IR 05000010/1976021
| ML19340A545 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 11/04/1976 |
| From: | Charles Brown, Little W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19340A542 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-010-76-21, 50-10-76-21, 50-237-76-23, 50-249-76-22, NUDOCS 8008270804 | |
| Download: ML19340A545 (6) | |
Text
___
_.. _. _.. _.. _..
..
_
.. y..
_.
.
__
__
. _. _
_ _ _.
_ _ _._. _ __..
______s
... _.
.
s
.. _,
-
(
-
.
.
.
q-
-
.
.
O
'
.
~
j UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT i
~
REGION III
i Report of Operations Inspection
\\
IE Inspection Report No. 050-010/76-21'
IE Inspection Report No. 050-237/76-23 IE Inspection Report No. 050-249/76-22
'
Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company P. O. Box 767 I
_
Chicago, Illinois 60690 i
Dresden Nuclear Power Station License No. DPR-2 I
Units 1, 2, & 3 License No. DPR-19 Morris, Illinois License No. DPR-25 Category:
C
.
i Type of Licensee:
-
Type of Inspection:
' Routine, Unannounced i
I Dates of Inspection:
October 15, 18 and 19, 1976
,
Y
'
Principal Inspector:
. H. Brown
// / 7[
(D'at d)
,
Accompanying Inspector:
None Other Accompanying Personnel:
None f._
Reviewed By:
W. S' Li tie,,46t'- J
,
Chief
Nuclear Support Section
/dnte)
.
l l
800827o20
..
-.
,-
,,..
- -
.. - -
, - - -
-
-
- -
.
_. _ -
-. -
.--
..
_-.
.
-
.
...
.
_ _ _ _ -..
l
_
_ _
_.
. _..,
-
.
-
,
,
.
\\
G
_
/
'
t i
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
-
Inspection Summary j
Inspector performed October 15, 18 and 19, 1976, (Unit 1, 76-21)
(Unit 2, 76-23)(Unit 3, 76-22): Review of facilities fire pre-
'
vention/ protection status.
,
.
Enforcement Items None.
.
!
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforer. rent Items i
-
Not inspected.
Other Significant Items A.
System and Components The fire suppression system engineering is continuing.
$
-
B.
Facility Items (Plans and Procedures)
Several procedures pertaining to penetration seals and fire
.
'
prevention are being reviewed for revisions.
<
s
!
Unresolved Item - The licensee did not have the required paper-work for a seal material change on site.
The licensee stated thac the documentation would be obtained to be reviewed at a future inspection.
- C.
Managerial Items
,
None.
,
D.
Noncompliance Identified and Corrected by Licensee
'
None.
I
E.
Deviations
'
None.
!
!;
!
-2-
.
,
l
. _
_
_.
.. _ _
.
.
.. _.
-
.
..
.
.
,,- _... _..
.-
.
. _.
.,. -
.-
..
,, _.
_
_..
,
=
,
.,
-
.
-
i
.
-
.
-
-
.
l
F.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items
!
Not inspected.
-
!
.
Management Interview
.
!
A management interview was conducted by the inspector at the conclusion of the inspection on October 19, 1976 with Mr. Stephenson and other
members of his staff. The following items were included in the dis-cussion and subsequent telephone conversation:
A.
Several recently approved procedures pertaining to fire prevention
,
were discussed. The inspector made specific comments on these procedures.
_
The licensee stated that the procedures would be reviewed.
(Paragraph 3, Report Details)
B.
.The inspector stated that housekeeping in general was not good.
,
l The licensee acknowledged the comment.
C.
The inspector pointed out that even with the very complex
.
review procedure for " Work Authorization" the necessity for
..
repair of fire barrier seals was not specified in M12-3-76-33
-
modification package. The licensee stated that the program to maintain the fire seals would be reviewed. The inspector also stated that the work group was aware that the seals were being disturbed and had definite plans to return the seals to
'
the original conditions.
(Paragraph 4, Report Details)
.
l D.
The inspector stated that the review of penetration seal work
-
package revealed that it was incomplete and information was not available at the site. The inspector stated that this item would be carried as unresolved and completed during a future inspection. The licensee acknowledged the comment.
'
(Paragraph 6, Report Details)
>
t I
J
>
i-3-
.
-
-...
(..
.
-
__
.-
.
..
_, _. _.
,_ ~___.
..
.
.
-
~
j
.
.
,
,
L_
l i
REPORT DETAILS
.
1.
Persons Contacted B. Stephenson, Plant Superintendent E. Budzichowski, Operating Engineer, Unit 1 F. Knowzack, QA Engineer L. Duchek, Assistant to Unit 1 Operating Engineer J. Abel, Administrative Assistant D. Simpson, Technical Staff Engineer D. Strobel, Shift Foreman A. Crawford, Substation Construction Supervisor, Electrical 2.
