IR 05000373/1988020
| ML20151U893 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 08/11/1988 |
| From: | Phillips M, Wetzel B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151U866 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-373-88-20, NUDOCS 8808190291 | |
| Download: ML20151U893 (13) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- . . , .' , ' U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0t1 MISSION
REGION III
Report No. 50-373/88020(DRS) Docket No. 50-373 License No. NPF-11 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company P. O. Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: LaSalle County Station, Unit 1 Inspection At: LaSalle Site, Marseilles, Illinois Inspection Conducted: July 18 through 27, 1988 ! Inspector: A.
tze // 98 Dat6 Approved By: nt .P lips, Chief f////// .' Operatio.1a1 Programs Section Date Inspection Summary Inspection on July 17 through 27, 1988 (Report No. 50-373/88020(DRS)) A_reas Inspected: Routine, unannounced safety inspection of licensee action en previous inspection findings (92701), calibration of nuclear instrumentation systems (61705), shutdown margin and reactivity anomaly surveillances (61707), core thermal power evaluation (61706), core power distribution limits (61702),
and control rod performance testing (72700).
Results: No violations or deviations were identified.
' . k
t 8808190291 880811 r PDR ADOCK 05000373 - , G PNU t .. - - - - - - -. - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - -
__ ..' , ' DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
- G. J. Diederich, Station Manager
- J. W. Geiseker, Technical Staff Supervisor
- W. R. Huntington, Services Superintendent
- D. E. Jones, NRC, Project Inspector
- P. F. Manning, Assistant Superintendent, Technical Services E. A. McVey, Assistant Lead Nuclear Engineer
- J. A. Miller, Lead Nuclear Engineer
- D. R. Reif, Regulatory Assurance The inspector also interviewed other licensee personnel during the course of the inspection including members of the operations and technical staff.
- Denotes persons attending the exit meeting of July 27, 1988.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (92701) a.
(Closed) Open Item (373/86036-01(DRS)): During Unit 1, Cycle 2 startup testing, procedure LOP-RD-04, "Control Rod Drive Timing," Revision 2, was performed using the incorrect data sheet thereby precluding strict adherence to the procedure.
The correct data sheet could not be found at the start of the test; therefore, Attachment C of LOS-AA-W1 was modified and used to document the test.
Procedure LOP-RD-04 was replaced by surveillance LOS-RD-SRS, "Control Rod Drive Timing." The change from an operating procedure to a surveillance placed stricter controls on test performance, ' documentation and record retention requirements.
LOS-RD-SR5, 9evision 2 was performed satisfactorily during Unit 1, Cycle 3 startup testing between June 25 and July 1, '1988.
The surveillance was adhered to and documented properly on the appropriate data sheets.
The inspector has no further concerns in this area, b.
(Cloted) Violation (373/88010-01(DRS)): During defueling activities two Intermediate Range Monitors (IRMs) on the same trip system were declared inoperable which is one more than allowed by Technical Specification 3.3.1.
However, 'D' IRM was probably never technically inoperable because it passed both a functional test and an instrument calibration without any edjustments made to the IRM.
The main concern with this incident was that of procedural and administrative errors that resulted in a Mode change without the required instrumentation opsrable and, more importantly, operating personnel not aware that they were in noncompliance with Technical Specifications (TS) for eight days.
, -. - - - - - . -
. _ _ -.__ _ _ - _. _ . _ _. _ ..
. . ' The licensee performed the following immediate corrective actions i ' prior-to commencing defueling operations: (1) Core alterations were suspended and a half scram was initiated I which satisfied the action statements required by TS 3.3.1.
{
(2) A functional surveillance was performed on all nuclear instrumentation which indicated that all IRMs were operable.
(3) All outstanding entries in the degraded Equipment Log (DEL)
were reviewed and determined to be acceptable for refueling ' operations.
' (4) All TS requirements for Mode 5 as well as requirements which are applicable to all Modes were verified.
