IR 05000010/1977003
| ML19340B423 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 03/08/1977 |
| From: | Knop R, Kohler J, Maura F, Shafer W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19340B419 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-010-77-03, 50-10-77-3, 50-237-77-03, 50-237-77-3, 50-249-77-03, NUDOCS 8010230737 | |
| Download: ML19340B423 (10) | |
Text
_
... -
_
_ _.
_
j
-
_ _ _..
_._
O-o
.
.
,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT p
,
REGION III
,
.
Report of Operations Inspection IE Inspection Report No. 050-010/77-03
IE Inspection Report No. 050-237/77-03 IE Inspection Report No. 050-249/77-03
'
,
Licenera: Commonwealth Edison Company P.O. Box 767
,
'
Chicago, IL 60690 Dresden Nuclear Power Station License No. DPR-02
-
Units 1, 2 and 3 License No. DPR-19 Morris, IL License No. DPR-25 Category:
C Type of Licensee:
-
Type of Inspection:
Routine, Unannounced
.
Dates of Inspection:
January 26 - February 1, 14, 15, 17 and l
22-25, 1977
.
g Principal Inspector:
W. D. Shafe
$/f[77
' (tate)
,. g..)
[.E h1 r
- [/7 Accompanying Inspectors:
'
(Date)
0)Md F. A. Maura Other Accompanying Personnel: None MA Reviewed By:
R. C. Knop, Chief 3/B'/77 Reactor Projects Section 1
'(Ifa t e)
,
I
e e
l
!Diouso 73'7
.
.
~-
. -.
.
.
+
.
_ -.,
.
r -
.&
.
.
-
-_-.... -.. - -
.
.
.-
...
?
>^
,.
.
.
.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS a
-
o r
Inspection Summary
~
Inspection on January 26 - February 1, 14, 15, 17 and 22-25, 1977, (Unit 1, 77-03) ~(Unit 2, 77-03) (Unit 3, 77-03): Review of quality assurance program (Units 1, 2 and 3), design changes (Unit 1),
procedures (Unit 1), review of plant operations (Units 1, 2 and 3)
and reviewed licensee's plans to reduce MO valve operators for certain
,
safety related valves as the solution to eliminate the stem bending problem. One item of noncompliance relating to Unit 1 design changes was identified.
Enforcement Items
.
Contrary to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion III and the licensee's quality assurance program no consideration of quality standards, quality
'
-
assurance requirements, material suitability, interface control and testing was properly accomplished on the installation of a transformer for the Unit 1 facility.
(Paragraph 3. Section 1, Report Details)
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Items None reviewed.
.
Other Significant Items
-
A.
Systems and Components None.
i B.
Facility Items (Plans and Procedures)
None.
!
C.
Managerial Items None.
D.
Deviations
'
None.
E.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Itens None.
-2-
-
.
t
.
-
.,.
-
-
--
,
.,.
- -, -
-
,
.
.-
-_
>
,
_
Management Interviews
.
On February 1, 1977, in a telephone conversation with the licensee, Mr. Kohler stated that no concerns were identified with respect to the licensee's quality assurance program.
_
,
,
A management interview was conducted with Messrs. Stephenson and Brunner at the conclusion of the inspection ou February 17, 1977.
,
!
Mr. Maura stated that we have no further questions at this time regard-ing the proposed modification, but he noted that the evaluation for
,
l whether the new motors will be capable of opening the valves is based on
'
the assumption that the operator reaches full speed and momentum before torque is applied to the valve stem. This appears reasonable since the operator is built to produce a hammer blow in the opening direction.
,
(Paragraph 8,Section II, Report Details)
-
At the conclusion of the inspection on February 24, 1977, an interview
_
was conducted with Mr. Roberts, Assistant Superintendent and other licensee representatives.
Mr. Shafer stated the following:
A.
Portions of the design change relating to the installation of transformer 81 on Unit 1 are safety related in that the modifi-cation has the potential to affect other safety related systems.
The failure to identify the modification as safety related and treat it accordingly is an item of noncompliance.
