ML19211C989
| ML19211C989 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 11/30/1979 |
| From: | Spessard R, Walker R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19211C977 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-373-79-38, NUDOCS 8001160075 | |
| Download: ML19211C989 (9) | |
See also: IR 05000373/1979038
Text
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-373/79-38
Docket No. 50-373
License No. CPPR-99
Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company
Post Office Box 767
Chicago, IL 60690
Facility Name: La Salle County Station, Unit 1
Inspection At: La Salle Site, Marseilles, IL
Inspection Conducted: September 1-October 31, 1979
f Y
&-
Inspector:
R. D. Wa
r .;fh
//[3e/79
T/ .
wrd-
Approved By:
R. L. S essard, Chief
///3c/79
Reactor Projects Section 1
'
Inspection Summary
Inspection on September 1-October 31, 1979 (Report No. 50-373/79-38)
Areas Inspected: Routine, resident inspector, preoperational inspection
consisting of followup on significant event that occurred while the inspector
was onsite, a review of licensee actions on IE Circulars for the years 1976
through 1979, IE Bulletins for the years 1975 through 1979, witnessing of
preoperational tests, and a plant walk through. The inspection involved a
total of 280 inspector-hours on site by one NRC inspector.
Results: One item of ncncompliance (Infraction - failure to establish
measures to control the operating status of electrical power leads during
station construction - Paragraph 3) was identified.
1756
166
80011000 7[
.
.
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
- R. H. Holyoak, Station Superintendent
- G. J. Diedrich, Station Operating Assistant Superintendent
- R. D. Bishop, Technical Staff Superintendent
- G. W. Reardanz, Quality Assurance Engineer
E. E. Spitzner, Station Administrative and Support Services
Assistant Superintendent
K. W. Steele, Lead Electrical Engineer Station Construction
C. W. Schroeder, Assistant Technical Staff Supervisor
J. Harris, Training Supervisor
J. M. Marshall, Operating Engineer
J. Renwick, Operating Engineer
E. Allen, Shift Engineer
G. Hacke, Shift Engineer
J. Andrews, Technical Staff
W. Huntington, Technical Staff
J. M. Damron, Technical-Staff
P. F. Manning, Quality Control Supervisor
G. Schulte, Master Instrument Mechanic
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (373/79-23-05):
Previous inspection findings
had identified the need for specific precautions against overriding or
bypassing Engineered Safety Features by the operator to be placed in
the operating procedures which will be used to return Engineering
Safety Features to service after automatic initiation. The Unit Two
Operating Engineer has informed the inspector that it is the stations
intent to provide such precautions within the body of these procedures
and in addition to provide additional precautions within the Standing
Operating Orders. This item remains open pending review of the required
changes to the procedures involved.
3.
Followup on Significant Event that Occurs while Inspector is On Site
The Unit 2 Operating Engineer informed the inspector on October 20,
1979, that a Station Helper Electrician had been injured while bus
cleaning the 480 VAC Switchgear 134A. The inspector reviewed the
procedures governing control of this work activity to determine
if procedures had been violated even though Switchgear 134A is not
considered to be a safety related piece of equipment. The inspector's
justification for this is that the procedures governing control of
work activities are generic in concept and are not specific to safety
related equipment; therefore, any violation of this type of procedure
is considered to be significant.
1756
167
-2-
.
The inspector determined that the feeder breaker to Switchgear 134A
.
had been tagged out and racked out per procedures and that the feeder
breakers from Switchgear 134A to the components supplied through
Switchgear 134A had been racked out and tagged out per procedures.
Switchgear 134A was determined to be deenergized per readings required
by procedures.
Switchgear 134A had been properly turned over to the
station operating department, except that certain components supplied
through Switchgear 134A were still under the cognizance of the station
construction department.
It is established procedure that the station operating department is
to take equipment in and out of service for the station construction
department's work related activities. Subsequent review determined
that the station construction department had an in place electrical
lead to the Turbine Building Crane, a component supplied through
Switchgear 134A and still under the cognizance of the station con-
structions department. The station construction department electrical
lead was not known to the station operating department, which is
assigned the responsibility for removing and placing components in
service.
The station construction, department had placed a caution card on the
turbine building crane feeder breaker from Switchgear 134A which stated
that there was a possibility of a dual feed to this component. The
turbine building crane, in it's normal condition, is capable of being
supplied from Switchgear 134A via unit one, or from Switchgear 234A via
unit two.