The insper. tor verified that the licensee completed and implemented the following corrective actions taken to avoid further violation-t (1) The following revisions were made to Procedure, LAP-220-4, I ' "Degraded Equipment Log," Revision 3, to improve the documentation and tracking of safety related degraded and i inoperable equipment: < A requirement was added to place red tags on all safety
related/TS equipment located in the control room that is.
! inoperable.
' Attachment 8 of LAP-220-4 was revised to require
documentation of changes in equipment status and the date and time red tags were placed on inoperable equipment.
Attachment F was reformatted to clearly indicate the
, status of equipment.
A new Attachment I, "Degraded Equipment Change History,"
, was developed to clearly track status changes of equipment and provide reliable information to the operating staff - concerning the status of equipment.
i-The Operating Engineer's weekly DEL review was expanded to
, l allow other off-shift personnel, who were not responsible ! for maintaining the log, to review the DEL for compliance with TS requirements.
. ! (2) Procedure, LOP-AA-03, "Reactor Mode Change," Revision 2, has i been revised to incorporate a checklist which identifies all , ! the requirements necessary to enter Mode 5 (Refueling) from Mode 4 (Cold Shutdown), including the requirement to have ' 3 IRMs per trip system operable.
I (3) The event was reviewed with members of the operating' staff.
-
, -.. - . . . - - - - . - - - - - . .. - - - - - -- - - - . - - - . - -. .
. -. - -- ._ . - __ . - -. . -. .' , ~ ' The inspector has no further concerns in this area.
- . 3.
Calibration of Nuclear Instrumentation Systems (61705) !
The inspector reviewed the following completed procedures concerning nuclear instrumentation systems, and verified adherence to the procedures and compliance with TS requirement. LTP-1600-22, "SRM Performance Check " Revision 6, performed
June 2 through 7, 1988.
- LTP-1600-23, "Intermediate Range Monitor Performance Check,"
Revision 5, performed July 5-6, 1988.
LIS-NR-102, "Unit 1 Intermediate Range Monitor Rod Block and Reactor
, i Scram Calibration," Revision 1, performed May 21 through 23, 1988.
LIS-NR-302, "Unit 1 Intermediate Range Monitor Rod Block and Reactor
Scram Functional Test," Revision 5, performed July 2,1988.
! LTP-1600-6, "TIP System Calibration," Revision 4, completed July 16, f
1988.
LAP-100-29, "Whole Core LPRM Calibration," Revision 5, performed i
l July 13 through 15, 1988.
, LTP-1600-8, "Nuclear Engineer's Method for APRM Calibration,"
Revision 2, performed July 6 and July 13, 1988.
f l No violations or deviations were identified, , ' 4.
Shutdown Margin and Reactivity Anomaly Surveillances (61707) i l The inspector reviewed completed surveillances and confirmed that shutdown margin and reactivity anomaly calculations complied with TS and were consistent with cycle specific data supplied by G2neral Electric Company.
The following documents were utilized during the review: "Cycle Management Report and Prestartup Cycle Operation Plan for
LaSalle Unit 1, Cycle 3," dated May 13, 1988.
LTS-1100-14. "Shutdown Margin Subcrif ! cal Demonstration,"
Revision 1 completed July 4, 1988.
t LTS-1100-1, "Shutdown Margin Test," Revision 6, performed July 4, l l
' ' 1988.
LTS-1100-2, "Checking for Reactivity Anomalies," Revision 10, I
completed July 4, 1988.
[
No violations or deviations were identified, f t ! I t
L i
- -. - .. . . ~. -- - _ _ _. ~
. , ~ ' 5.
Core Thermal Power-Evaluation (61706) The inspector revi wed (TP-1600-10, "Calculating Core Thermal Power," Revision 6, and several samples of the completed Attachment A, "Heat Balance Calculat.on Sheet," performed at various power levels.
Attachment A is a worksheet used by the nuclear engineers to perform a hand heat balance when the process ccmputer is inoperable or to verify the process computer calculations.
The inspector identified one concern with the procedure.
Steps 6 and 7 of the worksh?et require the engineer to record the current of the rceirculation pumps when they are operating at high speed only.
A constant is used for the recirculation pumps energy when they are operating in low speed.
