IR 05000010/1977001
| ML19340A611 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 02/03/1977 |
| From: | Charles Brown, Little W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19340A609 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-010-77-01, 50-10-77-1, 50-237-77-01, 50-237-77-1, 50-249-77-01, NUDOCS 8008280662 | |
| Download: ML19340A611 (5) | |
Text
...
.
-
'
'
'N
_
...
. E.-
'
.-;
-
.
,
f
,
.
UNITED STATES I'UCLEAR REGULATORY C0!cfISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
-
J
.
!
.
Report of Operations Inspection
'
IE Inspection Report No. 050-010/77-01 IE Inspection Report No. 050-237/77-01 IE Inspection Report No. 050-249/77-01
-
s
.
Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company
!
P. O. Box 767 l
l Chicago, Illinois 60690
i
_
Dresden Nuclear Power Station License No. DPR-2 Units 1, 2 and 3 License No. DPR-19
'
!
Morris, Illinois License No. DPR-25 Category:
C
,
t Type of Licensee:
BWR (GE) 200 & 810 !!We Type of Inspection:
Routine, Announced
-
Dates of Inspection:
Januar 11-14, 1977
&,r w l
~
'
Principal Inspector:
,
. Brown N/3 77
.
/ (D4te) '
)
Accompanying Inspectors: None
~
Other Accompanying Personnel: None i
f
.
fk Reviewed By:
W. S. Li cle, Chief
[_
.77 Nuclear Support Branch
/ (Date)
.
h
.
.
-
.
,
l-
,8.008280 h{R
,
-.. --
I h
.
_
_
_
,.
__
__
_
-
._
~ - ' -
_
. - - ___-
.
.
.a-
.
.
..
-
-
,
.
SUMHARY OF FINDINGS
.
.
'
'
Inspection Summary
-
.
Inspection on January 11-14, 1977, (77-01, Units 1, 2 and 3) Review of facilities' fire prevention and protection status and review of
Ceco submittal of Decenber 28, 1976, as to the conformance to Standard
'
Review Plan 9.5.1 " Fire Protection System." The inspection was per-formed while accompanying a Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division
of Operating Reactors (DOR) review team.
.
Enforcement Items None.
,
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Items
'
None reviewed.
e
.
Other Sigr.ificant Items A.
Systems and Components
~
The. fire suppression system engineering is continuing.
,
-
B.
Facility Items (Plans and Procedures)
a The licensee was requested by the DOR review team to provide further informaticn directly to DOR for the " Fire Protection
'
System" submittal in the following areas.
1.
Fire system capacities.
2.
ESS Train separation in areas of ESS motor control centers.
(Management Interview, Item C)
C.
Managerial Items
-
None.
J
-
,
D.
Deviations l
None.
E.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items The licensee had recieved, onsite, the evaluation of the pene-tration seal material now in use.
-2-
.
.
.
wet
-
Fi
-.
-
__
L
.
Management Inte rview The inspector conducted an interview at the conclusion of the inspection
,
on January 14, 1977 with Mr. Stephenson and other members of his staff
-
and Mr. Stolt, CECO SNED. The following items were included in the discussion.
A.
Housekeeping was noted to be substandard in many areas. The following areas were ine,luded in the discussion: Unit I sphere, all trackways, the warehouse, and storage areas throughout the plant.
The licensee acknowledged the comments.
(Paragraph 7.b, Report Details)
B.
Storage of flammable liquid and the dispensing of same was noted to be in the same area of the warehouse with no real separation from the remainder of the warehouse. The licensee stated that
_
new warehouse facilities were in the planning stage and these comments would be factored into the planning.
(Paragraph 7.b, Report Details)
C.
The licensee was requested by the D0R review ' team to provide additional information directly to DOR in the areas of fire pump capacity, fire main acity and amounts of flammable liquids normally stored in
..ous areas. The licensee stated that the requested informar a would be provided.
D.
The cable separation criteria were discussed and several areas identified for further evaluation. The licensee stated that the evaluation would be completed and appropriate protection provided.
(Paragraph 7.b, Report Details)
E.
The inspector stated that two maintenance procedures did not appear to be fully implemented. Procedure for clearing cable trays and one for repair and maintenance of penetration seals.
The licensee stated that the procedures and status would be reviewed.
(Paragraph 5.b, Report Details)
F.
The inspector stated that the licensee should consider adding procedures addressing mercury spill control. The licensee acknowledged the comment.
G.