(Paragraph 3,
-
Section 1, Report Details)
,
"
B.
No concerns were identified in other areas inspected.
(Paragraphs 4 and 5, Section 1, Report Details)
.
-
-3-
.
A a
.
.
.
.
. -- *
- s
.
. _,,.
-
--
- -
-
-,
.-v
. _.
.
-
_
.
_-
-
. _. _
-. _.
_
,
I
'
_ ;
s
,
-
REPORT DETAILS s
,
'
Section I Prepared By W. Shafer and J. Kohler
.
I 1.
Persons Contacted
-
.
i B. Stephenson, Station Superintendent
A. Roberts, Assistant Superintendent B. Shelton, Administrative Assistant C. Sargent, Technical Staff Supervisor
'
C. Lawton, Office Supervisor
,
E. Budzichowski, Operating Engineer, Unit 1
-
R. Ragan, Operating Engineer, Unit 3 D. Adam, Radiation Chemistry Supervisor
-
J. Dolter, Leading Nuclear Engineer J. Kolanowski, Operating Engineer, Unit 2 T. Shaw, Quality Assurance Operations W. Hildy, Instrument Engineer R. Thomas, Instrument Foreman
R. Campbell, Instrument Foreman l
T. Schneider, Chemistry i
L. Scott, General Engineer q
F. Willoby, Quality Assurance j
T. Borzym, Quality Assurance
,
j Z. Cieszkiewicz, Procedures Coordinator
!
B. Zank, Training Instructor
]
T. Checca,-Training Instructor
-
T. Blackman, Training Instructor T. Ciesla, Engineer Assistant R. Dyer, Modification Coordinator R. Kyroyac, Quality Control Engineer R. Nimmen, Staff Assistant
'D. Maxwell, Engineer Assistant T. Rausch, Engineer 2.
Revisions to the Quality Assurance Manual
The inspector discussed with the licensee the method used by the station, to notify cognizant personnel that a_ change to the.QA Manual had been received which affected their work areas. Station personnel in the Quality Assurance and Training sections were questioned.
l
,
.
_4_
.
.
n
-
,
,
.
.
-. _.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.-
.m
,,,
,,w-
,,--
-
.ryv-<-..,
-w--
r
-
r vv<
_ __. _ _. _..
,
, _
g
-
..-
I
.
-.
).
~
- .
The system devised to h'andle QA manual changes originates with
-
the corporate manager in the QA office. Here, each change to the
'
'
QA manual'being distributed is reviewed to determine whether i
training will be necessary. If training is necessary, a cover letter is prepared stating that training is required.
.,
Upon receipt of a revision to the QA manual at Dresden requiring
!
. training, the training department -prepares a list of individuals
.
for the required training. The list is prepared by reviewing the various job titles at the station to determine who would be affected by the QA manual change. These individuals are then assembled at the Dresden Training Center and informed of the
'
specific change to the manual, particularly the differences between the old and new versions. At the conclusion of the train-
,
ing session, an attendance sheet is passed around which~is retained by the training department for future reference.
.
The inspector reviewed changes to the QA manual dated December 20, 1976, dealing with the addition of a maintenance facility change classification titled, " Plant Reliability Related." Individuals questioned about this change were knowledgeable of it and aware of
~
its significance.
The inspector has no further-questions regarding this~1 tem.
3.
Design Changes (Unit 1)
-
a.
.The following design changes were reviewed to verify that
-
each change was conducted in accordance with formal pro-cedures and received proper review and approval. Equipment performance tests were conducted where appropriate, operating procedures were revised and as-built drawings were changed to reflect the modifications.
M12-1-75-31, Install HVAC Isolation System M12-1-75-34, Change Wiring on Current Transformer M12-1-75-61, Replace 3-valves in the -inch vent between'
-
Hi and Lo Pressure Poison Tank M12-1-75-62, Replace Damaged Cables in Primary Drum Area M12-1-76-2, Install new CRD Air Compressor
'M12-1-75-38, Install Transformer 81 and Associated Equipment-5-
.
e
,
% %
' omm. m
.