However, some of the engineers were recording the current in low speed and inserting that into the heat balance calculation which could create a sma'il error in the resultant core thermal power.
The inspector noted that in the two cases where this error was made on the worksheet the resultant core thermal power was not used to calibrate the Average Power Rangs Monitors or verify the computer code, but was for information only.
"he licensee responded to the inspector's concern by revising the %DiKsheet to Clarify Steps 6 and 7, to prevent errors in recording the . pump currents.
The worksheet will also be reprinted because some of the ! Steps were not very legible.
The procedure revision adequately resolved the inspector's concern.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Core Power Distribution Limits (61702) The inspector reviewed one week's sample of LTS-1200-4, "Nuclear Engineer's Daily Surveillance," Revision 7, completed for July 13 i through 20, 1988 and verified that power distribution limits were in
compliance with TS Section 3/4.2.
The inspector also reviewed LAP-100-29, "Unit 1 Shiftly Surveillance," Revision 2, perfo med on ' July 15, 1988.
The inspector verified that the thermal limits recorded i: on the procedure were consistent with those output by the process computer and complied with TS limits.
No violations or deviations were . ' identified.
l 7.
Control Rod Performance Testing (727900) The inspectot reviewed the following surveillances used for startup ! testing of the control rod drives and verified that the data was properly
- '
recorded and results were acceptable: LTP-700-2, "Control Rod Friction and Settle Testing," Revision 3,
i performed June 8 through 11, 1988.
LOS-RD-SR5, "Control Rod Drive Timing," Revision 2, performed
! June 25 through July 1, 1988.
, I i l ' .
' S ,
_., _., _., _ - - - - -. - _ _ _ -, -. -, - - - - -, - -..-,.., _. - _,, - _ _,., -,,., -.,, _, _ _ -, _, _,. _ _ _ -, -,,. , -. -
_ _ _- _ _____________ - _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. I f ,
. , '
LTS-1100-3, "Control Rod Following and LPRM Operability "
Verification," R; vision 4, performed July 6 through 12, 1988.
LOS-RD-SR1, "Control Rod Drive Mechanical Coupling Verification,"
Revision 3, performed May 27 through 29, 1988.
LTS-1100-4, "Scram Insertion Times," Revision 9, completed July 8,
1988.
The inspector identified one concern with LTS-1100-4.
Step C.3 read, in ' part, "The Rod Scram Sequence should be consistent with current operating recommendations and written such that successive rods are separated radially by at least two control cells." After plotting the scram sequence on a core map it was evident that successive rods were not separated radially by at least two control cells, as stipulated in the procedure.
However, the sequence was consistent with Procedure LTP-1600-2, "Guidelines for Control Rod Sequence Development," Revision 7 and coincided with the predicted rod pattern at the time of the scram timing.
The rod sequencing was also written to maintain power greater ) than 20% (to avoid Rod Drop Accident concerns) and less than 25% (to ' avoid thermal limit concerns).
The licensee revised LTS-1100-4 Step C.3 to reflect the way rod scram sequences currently are being written, which adaquately resolved the inspector's concern.
No violations or deviations were identified.
' 8.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on July 27, 1988, and summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
The inspector also discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspector during the inspection.
, ! The licensee acknowledged statements made by the inspector and stated that no material reviewed by the inspector was considered proprietary.
, ! f
!
t),,i" , ponw Me U,$.NUCLEAA AtOULATORY C'M8isittlid5 m ecP6ctoarerae ener ar,e e, , ), ' seg# I F b A > INSPECTOR'S REPORT - y . Off.co of innection and Enforcement Q,y. g g, p, j '
- A. [dehM ' '.f "E C &h I l > . , TR a C% atPou Mn sigg Uts %tti viticon goggg, ho g,,,,, ge g,cg,,gg ho rtv P800VCtit13 % Is0 880 te0 Q A 115f Y hfh{Q.l } b _. - S $ C 'l 0 ~ A .\\ - ,- .. _ -- --- --. - - ,,, R - etPLAtt
O ~l b $ ').k'.33)Y.[ .. E._:.b*i.h..!aNM.
