A.9.(b)(2))*
The inspector during this inspection period, reviewed the following items and found them adequate:
Item A.1.a.
(A.1.(b)(2))*
Item A.I.b.
(A.1.(b)(4))*
Item A.2.c.
(A.2.(b)(4))*
Item A.2.e.
(A.2.(b)(7))*
Item A.2.h.
(A.2.(b)(10))*
Item A.3.c.
(A.3.(b)(3))*
Item A.3.e.
(A.3.(b)(6))*
Item A.4.b.
(A.4.(b)(3))*
Item A.4.j.
(A.4.(b)(10))*
Item A.4.k.
(A.4.(b)(11)(a),(b),(c), and (d))*
Item A.S.d.
(A.5.(b)(5))*
Item A.6.c.
(A.6.(b)(6))*
Item A.7.b.
(A.7.(b)(1)(i))*
Item A.7.f.
(A.7.(b)(5)(a))*
Item A.7.i.
(A.7.(b)(6))*
The following Category A deficiencies remain to be corrected prior to fuel loading:
Item A.I.c.
(A.1.(b)(8))*
Item A.1.d.
(A.1.(b)(9))*
Item A.2.b.
(A.2.(b)(2))*
Item A.3.o.
(A.3.(b)(1))*
Item A.4.i.
(A.4.(b)(9))*
Item A.5.b.
(A.5.(b)(2))*
Item A.6.a.
(A.6.(b)(1))*
Item A.7.a.
(A.7.(b)(1)(d))*
Item A.7.h.
(A.7.(b)(5)(c))*
Item A.7.k.
(A.7.(b)(8)(b))+
Item A.7.1.
(A.7.(b)(8)(c)'*
Item A.7.m.
(A.7.(b)(9)(b)(c))*
Item A.9.b.
(A.9.(b)(2))*
(Closed) Unresolved Items (373/81-30-04) and (373/79-38-09): Closure of IE Circulars No. 81-12 and 77-06 respectively. The inspector determined for each of these circulars that:
'
a.
The circular was received by licensee management.
b.
That a review for applicability was performed.
c.
For circulars that were applicable to the facility, appropriate corrective actions have been taken or are scheduled to be taken.
(Closed) Unresolved Items (373/80-30-01), (373/80-24-04), and (373/79-44-05): Closura of IE Bulletins No. 80-14, 80-09, and 79-28 respectively. The inspector determined that for each IE Bulletin sent
- 10 -
.
-
- - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
.
.-
-
,
'
.
to the licensee for action the following actions taken by the licensee met bulletin requirements and licensee commitments:
a.
The written response was within the time period stated in the bulletin.
b.
The written response includes the required information.
c.
The written response includes adequate corrective action commitments based on information presented in the bulletin and licensee's response, d.
The licensee management forwarded copies of the written response to
,
appropriate onsite management representatives.
e.
The information discussed in the licensee's written response was
'
accurate.
f.
The corrective action taken by the licensee was as described in the written response.
The inspector determined that for each bulletin sent to the licensee for information, the following actions were taken by the licensee:
a.
The bulletin was received by licensee management.
b.
A review for applicability was performed.
c.
For bulletins applicable to the facility, appropriate corrective actions have been taken or are scheduled to be taken.
- Indicates Control Room Design Review of October 23, 1980 identifying number.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
3.
Review of IE Circulars Received Since Last Inspection Report The licensee-received IE Circular No. 81-14 since the last inspection report written by the inspector. The licensee is still reviewing this circular at this time, and the inspector will review the licensee's response during a subsequent inspection under Open Item Number (373/81-40-01).
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
4.
Witnessing Licensee Operational Training Activities The inspector observed emergency procedure drills on two shifts this inspection period. The inspector considers this type of training to.
be very valuable and noted only minor problems that were discussed and resolved with the licensee.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
- 11 -
-
-
.
..
_.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _-- _____ _ ___ _ _ -__ _ ___ _ _____ _ _-
,.
.
.
.
5.
. Pre-Operational Test Results Evaluation a.
The. inspector reviewed the test results of the Low Pressure. Core Spray System (LPCS). The review included test changes, deficiencies, summary and evaluation, and verification that test results have been approved.
The inspector determined that test. changes, and the summary and evaluation portions of the test, conducted.by-the station were in-conformance with:the applicable. regulations and commitments.
' Deficiencies in'the LPCS preoperational test were reviewed and a number of problems with the deficiency system were noted. This is discussed further-in Paragraph-6 of this report.
I The inspector has concerns as to the acceptability of the results of -the LPCS Spray Test. Viewing the video tapes, there appears to
'be a problem similar to that identified with respect to the High Pressure Core Spray (HPCS) pattern as'shown in the HPCS video tapes.
The LPCS tapes do not show as well defined a spray pattern as the HPCS tapes, however, the problem is not as pronounced. Both spray-pattern problems are followed under Open. Item Number (373/81-30-07).
l Remaining deficiency reports will be followed by Open Item number
)
(373/81-40-02).
l b.
.The inspector reviewed the test results of the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling System. The review included test changes, deficiencies, summary and evaluation, and verification that test results have been approved.