The station operating department was aware that Switchgear
234A was deenergized and had taken steps, as previously stated, to
deenergize Switchgear 134A; therefore, the station operating department
assumed that the station construction department caution card statement
of warning had been accounted for. The station operating department had
notified the station construction department via telephone that bus
cleaning of Switchgear 134A was to be performed.
The inspector interviewed the shift engineer, the station administra-
tive and support services assistant superintendent (During the con-
struction phase, this position is assigned collateral duties which
include providing liaison activities between the station operating
department and the station construction department. He was not
informed by the station operating department of their intentions to
perform bus cleaning of Switchgear 134A), and the lead electrical
engineer for the station operating department to determine if proce-
dures exist to identify for the station operating department the status
of r,tation construction department electrical leads. The inspector
found no such procedures existing for any components including safety
related components.
The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 50, Appendix B, Cri-
terion XIV states, in part, " Measures shall be established for indicat-
ing the operating status of structures, systems, and components of the
1756
168
3
.
nuclear power plant or fuel processing plant, such as by tagging valves
.
and switches, to prevent inadvertent operation."
The Commonwealth Edison Company Quality Assurance Program for Nuclear
Generating Stations, Section it. states, in part, "The measures used
to indicate status involve two phases. The first phase is pre-receipt
controls....
The second phase consists of controls and identification
of status (emphasis added) onsite at the station....
This system will
also provide for indicating the quality or operating status during
construction (emphasis added) and plant operations. Marking, tags,
labels, forms, logbooks or other suitable means are used to identify
operating status of parts and equipment to preclude inadvertent
bypassing of the inspections and tests required prior to use. The
operation status of station equipment is under control of the Shift
Engineer."
Contrary to the above requirements, the inspector could find no proce-
dural means for the Shift Engineer to control the operating status of
electrical power supplies to equipment as described above. This is an
item of noncompliance of the Infraction level.
(373/79-38-01)
4.
Maintenance Procedures Review
The inspector, during his continuing review of Stations Operating Pro-
cedures obrerved that system valve lineups do not align instrumentation
beyond the instrument root stops (i.e., the instrument stops, equalizing
valves, vent valves, drain valves, etc. are not aligned per the valve
line up for the system). The inspector informed the unit 1 operating
engineer that these components are required to be aligned per procedures.
The unit I operating engineer stated that these valves are never operated
except to perform surveillance or maintenance activities and that such
alignment, as necessary, would be found in the procedures governing these
activities. The initial lineup of instrumentation would be performed per
these procedures and that subsequent alignment would be performed per
these procedures as surveillance or maintenance activities on the
instrumentation occurs.
The inspector then reviewed selected instrumentation surveillance
procedures (LIS) to determine the adequacy of the valve lineup pro-
cedures for instrumentation. The inspector found that the procedures
did not contain specific valve lineup procedures for the various
instrumentation, but did contain one line statements requiring the
instrumentation to be removed from service prior to beginning surveil-
lance testing activities and to be placed back in service after such
surveillance activities are completed. The inspector informed the
Master Instrument Mechanic that instrumentation valve alignment has
not been properly definea in the procedures. The inspector recognizes
that the valving arrangements for instrumentation is in general not
unique for a given type of instrument and is, in fact, generic to a
given type of instrument. The inspector stated that a genetic procedure
\\])(
\\
9
-4-
.
for each specific instrument type would be acceptable provided that
.
specific procedures are developed for all other instruments that have
a unique valving arrangement. This item remains open pending action by
the li:ensee to resolve the inspe_ tor's concerns.
(373/79-38-02)
No items of noncompliance were identified.
5.
IE Circular Followup
The inspector reviewed the licensee's actions regarding all IE Circulars
issued during calendar years 1976 through 1979. The results of this
review are as follows:
a.
IE Circulars detennined to be not applicable to this licensee are:
79-01, 79-06, 79-14, 79-16, 78-01, 78-05, 78-10,77-02A, and 76-06.
b.
IE Circulars received by the licensee, reviewed for applicability,
and appropriate action taken or planned by the licensee are:
79-02, 79-07, 79-13, 79-18, 79-19, 78-06, 78-07, 78-11, 78-12,
78-14, 77-04, 77-07, 76-01, 76-02, 76-04, 76-05, and 76-06.
Action
on the circulars is considered to be closed.
~
IE Circulars received by the licensee, reviewed for applicability,
c.
and no action has been taken or planned at this time by the licen-
see are listed in table form below. These circulars are considered
to be open items per this report and are so identified in the table.