~ Pga c o of hv(sicat c% mlPtCt C% sis *t CtC% Pit'0*wt 0 g T CON.tatch CoC4 (e atGCh/MQ COC ovG Actrvity $ce af aa: 0$x' Wew [ t - 8 t C C% V 08 hCt &t Af f ']Qfath p hiq ue w e g w y y papw to m na0 DAV YA WO CAT V8 l - #t5'Dt%11%5'ECiot . f @'"* 1I9% _ DA a %-- ] / bl[ /lh dld bly 2l7 Uh I" #I 0*u* I #""" I"' T t'u p y ,, <. .g 7.,, _ ,, - ,, , . -,,... . it Pl 08 ACiviv CC%DJCit D iCwm or. nas ore i v plc 0%atA C T iO*, , ICvi om tce erent & C2. $ Af tt y O2 - W$Vi Villt i$. pia %1$tC . - WDJ; A T I _ knC poew get c3 - WCi;t%1 et - l'E ci AL 11 - pi e t %1 vt n 15 - m.tstcat Os - t%8 Cactwt%t og - s t% Don 13. gn,Puthispe0at 3. stGosaL ossiCl Liitta ~ 06 - u.tvT A v Dit 09 wat ACCT 13.iwecat - - -- ,-. M ,or,wm.,,, - s - -~
- ' " ' ' = A 5 FI C T. g% = i,5' ga TgN' % 'e 5 t;t a,,,;w s t e g%s ceClwi%t C0% flat %CE i et P;st co%'a'N 2 % ' s gptge ne ag, cat in a%$W f t At Oc or scatcst a%D atto
- 80BwatC%
A
$
DI ' "L ' CS S %#C808v$61 Di'Ont st% Co elG TCm3808 1 - Ctta n - tittle is } vt c a c t *0% 2 - YO.AT ON ~ ~ ~~ 3 - Ch Atc% A D C
A B C D a
C
WO Cav
wo 04, go , - , , -. ,o .. a.
mL ..a .,...:.., .e.. . .... ~ ; -f jf.g f I l 1. us 1. us gjf . - v os c Cw t c., ' 3.
. ^ w.,ov6 s co w a t o% wrows a scswat.e% $ g "0DV'8 %#t " *5' '300ttal0 80tt: "DDJtt'IC'0t0*s' dr { wooste hswit* *5' Jr { I !. x. l.E, p* s"tg +Lga rgi. 5. :..fi, 3 iE. o g.Lw.i
8 .E i I
1[ + v1,rv: i n . . 1.
m:.I a5 t.
i .
- i 35 r.
d m ro s
- ,
i av i f . c ao ' o c s . f I 3 hl IOblb -- O,0,6 i, > gli,l.75(ipiKl O od 8 0 0 lii l C
i i e r \\is \\ cae w - ,1 , a t \\i, - g,nq -[_ si ,, , . !I ! Odf kV ed - i i i i i i lii ' .-
- 1 i i e i i
C XI I ! , i i i e !I !I U i i i e i e i 2 5 9,7l7,C,/l __ g ,,- 3 5 7 gj7,0,0l , j $ et l g Q21 -? lii 0i 4
i iO d i ^ A e..t aiie Lwf= i i_u_ mad - - i i i i ia e i i Law whl l l i e e gg _.., ..I _ i _ i ie a I I i i i i n e i ie i Ofen T40)
l
i o a i i i i t i i i e i i i I i 1 d i /J / oi C C lii G 4 5 ,9tCd liil. 7 3 ? dl? c DI Y 5 L l l? 451 t
a i i i i i i . i i !ii NO O() ! - 1 i __I i i ! l.J (a fs difee) (
i, e i i . lt ! gg 'i e i i i a a i lt < C yJ 'y i i i i e i lt ! !e " i a i i i I i a i i i 0A3 /,0 o d l,il d 5 9,21 W I 1 5 6 Ipioi ! O oi? i ii - C _ i1ii
- - - . i i l i i L neby li< SOM ad
" i o > > i i i i i i c,, b C4'..i hj _g i n l, /tO/dhvD !ii C' . ' i i i i i i e i i g4 O cotte stoutiAs e l l mato% C* e4 *Atc%. .n tI i 1 0 I 60I - - I I I .I
I l1 ' _,
' Wit mbE - l ma, ede e 4.io te,s.=i, r.
