IR 05000373/1982005
| ML20052B573 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 04/07/1982 |
| From: | Grobe J, Williams C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20052B570 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-373-82-05, 50-373-82-5, NUDOCS 8205030309 | |
| Download: ML20052B573 (4) | |
Text
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Report No. 50-373/82-05(DETP)
Docket No. 50-373 License No. CPPR-99 Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company P. O. Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: LaSalle County Station, Unit 1 Inspection At: LaSalle Site, Marseilles, IL Inspection Conducted: January 28 - March 29, 1982
/AL 4/7/82 Inspector:
J. A. Grobe h8 'h&LLLdL~v l
//
h/ 7 d b Approved By:
C. C. Williams, Chief
/
Plant Systems Section Inspection Summary Inspection on January 28 - March 29, 1982 (Report No. 50-373/82-05(DETP))
Areas Inspected: Routine announced inspection to review licensee action on inspection findings which were previously identified in Reports 50-373/78-26 and 50-373/80-55 concerning the implementation of the fire protection and prevention administrative controls program. This inspection involved a total of 38 inspector-hours onsite by one region based inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance were identified in any area.
8205030 301
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- R. IIolyoak, Station Superintendent
>
- R. Bishop, Assistant Superintendent, Administrative and Support Services
- T.
Meyer, Station Fire Marshall i
J. Renwick, Technical Staf f Supervisor P. Manning, Assistant Technical Staff Supervisor J. Mcdonald, Training Supervisor T. Novatney, Training Instructor C. Schroeder, Nuclear Licensing Administrator
- Denotes those persons who attended the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings a.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-373/78-26-12): Fire Fighting Strategies (Pre-Plans).
The inspector reviewed the licensee's fire pre plans which were revised and reissued March 10, 1982. The following documents were reviewed:
Title Fire Zone LaSalle County Station Fire Plans - Preface
-
Fire Plan - Reactor Building 786-6 Elevation U-1 2D Fire Plan - Reactor Building 761 Elevation U-1 2E Fire Plan - Reactor Building 673-4 Elevation U1 2Il Fire Plan - Auxiliary Building 710 Elevation U-1 4F1 Fire Plan - Turbine Building 768 and 754 Elevations 5A3 Fire Plan - Turbine Building 704-6 Elevation SC5 Fire Plan - D/G Building 674 Elevation U-1 7C5 Fire Plan - D/G Building 736-6 Elevation U-2 8A1 Fire Plan - Off Gas Building 689-6 Elevation 10B1 The inspector reviewed these pre plans utilizing the requirements in Section III.K.12 of Appendix R to 10 CFR 50, the requirements in the document " Nuclear Plant Fire Protection Functional Respons-ibilities, Administrative Controls and Quality Assurance" and the requirements in the Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-0519),
Section 9.5, including-Supplements Nos. I and 2.
No apparent deviations from the requirements listed above were identified in these revisions of the fire pre plans.
-2-
.. -..
. -
_
_ _ _.
-
.
.- -
.
..
-b.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-373/80-55-01): Housekeeping and Fire Protection and Prevention Administrative Controls.
The inspector reviewed the following administrative procedures:
!
LAP 100-6, Revision 3 - Work Over Open Reactor I
LAP 300-16, Revision 0 - Cleanness Control i
LAP 900-10, Revision 7 - Fire Prevention Procedure for Welding
.
l and Cutting LAP 900-14, Revision 7 - Fire Protection Program j
LAP 900-15, Revision 7 - Housekeeping Practices LAP 900-16, Revision 3 - Fire Protection Impairment and Required Fire Watches LAP 900-17, Revision 3 - Fire Drills
l LAP 900-18, Revision 3 - Use of Lumber and Other Combustibles in the Plant LAP 900-19, Revision 1 - Fire Reports i
LAP 900-21, Revision 2 - Control of Flammable Liquid LAP 900-22. Revision 0 - Use of Heat Generating Equipment and Heat Sources LAP 1300-1, Revision 13 - Work Requests LAP'1500-1, Revision 0 - Quality Assurance Program LAP 1500-2, Revision 1 - Equipment Clarification and Quality Assurance Requirements
,
LRP 1310-9, Revision 4 - Charging of Air Cylinders for Respiratory Equipment LZP 1110-1, Revision 3 - Station Director Implementing Procedure
-
LZP 1200-1, Revision 1 - Classification of GSEP Conditions LZP 1210-1, Revision 1 - Hazardous Material Incidents Reporting LZP 1220-1, Revision 1 - Emergency Telephone Numbers LZP 1310-1, Revision 1 - Notifications LZP 1340-1, Revision 1 - Implementing Procedure for Fire: Fire Marshall LZP 1340-2, Revision 1 - Implementing Procedure for Fire: Fire
.;
Chief
~
LZP 1340-3, Revision 1 - Implementing Procedure for Fire: Fire Officer No. 1 LZP 1340-4, Revision 1 - Implementing Procedure for Fire: Fire Brigade LZP 1340-5,. Revision 1 - Implementation Procedure for Fire: Fire Company No. 1 0-LPBI - Fire Brigade Initial Training: Lesson Plans 1 through 12
.
,
0-LPBC - Fire Brigade Continuing Training:
Lesson Plans 1 through 17 l
4-LPAR, Revision 1 - NGET/ Annual. Retraining-Safety The inspector reviewed these procedures utilizing the requirements
- in Sections III.H., III.I. and III.K. of Appendix R to 10 CFR 50, the requirements'in the document " Nuclear. Plant' Fire Protection
~
'
~ Functional Responsibilities, Administrative Controls and Quality Assurance" and the requirements in the Safety Evaluation Report
'
(NUREG-0519), Section 9.5, including Supplements Nos. 1 and 2.
'
>
.-
3
,
n.w
.
r-r
-
.,,
.. - - - -.
-,----.-m
., -
. - - -.
..
.
No apparent deviations from the requirements listed above were identified in these revisions of these procedures.
3.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the applicant representatives denoted in Paragraph 1 at the conclusion of the inspection. The inspector summarized the purpose and scope of the inspection and discussed the findings. The inspector expressed concern that the frequency of housekeeping inspections will not be adequate after fuel load to identify and correct housekeeping and fire hazard problems that have the potential to degrade safety related equipment. The applicant acknowledged this concern, but stated that the program would not be upgraded. The applicant contended that these types of problems would not occur at LaSalle County Station due to the high quality of personnel that will be on site after fuel load.
>
~
-4-