The inspector determined that test changes, and the summary and evaluation portions of the test, conducted by the ' station were in conformance with the' applicable regulations and commitments.
Deficiencies in the RCIC pre-operational test were revieved and a number of problems with the' deficiency system were noted. This is discussed further in Paragraph 6 of this report.
-It is.to be noted that since RCIC is a. steam driven turbine pump combination, the ful' fine ' esting of the pump,could not be accomplished during t.
.re-op phase.. Functional testing of the RCIC system is therefore, performed during the startup phase of operatica.
Remaining deficiency reports will be followed by Open Item number (373/81-40-03).
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
- 12 -
____--_ _.____
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
_.
..
.
.
.
6.
Review of Deficiency Report (DR) System During the reviews of the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling System (RCIC)
and Low Pressure Core Spray System (LPCS) Deficiency Reports, the inspectors identified the following areas of concern:
a.
Deficiency Reports did not indicate where the testing (if required)
to clear the deficiency was performed.
b.
Deficiency Reports were routinely closed prior to verification that the actual deficiency had been corrected.
The inspectors discussed the above concerns with the licensee and both parties agreed that the following revisions to Procedure LSU 200-2 would be made.
a.
When the hard copy of the Deficiency Report is returned to the Deficiency Coordinator it will be assigned to the System Test Engineer (STE).
b.
The STE will indicate on the hard copy where the testing is to be performed i.e., Temporary Tdrnover Agreement (TTA)#, Work Request (WR)#, LaSalle Special Test (LST), etc.
Upon completion of testing (whether satisfactory or unsatisfactory),
c.
the STE will return the DR to the Deficiency Coordinator for closure and computer update.
It should be noted that procedures already in place require that if testing is unsatisfactory, a new Deficiency Report is to be generated and recorded on the TTA, etc.
The inspector reviewed a draft procedure revision and has no further concerns in the. area if the proposed changes are made.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
7.
Inspection Activities Preparatory to License Issuance (Status of Licensee Procedures and Preoperational Testing Program a.
Operating, Maintenance, Surveillance, Abaormal and Emergency l
Procedure Status l
The licensee has effectively completed writing these procedures and has completed approximately 90% of the changes that were necessary due to system walkdown, NRC, onsite, and other review input.
b.
Preoperational Testing Program Status The licensee has a total of 99 Preoperational Tests / Systems Demonstrations required by the FSAR for Unit 1 fuel load or low power operations of which 89 are specific to Unit 1 and the remaining 10 are specific to Unit 2.
The licensee reported that
- 13 -
--
- _ _ _ - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ -
..
.
.
.
97 of these systems have been turned over for preoperational testing, that 95 of these Preoperational Tests and System Demon-strations have been started, that 69 Preoperational Tests and Systems Demonstrations have been completed, and the program is 94% complete at this time. The licensee stated that final Pre-operational Test or System Demonstratica results for 45 tests of the 98 required by the NRC are ready for NRC review, i.e., the entire test is complete and the results have been reviewed and accepted by the licensee. These 45 tests'are:
PT-AP-101, " Unit 1 AC Distribution" PT-AR-101, " Area Radiation Monitoring Equipment" SD-CX-102, " Rod Worth Minimizer" PT-D0-101, " Unit 1 Diesel Oil System" PT-FC-101, " Fuel Pool Cooling System" SD-FC-101, " Fuel Pool Cooling System" PT-HP-101, "High Pressure Core Spray System" PT-LP-101, " Low Pressure Core Spray System" PT-NB-101, " Nuclear Boiler" PT-NR-101A, " Source Range Monitor" PT-NR-101B, " Intermediate Range Monitor" PT-NR-101C, " Power Range Neutron Monitors" SD-PS-101, " Process Sampling System" PT-PV-101, " Reactor Vessel Internals Vibration Monitoring" PT-RD-101A, " Rod Drive Control and Rod Position Indication System" PT-RI-101, " Reactor Core Isolation Cooling System" SD-SA-101, " Service and Instrument Air System" PT-SC-101, " Standby Liquid Control System" PT-VD-101, Dicsel Generator Ventilation System" PT-VJ-101, " Machine Shop Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning System" PT-V0-101, "Off Gas Filter Building Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning System" PT-VP-101, " Primary Containment Vent and Purge System" PT-VP-104, " Primary Containment Chilled Water System" PT-VY-102, " Core Standby Cooling System Equipment Ventilation" SD-WE-101E, " Equipment Floor Drains" SD-WR-101, " Reactor Building Closed Cooling Water System" SD-WS-101, " Service Water System" SD-WX-101, " Solid Radwaste System" SD-CD-101, " Condensate and Condensate Booster System" SD-CD-102, " Condenser'and Auxiliary Equipment System" SD-CW-101, " Circulating Water and Auxiliary Equipment System" SD-CY-101, " Cycled Condensate System" SD-EH-101B, " Turbine Supervisory Panel" SD-FW-102, "Feedwater Control System" SD-HD-101A, " Heater Drains" SD-HD-101B, " Moisture Separator / Reheater" SD-WE-101A, " Waste Collector" SD-WE-101C, " Laundry Equipment and Floor Drain Reprocessing and Disposal System" PT-AP-201, " Unit 2 AC Distribution" PT-AP-202, " Unit 2 DC Distribution" PT-D0-201, " Unit 2 Diesel Oil System"
- 14 -
.