l M K*, 4},,jE4,RR ~i-s i
- 'c'***
' ';'g;'. m ier imt ,,, ,,, ,,,,,, ., - P * *t 't -"' c* M rg'o 3].)- r ' INSPECTOR'S REPORT I I a ,I, , ,
(Continuation) __ c , . , . .c - ~ ~ - - Office of Inspection and Enforcement _ _ec_ . _ , i e a~ vzaton om ot vaion enre.,o e tex sve usre w ous nem a en rest onte*on so ww. n e te sueou, e pe.somoe sm wee,o y owurn ms,
_i > t g .
4 6' -- .
7 . - -
. t se it - . _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _. _ _ _ _. _ _ _
-. - - - - - - - - -. ~ y - ,, _._________.k _ . _... _ _ " .. i . ,,
. _ --.. _ _ _ - . - - - _ _ - e . il e Pt _. - - ! n
._ r M a: A n s
v l' 5, y , d ,_.
,, s ea es,.sei U.S. NUCLE AR REQ ULATORY COMMi$$10N
.. . '.". RP 05168 - .\\
, SALP FUNCTICHAL AREA ASSESSMENT AND PRELTHlRARY INSPECTOR EVALUATION FORM pacility: _ /, a dh //c', Inspection Report No.: 56 -373 /96C /S , L FUNCTIONAL AREAS I / l _] l II l ITI I IV v Dev lunitlRatinal l P uNT OFERITlbHS l l l l l l l l , l- -
l l l l
l l l l RADIOLCGICAL CONTROLS l l l l l l l l l_ l l l l
ll l l l 0l l MIWlERANCE ! l l l l l l l l Pl l-
I I I l l l EIl W3')i f TORVEI_LMNCE-l l l l l lI l l R; ~~ l H I I h
I I I-I A ; ~ l71RE PROTECl.--___lON l l l ! l l l l l l Tl l_ __ l I a l l I I I l Il l EMERGENCi PREPARE 0 NESS l l l l l l l l l 0l l_ _ l
l l l l l u I l Nl l SECURITY l ll l l l l l l l l $l l-
I I I I I I I l l l l OJTAGES l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l ~l l QUALITY PROGRAMS & ADMIN.
l l l l l l l l l l
l CONTROLS AFFECTING QUALITY l l I l l l l
1 _l l LICENSING ACTIVITIES l l l l l l l l .l
I l l I l l l I l l- -
l TRAINING & QUAllflCATION l l l l l l l ll l l
l~ EFFECTIVENESS l ~ l' l I I i
l-l SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS l . l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l Cl l CONTAINMENT, SAFTTY-RtiXTED l l l l l l , l l 0] l STRUCTURES & WJOR STEEL SUPPORTSI l l l l l l l
l Nl l PIPING SYSTEMS & SUPPORTS l l l l l l l l l l $l l l l l l l l l l l Tl l SAFETY-RE uTED COMPONENTS l l l l l l l l l Rl , l_ MECHANICAL l l l l l
l I I l Ul l AUX 1LIARY SYSTEMS l l l l l l ll J l l Cl llLICTRICAL EQUIPMENT AND CABLES l l l l l l Tl ' ' l l . l l ! , l l l l Il l
1 I I l l l
l 0l llNSTRUMENTAT10N l l l l l l l . l NI l-I I I I I I I I!
l_l
- Functional areas for Construction and Operations CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING CATEGORY RATING 1.
Management Involvement in Assuring Quality.
2.
Approach to Resolution of Technical Issues from a Safety Standpoint.
3.
Resoonsiveness to NRC Initiatives.
Enf',rcement History.
5.
Operational and Construction Events.
6.
Staffing (including stanagement).