'
$
.
.
'
.,
,
,, -
.
-,
,
.--
- - -.. - -. -
-
-
-, _.
- -
,. -..,,
.
-_
.
.
. _.
. _. _
.
,.
-.. -
s O
O
'
.
'
b.
In reviewing modification 12-1-75-38, the inspector estab-lished that the entire modification was considered non-safety related by the licensee.
In discussions with licensee representatives and a review of the records, the
-
inspector determined that several attempts were made by onsite personnel to object to the manner in which the-modi-o fication was being handled.
.During the review the inspector found that portions of the modification-(cable separating room, penetrations and control room) were safety related in that the modification has the potential to affect other safety.related systems. Other find-ings were: The modification was placed inservice on July 27, 1976. Operating procedures were written on August 3, 1976 and the modification test was completed on February 14, 1977.
'
l Quality control approval was given on February 14, 1977 and i
operation authorization was signed off on February 17, 1977.
~
The inspector informed the licensee that the control of modification M12-1-75-38 is contrary to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion III and to the licensee's quality assurance program in that no consideration of quality standards, quality assurance requirements, material suit-
,
ability, interface control and testing was properly made i
on the modification. The lack of design control is an item
.
of noncompliance.
_
c.
In reviewing modification M12-1-75-61, replacement of three valves in the h-inch vent line between the high and low pressure poison tank, the inspector determined that the
valves were not replaced on a like for like basis. The
original valves were 900 lb needle valves, one Edwards and two Rockwell. These valves were replaced by three Whitey Company valves with a 4,000 lb rating. By review of the available records the inspector determined that the replace-
ment valves were purchased as safety related and had sufficient certification. However, the three Whitey Company valves were not used in the system originally intended for (Instru-ment Isolation System).
Subsequent to this inspection, on February 28, 1977, in a telephone call to the licensee, the inspector stated that while the use of the valves in question appear acceptable, the valves are considered nonconforming as they were not used in the systea for which they were originally purchased.
The inspector requested the licensee to make an engineering-6-
-
.
.
l
I
i
Eg
- $
.
_, _... _,.,..
m y
,
y er
, - - -
_.___y
-.
_.,,. _ _. -
-
-
-
__
-
-- -
___
-
.
-
-
_
.
.
("
evaluation on modification M12-1-75-61 to determine the acceptability of the valves for the purpose used. The inspector further cautioned the licensee that all noncon-forming equipment required engineering evaluations prior
~
to their use.
In a telephone conversation with the licensee on March 1, 1977, the licensee stated that a post evaluation of these valves will.be accomplished.
- 4.
Procedure Review (Unit 1)
,
!
The inspector reviewed the licensee's program for control of procedures and determined that proper review and approvals were accomplished in accordance with the Technical Specifica-
'
t tions. Technical Specification revisions were incorporated
_
and 10 CFR 50.59 requirements were complied with. The inspec-tor determined that the technical content of the licensee's
'
procedures appeared adequate and overall procedure content was consistant with Technical Specification requirements. No concerns were identified.
5.
Review of Plant Operations, (Units 1, 2 and 3)
a.
A review of the licensee's routine plant operations for
-
December, 1976 and January through February 1977, was conducted by inspecting the following records. No signifi-
-
cant concerns were identified.
(1) Control room log books.
,
(2) Auxiliary log sheets.
(3) Shif t Supervisor log 'aooks.
(4) Operating orders and daily orders in ef fect.
(5) Bypass logs and hold card logs.
(6) Water chemistry records.
b.
The inspectors conducted a tour of accessible areas and noted.the following:
(1) Monitoring instrumentation was recording as required.
-7-
I
.
9 %
WN y
4
"
-
-. -
--
- -
,
-
, - -..
-,., - - - -
,,.
-
-.
.
.
.
.-
-.
_
- __
. _ _
._
_
-
. -
--
-
<...
t
'
~
-
v]
]
.
(2) Radiation.' controls were properly established.