Circular
Responsible
LSCS Station
Open Item
Number
_IE Branch
Responsibility
Number
- 79-03
Safeguards / Security
Station Security
373/79-33-02
- 79-04
Operations
Tech. Staff
373/79-33-03
- 79-05
Construction
SNED
373/79-33-04
- 79-08
Safeguards / Security
Station Security
373/79-33-05
- 79-09
Operations
Tech. Staff
373/79-33-06
- 79-10
Construction
Station Construction
373/79-33-07
- 79-11
Construction
SNED
373/79-33 08
- 79-12
Operations
Station Operating
373/79-33-09
- 79-15
Operations
Tech. Staff
375/79-33-10
- 79-17
Operations
Tech. Staff
373/79-33-11
79-20
Construction
SNED
373/79-38-03
79-21
Operations
Station Operating
373/79-38-04
- 78-02
Operations
Station Operating
373/79-33-12
- 78-03
Operations
Tech. Staff
373/79-33-13
- 78-04
Construction
Station Const@ Alan
373/79-33-14
- 78-08
Construction
Tech. Staff
373/79-33-15
- 78-09
Operations
Station M W e % 2ncs
373/79-33-16
- 78-13
Operations
Tech. M .r f
373/79-33-17
- 78-15
Construction
SNED
373/79-33-18
- 78-16
Operations
Tech. h.aff
373/79-33-19
-5-
.
- 78-17
Safeguards / Security
Station Security
373/79-33-20
.
- 78-18
Operac.ont.
Tech. Staff
373/79-33-21
- 78-19
Operations
Tech. Staff
373/79-33-22
77-01
Operations
Tech. Staff
373/79-38-05
77-02
Operations
SNED
373/79 %-06
77-03
Operations
Station Maintenance
373/79-38-07
77-05
Construction
SNED
373/79-38-08
77-06
Operations
Station Operating
373/79-38-09
77-08
Operations
Unassigned
373/79-38-10
77-09
Operations
Tech. Staff
373/79-38-11
77-10
Construction
Station Construction
373/79-38-12
77-11
Operations
Tech. Staff
373/79-38-13
77-12
Operations
Station Operating
373/79-38-14
77-13
Operations
Station Maintenance
373/79-38-15
77-14
Operations
Station Operating
373/79-38-16
77-15
Operations
Tech. Staff
373/79-38-17
77-16
Operations
Tech. Staff
373/79-38-18
76-03
Operations
Tech. Staff
373/79-38-19
Action taken by the licensee on these items will be reviewed by
an inspector from the appropriate NRC:RIII branch on subsequent
inspections. The inspector determined that closing these open
items will complete all IE Circular concerns associated with
La Salle County Nuclear Station from initial docketing of the
project through IE Circular No. 79-21.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
- These Open Items were assigned per a review conducted and reported
in IE Inspection Report No. 50-373/79-33.
6.
IE Bulletin Followup
The inspector reviewed the licensee's actions regarding all IE Bulletins
issued during calendar years 1975 through 1979. The results of this
review are as follows:
IE Bulletins determined not to be applicable to this licensee are:
a.
79-05,79-05A, 79-05B,79-05C, 79-06,79-06A, 79-06B,79-06C, 79-10,
79-13, 79-17, 79-20, 79-21, 79-22, 78-08, 78-11, 78-13, 77-04, 77-06,
76-01, 75-01,75-01A 75-02, 75-07, and 75-08.
Action on these
bulletins is considered to be closed.
b.
For the IE Bulletins listed below the inspector verified 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 responte included adequate correc-
tive action commitments based on information presentation in the
bulletin and the licensee's response, that the licensee manage-
ment forwarded copies of the written response to the appropriate
1756
171
-6-
.
'
casite management representatives, that the information discussed
in the licensee's written response was accurate, and that correc-
tive action taken by the licensee was as described in the written
response. Action on the following bulletins is considered to be
closed:
79-03, 79-04, 79-11, 79-23, 78-01, 78-02, 78-03, 78-05,
78-06, 78-10, 77-01, 77-07, 76-03, 76-05, 75-03, 75-04,75-04A,
75-04B, 75-05, and 75-06.
c.
For the IE Bulletins listed in table form below the inspector
verified that the bulletin was received by the licensee, but
that action on these bulletins can not be closed due to:
(1) The written response has not been completed because the
bulletin did not require the response to be submitted at
the time of this report.
(2) The written response has been completed in the time frame
required by the bulletin, but corrective action has not been
implemented due to the state of construction of the unit.
(3) The written response has been completed in the time frame
required, but the response is under review by the NRC.
These bulletins are considered to be open. Action taken by the
licensee on these items will be reviewed by an inspector from
the appropriate NRC:RIII Branch on subsequent inspections.