RATING KEY: (For Categories 2 - Declining and 3, provide narrative basis for conclusion) g *. Category I Category 2 - Declining Ca egory 2 Category 3 -[ii s fcrin iS inc.o nia ten t-ed, % %t l l Inspector (s) concerns adequately addressed oE - neW SAL 9 CxfejcdeS.
l[lInspectionEvaluationFormbeingprocessed, hNO REJP-p LeadInspector(2,// / ADb Section Chief %*/a% f/n h/ (bignature) 40 ate) (Signature) (Date) March 3, 1986
. . . -. Durf Yti. tow /cxAv pox INi UT toRM ' . , , - - . . Tccility / Add /lG [[/e t l neport wo:_.56 -3 M / Pg000 / . OTHER $1CN1FICANT ITEMS 1.
Systems and, Components .N - %\\V '/ . / - 2.
Facility Iter.s l . s \\ i/ l Py / I l 3.
Managerial items \\ n.
d\\N vy . / - . MC 1005 4/77
- - - - - - - - - - w raunuam i op tsam tm-3 - m Sashmitied by:.b-l P f E BI Sec. Cht:f Approval Item No.
Type Code FunC. Area Date Entered d M / @ hp3p-pj (Unit 1) pffl h_? ~l__I__ _ _ _ / _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (Unit 2) Original Inspector Resp. Sec.
Note _o _ _PS _ _______ _a_cJs_u_aJ_ef__ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ Closed Final Report ! Responsible Inspector Lb_E.T_2sb_____________ Od! Ofld 3 @8D29 Interim jasp. Reports _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ F0110wup Date Remarks: __I__/__ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ - 5tatus Code __________________________________________________ S __________________________________________________ FUstCTf0stAL AREA TYPE Coor gm
OPERATt045 gpg ,,, ORDERS TO LICEftSEE Asseostos. EarWIR. OCC.
ORD AC3 - 2.
RAD - CHEM - ,,,, p,, orn(R 3.
MAINTCNANCE AttcCAfson orn acc - - ,,L 3 ,, 10 CfR PART 20 BULLET 88I P?O se. SunytetLANCE SOL - - g g to CFR PART 7, CostF s R. AcTIOel LTR* P78 5.
(McRcw mte CAL - - ,,3 ,3j Rtcio.e a:: Rtoutsrs CRCutAR R3R Cea 6.
SEC/ SAFEGUARDS - - , p34 RECOMMENDATIONS T.
OU M5 Otve Af toss Ric OCV - - ,,,7 RECULATORY IMPROVEMENT PP.0 CRAM 8AL ' GintRIC LETTER RIP GLR - O' I"#'"8" - 0L3 R[< SAFETY EVAL. PROCMAN 880tf DiATE ACTIO88 LETTER $[P 9.
LICCMSINC - - OL2 W SAFETY [ VAL. R[PCRf 10.
QUALITY ASSU8tAIICE Inf 0As44T4Det seof ICE SER 8mF.
- - OPS 'W 73.71 SAttCUAMDS REPORTS LICistSIE [VEftf REP 0ftT SCR LE3 I* "L - - I SIGeslFICANT SAF ETY FINDISIG se05-COMPL I A8eCC ( 1-2-3-4s-5 ) SSF esc 12.
FIRC PHOT /M-K g - - THREE-MILE ISLAND ACTIO*1 ITEMS 85WE - as0 VictAT80ss IO CFR 2, TMI - u=Rtsotvco eTcas Attachment I to RP 1201 . APr. C s(C. v.A uMR
- warnonAww octa 8 Toe won ans - 30 CrA 50.55(.) :Tras Revised 12/04/87 i - - 55c -
- - - ._ _ _ _ - __ _ _ _ -. B. l thDF f - Sec. Chi f Approval Submitted by: Item 180.
Type Code Func. Area Date Entered 3 2d / d e f10 _o_! (Unit 1) ,@ d _4-M / / -- ___/_____ __ (Unit 2) Original Inspector Resp. Sec.