.(3) Fluid leaks and pipe vibrations were minimal.
(4) Seismic restraint oil levels in the torus area were adequate.
,
(5) Equipment W ution an.d hold cards agreed with control room records.
The inspectors conducted discussions with control room operators relating to the reasons for various lighted annunciators and also noted that control room manning con-formed with the facility's Technical Specifications. No concerns were identified.
a 6.
Station Training
-
The inspector attended two retraining sessions relating to health physics and the use of half and full face masks. Each session was approximately 1-hour, covering the basic requirements established by the licensee in accordance with the Code of, Federal Regulations.
f e
m
.g
I
!
,
-8-
..
l
.
!
I..
.
4s
..
.
- - -
,,i
,r
--
y w-
- - - ~,,
.r%-
y
+
rr-y-
--*,.
-
-m
.r=
-
-.
-..
.
.
. -. -
-
' ~
'
. _;.,
.
...
.
. - -
z K-
_
..
e
~
.
(D
-
,
I
" REPORT DETAILS I
Section II Prepared by:
!A(.M A.
3[8!77 F. A. Maura I(Dhte)
'
Reviewed by:
[
P
- W. Si fittle, Chief
'(Dite)
Nuclear Support Section 7.
Persons Contacted l
B. Stephenson, Superintendent
'
.
L. Brunner, Electrical Engineer, SNED
!
C. Sargent, Technical Staff Supervisor
' '
J. Wujiga, Lead Engineer Units 2 and 3
-
T. Lang, Engineer. Technical Staff
,
R. Meadows, Staff Assistant Engineer, Maintenance
J. Jurechi, Staff Assistant En gineer, Maintenance G. Frankovich, Master Electrician 8.
Motor Operator Valves Planned Modifica".lon
-
i As a result of experienced ' valve stem bendings, the licensee
-
initiated a study to determine the causes and possible corrective actions. The final recommendation was to decrease the motor size
of several safety related valves. Our review of the licensee's l
program showed that the operating-speed of the valves will not I
be changed and that the new operators will supply enough torque
-
I to ensure valve operability.
'i
]-
The study concentrated on valves with stem speeds of 36 rpm or
]
higher. The results showed that the torque applied-to the stems at the end of valve travel, in the closing direction, in some
'
j cases exceeded the compression yield point of the stem.
This J
torque was a combination of motor developed torque, because of the time required for the torque switch and contactors to operate,
,
plus the inertia of the operator.
The licensee's proposed solution is:
.
l a.
For valves 1402-25A and 25B to increase the yield strength I
of the stems by changing the stem material from A18Z-F316 I
to A18Z-F6.
,
'
-9-
.
.
I
,m
.
.
.
_,,
-
7.-
rm,
-,
my
.%
-
-
my'p+
y e
- -
r r
w
-
v
..
_-__
.-
-..
. -.-
..
..
-. -
i
___..
. __ _
___ -
.
- - - -
--
.- - -- -
.
-
s q
~
,....
'
..
,
-
b.
For valves 1501-22A and 22B to change the motor size from
,
150 ft-lbs to 80 ft-lbs.
-m c.
-For valves 2301-3 and 5 to change motor size from 100 ft-lbs J
to 60 ft-lbs.
,
i i
d.
For valves 2301-8 and 9 to change motor size from 200 ft-lbs
,
to 150 ft-lbs.
A review of the capability of the new operators to open the valves was performed. The torque required to open the valvas, based on
,
manufacturer's data, was compared to the torque devcloped by the
,
i new operators, and the latter was found adequate provided the
" hammer blow" effect feature of the valve operator provides
'
enough torque to overcome the extra torque experienced by the,
'
valve at the end of travel in the closing direction.
~
i I
.
1
.
e i
i i
,
I l
i-
$
i i
- 10 -
.
e
'O
- W'
t
, g
-
w--
w y-e. * -
p 1-w-rry
>.
rei
-- *
e--
p-q.
-
--p
q yc'v'
y+9%
-y iy.-'---
svw