IE Bulletin
Responsible
Open Item
Number
IE Branch
Number
79-02
Construction
373/79-38-20
79-02A
Construction
373/79-38-20
79-07
Construction
373/79-38-21
- 79-09
Operations
373/79-27-01
79-14
Construction
373/79-38-22
79-14A
Construction
373/79-38-22
79-15
Construction
373/79-38-23
79-16
Safeguards / Security
373/79-38-24
79-24
Operations
373/79-38-25
78-04
Construction
373/79-38-26
78-12
Construction
373/79-38-27
78-12A
Cor struction
373/79-38-27
79-12B
Coustruction
373/79-38-27
77-02
Operations
373/79-38-28
77-05
Construction
373/79-38-29
77-05A
Construction
373/78-38-29
77-08
Safeguards / Security
373/79-38-30
76-02
Operations
373/79-38-31
- This open item was assigned per a review conducted and reported
in IE Inspection Report No. 50-373/79-27.
1756
172
_,_
.
d.
For the IE Bulletins listed in table form below the inspector
verified that the bulletin was received by the licensee for
information only and a formal written response to the NRC was
not required by the bulletin. The inspector has determined that
no written response was required to the bulletin because the
concerns expressed in the bulletin were principally associated
with plant operating problems and, therefore, were not germain to
a plant under construction at the time the bulletin was issued.
The inspector has informed the licensee that these bulletin con-
cerns should be addressed prior to unit operation. These bulletins
are considered to be open. Action taken by the licensee on these
items will be reviewed by an inspector from the appropriate NRC:RIII
Branch on subsequent inspections.
IE Bulletin
Responsible
Open Item
Number
IE Branch
Number
79-01
Construction
373/79-38-32
- 79-08
Operations
373/79-15-28
79-12
Operations
373/79-38-33
79-18
Operations
373/79-38-34
79-19
-
Operations
373/79-38-35
78-07
Operations
373/79-38-36
78-09
Operations
373/79-38-37
- 78-14
Operations
373/79-15-27
76-04
Construction
373/79-38-38
76-06
Operations
373/79-38-39
76-07
Operations
373/79-38-40
75-09
Operations
373/79-38-41
- These open items were assigned per a review conducted and
reported in IE Inspection Report No. 50-373/79-15.
The inspectors review indicates that closing the open items
addressed in Paragraphs 6.c and 6.d above will complete IE
Bulletin concerns associated with La Salle County Nuclear Station
from initial license application docketing through IE Bulletin
No. 79-24.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
7.
Witnessing of Preoperational Testing
The inspector witnessed preoperational testing of the Low Pressure
Core Spray (LPCS) pump per preoperational test PT-LP-101.
The test
involved running the pump to obtain vibration readings and to ascer-
tain if pump head characteristics were within required specifications.
The inspector observed that the test was being run consistent with
required procedures and that data from the preoperational test was
being properly recorded for evaluation by responsible station personnel.
1756
173
-8-
.
9
No items of noncompliance were identified.
8.
Plant Walk Through
The inspector conducted plant walk throughs to ascertain the status of
plant construction and plant cleanliness on various occasions during
this inspection period.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
9.
Other Significant Activities Performed by the Inspector
The inspector participated in several major activities that are not
included in the IE Inspection Program during this inspection period.
They are summarized as follows:
a.
On September 24, 1979, the inspector attended a one day Reactor
Operations and Nuclear Support Branch training session in the
NRC:RIII Office.
b.
On September 25, 1979, the inspector attended a one day meeting
with NRR persennel and Region III licensees in Rosemont, Illinois
to discuss TMI Followup NRC Short Term Implementation Program
Requirements.
c.
On October 15, 1979, the inspector attended a one week Inspection
Fundamentals course presented by the IE Career ManageBranch in the
NRC:RIII Office.
d.
On October 10-12, 1979, the inspector attended meetings between the
-
licensee and the NRR Instrument and Controls Branch and the NRR
Reactor Systems Branch to discuss open items in the draft SER for
La Salle County Nuclear Station.
e.
On October 15-18, 1979, the inspector attended public meetings
with NRR personnel and the licensee to review Emergency Response
Plans for La Salle County Nuclear Station at the Brookfield Town-
ship Hall, La Salle County, Illinois.
f.
On October 22-24, 1979, the inspector attended an NRC:RIII
Resident Inspector meeting in Bettendorf, Iowa.
10.
Management Interview
The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph
1) at the conclusion of the inspection period on October 31, 1979.
The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection
activities.
1756
174
_,_