Note .f 0.G.f _? F _# _0 _P S . _____________ _ ________ ' Responsible Inspector Closed Final Report La E_T u s - - - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - On! Mi ad M92D - Interim)nsp. Reports _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ F;11omup Date . Remarks: __/__l- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ - - - - _ - _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ -. - - - _ _ - - - - - - _ _ _ - _ -- - ___-___--_---_----_-----_--__---------_----______- Status Code __________________________________________________ . 6_ r __________________________________________________ ea IUTIICMAL M Kcism TYPE CODE
OPERATIONS 3RDERS TO LICENSEE g,g pyj A8se0 Ret. [IfVIR. OCC.
ORD AE3 - - 2* N ~ N" OTHER FRP Pld ALL(CAT 80ss OTH ALG - - 3.
MAINTENANCE to CFR PART 20 ,,L 3 ,7j SULLET8N P2O SUL - - "* 5""VE^"CE to CTR PART 21 psos ,2n P COseF8R. ACTIOst LIR.
P2s CAL - - $. EMERC N mEP R[GION 889 R[ QUESTS 6.
$(C/5AFEGUARDS ,,3, ,3, CIRCULAA R3R Cl3 - - RECOMMfMDATIONS ,,,, 3, DE VI AT ionI Rtc DCV - - 7- "#3 REGULATORY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ssM2 Ps: CAR . Ctaf.RfC LETTER RIP - O I"#'" OL1 R(t SAf[TY (VAL. PMOGMAM 9.' LIC[MSI2G 88*If 0f ATE ACT 80ss LETTER $[P 8 AL, - - SAFETY EVAL. R[ PORI g 8 mf. - inf 0R8%T 80s fuoTICE SER - 10.
Wall 1Y ASSURAfgCC 73.71 SAFECuARDS REPORTS ,p, LEM L8Ctws(E EVENT R[P0ftT SGR - -
OTHER 58 G88 i F 8 CAN T SAF E TV F 8 NDI stG scom-COMPLi AasCE ( 1-2-3-4t-5) SSF seC - - 12.
FIRE N T/M-K j , 85wE,~~, asO VIOLAT80ss 10 CFR 2, TMs THRt[-MBLC 85 LAND ACTBON ITEMS - u=RESOtyco aTcMs . Attachment I to RP 1201 - APP. c sEC. v.A u=R - weironawg oets attn won orm - - Revised 12/04/87 i io CFR 50.55t.) :TEMs SSE ' - -
-. _ - - - - -.. - - - - - - - - - ,p . . .
' IN$PECTION PLAN < - FACILITY:bO<Sal/e I 30-373l88020, . . , , SCHEDULEDDATE(t): < 1/y /8 o?c7, /968 ^ INSPECTOR (s): _.3. A.
befi*g/ ] MODULE NO. l % COMP l INSP(C110N FOCUS l AS$1GNED 10 l l3070BB l l EnVance /Ex; t l { blVC2-fStWVeillan c e 0[ ! _! l cue w s,i., , l l t>4is (iiierma) /iani Ls) j ' 'bl9C6 0GlIbf0;ll&n Ob blUcf 3r* ' l O JYenLS l r13Viimen fAIDr! Y I bl?ob l l Core Thermal thw l Eval.
l b/767- ?lGrm 'r1 AN&r) Oh /Yx h k tClOiO r) lACVq)er l l ' I hlh5Ob l l l I \\ktl$5bior1a/ Jiahnsil ! } l '7dsme ' ' _l9290l l lfo//oN/ Of 0/m flea l l l
- n-na,tecondceA> ou l
I i l l DAD han ng 1)racedurg) l l fN n ~f.sc FWs ecf.
l l' i l i A/400 l aff'fcy( nfe) l ralrrin (QJ - l \\l cv 6 on~<;h ) l ' l - er r - l 9c27dl lFo~ llowi<f04 t/io la Ion l l l l l l l.
ld 373 880/o-ci [de red A4.
l l l0hJAVIS ntf cfV(Gblg) l-7 //d [6B PLAN PREPARED BY: /[/ DATE: ,, PLAN APPROVED BY: M8 DATE: I PLAN REVIEVED BY: DATE: _ M2b -- ' ' '. (PROJECTSECipHCIiME) '
Attachment 2 01/06/88 }}