- -
- -.
- -
.
-
.
--
-
.-
.
.
.
PT-VD 201, " Unit 2 Diesel Generator Ventilation System" PT-VP-202, " Unit 2 Post LOCA Hydrogen Control System" PT-VY-201, " Unit 2 Core Standby Cooling System Equipment Cooling" PT-VL-101, " Laboratory, Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning System" c.
Deficiency Status The licensee is currently listing 1008 Station Operations deficiencies and 2197 Station Construction oeficiencies as out-tanding items on the 98 Preoperational Tests / System Demonstrations required by the licensee. The licensee has segregated these deficiencies into those that will impact fuel load and those that will not. The licensee has reviewed approximately 2989 of these deficiencies for segregation and preliminary assessment is that 1135 of those reviewed would need to be eletred prior to fuel load. The inspector will continue to review this matter.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
8.
Plant Walkthrough/ Operational Status Review The inspector conducted walkthroughs and reviewed the plant operations status including examinations of control room log books, routine patrol sheets, shift engineers log books, equipment outage logs, special operat-ing orders, and jumper tagout logs for the period of.0ctober.5,1981 through November 13, 1981. The inspector observed the operations status during three off-shifts during the same period as above. The inspector also made _ visual observations of the routine surveillance, functional, and preoperational 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 observed shift turnovers to verify that plant component status and problem areas were being turned over to a relieving shift. The inspector conducted tours of Unit 1 and 2 reactor, auxiliary, and turbine buildings throughout the period and noted the status of construction and plant housekeeping / cleanliness. With respect to housekeeping, the inspector found conditions to be adequate (see Paragraph 2 above, under Item (373/81-30-11)). With respect to clean-liness, the inspector noted that conditions of general cleanliness had degenerated from last inspection, but were still judged to be adequate.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
9.
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.
- 15 -
-
-
..-
-
.
.
-.
..
.
.
~
.
10.
Management Meeting Held Onsite October 29, 1981 a.
Attendance CECO-Those denoted in Paragraph 1.
NRC A. B. Davis, Deputy Director R. L. Spessard, Director, Division of Resident and Project-Inspection R. C. Knop, Chief, Reactor Projects Branch No. 1 R. D. Walker, Senior Resident Inspector, LaSalle Nuclear Station G. C. Wright, Senior Resident Inspector, Big Rock Point Station S. E. Shepley, Resident Inspector, LaSalle Nuclear Station b.
Meeting Summary This meeting was held between Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO) and NRC Region III representatives to review some substantive issues that are germane to the NRC review with respect to license issuance.
Issues identified:
(1) Implementation of security requirements. The NRC was concerned with construction worker access to Unit I during operations.
The licensee stated that as of fuel load, no construction or craft workers would have uncontrolled access to Unit 1 areas.
Access clearance would be controlled on a case by case and need to have basis. Clearances would be periodically reviewed.
(2) Concern was expressed about the sequence and method of turnover of equipment for operation.
CECO stated LSU 100-2 would be revised to eliminate concerns and define an intermediate turnover category.
(3) All Region III NRC open items were discussed with the licensee.
11.
Management Meeting Held Onsite November 12, 1981 a.
Attendance CECO Those denoted in Paragraph 1.
NRC NRR Harold R. Denton, Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
- 16 -
-
-
.
-
- -
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
- - -
,__,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ -
_ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ __
_ _ _ _ _ ___ _
_
_
..u
.
.
..
Robert' A. Purple,' Deputy' Director of the ' Division of Licensing Frank Schroeder,' Assistant Director for Generic Projects, Division of Safety Technology
.
Albert Schwencer, Chief Licensing Branch No. 2, Division of Licensing Thomas A. Ippolito, Chief. Operating Reactors Branch No. 2, Division of Licensing Anthony Bournia, Project Manager for LaSalle County, Licensing Branch No. 2 Region III James.G. Keppler, Director of Region III, A. Bert Davis, Deputy Director of Region'III
,
R. Lee.Spessard, Director of the Division of Resident and Project Inspection
.
Richard C. Knop, Chief Projects Branch No.1, Division of Resident and Project-Inspection i
.I.
Nick Jackiw, Acting Chief Test Programs Section, Division of
-
Engineering and Technical inspection Roger D. Walker, Senior Resident Inspector, LaSalle Nuclear Station G. C. Wright, Senior Resident Inspector, Big Rock Point Station
.,
.
S. E. Shepley, Resident Inspector, LaSalle Nuclear Station -
>
b.
Meeting Summary This meeting ~was held between CECO, NRC, NRR, and Region III representatives to review the substantive issues that are germane to license issuance.
,
)
.
$
c
l l-
- 17 -
..
-
-
-- :
- -
-
--
---
-
- - -
- -