General
.
.
The inspection of the fire prevention / protection at the site revealed the following:
The fire barrier penetration.cealing hasbeencompleted,engineeringforsuppyessionsystemstobe installed by April 1978 was continuing.-
The procedures applicable to fire prevention and emergency shutdown and cool-down were spot checked. One plant modification that involved
~
disturbing the penetration seals was reviewed. Housekeeping was noted to be in relative poor condition in some panels and
_
cable trays. The most recent third party fire inspection was in April 1976 and the licensee is taking the option of a rating penalty on some items. Fire fighting equipment is inspected as a routine surveillance program.
The inspector's review did not note any omissions. The fire drills were being held for one operating crew monthly and alternated between crews in most of the drills performed.
3.
Procedures The emergency procedures (abnormal) were spot checked and found to cover the methods for use of available equipment for shutdown and cooldown of the reactor.
The review of procedure " Fire Stop Construction / Repair Record (DMP534)"
revealed that it contained sections covering temporary seal repair at end of work day, material to be used, and filling out and maintaining the repair record sheet.
The inspector pointed out that a numburing system for the repair sheet is needed as each seal reqsires a separate sheet.
1/ Ltr, Bolger to Keppler dtd 9/3/76.
_4.
,
)
e-
,
..
.. _.
_
_ _ _ _
__..
.__ __
__ _.
_
.
,
I~
'
.
.
. $.-
,
,
'
'
.
~
.. _..
.
'
.The inspector stated that procedure DMP528, Cleaning of Cable
.
Trays, Penetrations and Panels, was too vague to be effective-as shown by the condition of the cable trays and panels.
Also, the procedure does not contain definite acceptance criteria for the cleanup, and the performance frequency was vague.
The fire prevention procedure for welding and cutting DMP508 requires a special permit to be issued for any welding or cutting to be performed out of the ~ designated welding areas.
The appropriate precautions to be taken are outlined including the fire watch in the procedure.
The licensee stated that the comments on the procedures would be reviewed.-
-
The work control procedure provides for operational personnel approval of the work package and approval for equipment tag out and return to service as necessary.
The contr-1 for work to start and control while work is in progress is dele-gated to the person in charge of the work group.
4.
Seal Repair
}
!
.
.
One_ work package (M12-3-76-33) that involved disturbing the penetration seals was in progress at the time of the inspection.
In-the review of the package, performance of the work and dis-cussions with the work group the following was noced.
The package had been authorized via the licensee Work Authorization procedure. The package did not contain any notation that penetration seals were being disturbed and would require repair. The work group (non-site group) supervisor knew, based on his knowledge of the plant that he would be damaging some seals while installing wire runs. He stated that he had
-
been verbally instructed some time previously on maintaining a temporary seal and that a form was to be filled out af ter the seal had been repaired so that the intent of procedures for maintaining penetration seals was being followed.
The work package " traveler.and QC checklist" was revised to include'the seal repair forms.
The licensee stated that a review wor.d be made of the authorization program to limit-the possibility of omission of the maintenance of penetration seals in future work packages. This includes training and/or revising the procedures.
.
-5-I
,
.
.,-
.,-
,e
-
~, -. - -
-
m,,---,:
~-
r
-
.-
--r-
- -----
-
..
. - -
-
-
.
._
_
_
_ _ - -
_
....
.
.
-
. j
.
-
t-
.
. _,
-...
,
.
,~
't, 5.
QA/QC Surveillance
.
The QA/QC procedures and work control procedures require QC review of thgjkork authorization form to assure that the form is completed-and all required documentation is included in the work package.
If " hold points" have not been specified in the work package the QC surveillance is optional. The periodic audit work authorizations for operational involverent is not a routinely performed audit. An audit was performed during the last 4 - 6 months of the tag-out procedure which included the operational involvement in control of work in progress. This audit is not, at this time, to be performed routinely.
-
6.
Seal Material The inspector's review of the penetration seal installation and repair work package he noted that "Vimasco" was used as the sealant. The package contained a letter from SNED that stated the "Vimasco" was approved for use in the same manner as
"Flammastic." The supporting documentation for the change was
'
not available on site at the time of the inspection. The
.
inspector informed the licensee that this item would be carried f
as an unresolved item until the supporting documentation is
'
reviewed. The licensee stated that the documentation would be available for a future inspection.
s
)
2/. TL.
os.-
nuthorization form includes two levels of operational review and approval and operations must approve the equipment tag-out.
.
s-6-
.
-.
,-
--
-
-.-,-
-,
- - -