The licensee stated that more fire detection and alarm sy4tems were to be added to various areas of the site in answer to questions raised during a discussion held on the review of the amount and type of detection and alarm system throughout the plant.
(Paragraph 7.b. (5), Report Details)
-3_
P
-... _....
i I
k
-
...- _
.
L
.
~
.
REPORT DETAILS
%
'
i.
1.
Persons Contacted
-
L. Duchek, Assistant to Operating Engineer, Unit i E. Budzichowski, Operating Engineering, Unit 1 (Fire Marshall)
H. Habermeyer, Dresden Operations R. Kyrouac, Quality Control Engineer H. K. Stolt, Ceco SNED
.
2.
General An inspection tour was conducted of the Dresden plants with the DOR review team and the licensee to review the fire prevention The submittal of December 28, 197&glieved to be The team pointed out what they b and protection.
-' was com-fire hazards.
-
pared to the e.<1 sting equipment and conditions at the facility.
3.
Work Control Procedures a.
Operational Control The work control procedures require that one of the Shift
.
Supervisors reviev and approve all work requests for the applicable unit. The procedures used for the work are to
-
contain precautions for work in the vicinity of vital equip-ment. Work Requests reviewed appear to provide this information. The inspector expressed concern that after a work request is approved, work activities can begin in the plant without the operations staff being aware that the work is in progress. The inspector did not identify any problems which had resulted from the licensees work control procedures.
.
b.
Ignition Sources
,
The review revealed that ignition sources used in the plant are required to be specifically authorized and a fire watch posted. The control is a maine.enance procedure which also includes the controls and preccutions to be taken in the immediate area, c.
Communication The firewatch has received training in communicating with
'
the control room in case of an emergency. This is the case 1/ Conformance to Standard Review Plan 9.5-1, " Fire Protection,"
(Bolger to Stello)
-4-
l
.
.
.
._
.
.--
,
_
- _,
_ _.
.
- _ _ _
-,
.
_
_ _.. _ _. _ _ _ _.
.
._.
.
_ A-
,
,
_
..
.
t for either onsite or contractor personnel. The firewatch
,
is also trained to handle the portable fire extinguisher supplied at the job.
y
,
-
.
4.
Quality Assurance Surveillance a.
Periodic Audit
,
The quality assurance procedures do not specifically address a periodic audit related to fire prevention / protection con-cerns of operating personnel control and authorization of work and maintenance activities for non-safety related sys-tems. A QA audit may be performed in any of the areas as part of the onsite review. The work foreman is responsible, per the facility procedures, to verify that the job has been correctly authorized and controls are maintained.
_
b.
Seal Material
.The QA verification that seal material is not flammable is as specified on the purchase order. The vendor's literature is used as reference for the acceptability of the material.
5.
Design Change Controls a.
Replacement Seal Material
-
The maintenance procedure controlling the replacement and repair of cable penetration seal specifies the material to be used, which corresponded to the print specifications for the original seals.
b.
Repair of Seals Work packages that required repair of seals were reviewed and noted to contain the repair procedure. During the tour the seals were noted to have been maintained with the exception of one control room penetration that had not been temporarily filled as per the maintenance procedure. This unsealed pene-tration was noted at shift change when the related work i
act ivity had not been completed. The licensee immediately filled the penetration. Since the inspector had no reason to i
believe that the penetration would not have been sealed dur-ing the normal progression of work, this it not considered to be a violation of regulatory or the licensee's procedure requirement.
l
--5-
.
a
.
..
$
-
. -,.. *,.. -
,
!
.
.
.
,
,,
._
.-
. -.
.._
L
~'
_ - -
.
i 6.
Emergency Procedures
-
,
The emergency procedures were reviewed and no change from the
^%
i
-
<'
-
,
last review was noted.,
!
7.
Facility Inspection
'
a.
Fire Inspections
.
The fire inspections are performed by a third party with no change from the status reported in the previous IE fire inspection.
b.
Tour During the tour of the facility the following items in the fire prevention area were pointed out to the licensee for
-
review:
(1) Housekeeping.
(2) ESS train separation over ESS Motor. Control Center.
,
l (3) Storage of flammable liquids.
.
'
(4) Warehouse facilities for storage and dispensing flam-
-
mable liquids.
(5) The capability cf the alarm and detection system in
,
f
,,
several areas.
.
!
.
-
e
.
-6-I g
e 4-
.
'
+
i i
..
-
.
,,
i
... _
.
.
. _.
_
__
_
_