IR 05000010/1977009
| ML19340A864 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 05/23/1977 |
| From: | Knop R, Shafer W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19340A862 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-010-77-09, 50-10-77-9, 50-237-77-10, 50-249-77-10, NUDOCS 8009040680 | |
| Download: ML19340A864 (6) | |
Text
m --
-
-
_. _.. __
___.:..
,
TN s
V
-
.
s
.
.
-
.
,,
.
C-U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
',
s*
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
.
REGION III
'
Report No. 50-010/77-09; 50-237/77-10; 50-249/77-10 Docket No. 50-10, 50-237, 50-249 License No. DPR-2, 19, 25 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company
-
P. O. Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690'
Facility Name: Dresden Nuclear Power Station Units 1, 2, and 3 Inspection at: Dresden Site, Morris, IL
'
Inspection conducted: May 3-5 and 10-12, 1977
.
[
Sd4 [77 Inspectors:
W. D. Sh e date signed Approved by:
R. C. Kno hi
,7
-
a Reactor Projects Section 1 date signed
Inspection Summary Inspection on May 3-5 and 10-12,1977 (Report No. 50-010/77-09; 50-237/77-10; 50-249/77-10)
.
,
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the licensee's annual report relating to repo,rted startups and shutdowns on Units 1, 2, and 3; followup on previous items of noncompliance (Units 1, 2, and 3); followup on previous licensee commitments (Units 2 and 3); followup on previous outstanding items (Units 1, 2, and 3); review of licensee event reports (Units 2 and 3); review of licensee's locked valve list for Unit 3; and a tour of plant areas. The inspection involved 47 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results: Of the seven areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or devia-
'
tions were found in five areas; one apparent item of noncompliance found in ou area (infraction - failure to perform a proper surveillance -
Para aph 5).
An additional item of noncompliance was found in a second area (deficiency - failure to follow procedures - Paragraphs 4 and 6).
.
.
'
.
800004'O [ h
'
--
~
'
.
-
,
~
'
L
-
s
",,
.
,.
.
C-DETAILS
,
.
1.
Persons Contacted
'
B. Stephenson, Station Superintendent
,A.
Roberts, Assistant Superintendent
,B.
Shelton, Administrative Assistant C. Sargent, Technical Staff Supervisor
,E.
Budzichowski, Operating Engineer, Unit 1 R. Ragan, Operating Engineer, Unit 3
,J.
Kolanowski, Operating Engineer, Unit 2
,J.
Reardanz, Quality Assurance Operations
,R.
Kyrouac, Quality Control Engineer
,T.
Walsh, Quality Control
,J.
Bowers, Technical Staff C. Schiavi, E/A Stores
'
The inspector also talked with and interviewed several other licensee employees assigned to various plant departments.
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
-
(Closed) Noncompliance (237/76-25):
Failure to sve at least one reactor building ventilation stack monitoring system operable at all times. The inspector determined that the licensee's corrective action -
i.e., procedure update and pipe and valve diagram availability, has been initiated and appears to be adequate.
(Closed) Noncompliance (237/76-25; 249/76-26): Failure to imple-ment proper temporary changes to operating maintenance and instrument procedures on Units 2 and 3 without proper review and signatures.
Th,e inspector found that the procedures for making temporary changes has been revised and the corrective action appears adequate.
(Closed) Noncompliance (010/76-24): Failure to perform surveillance of the reactor metal temperatures on Unit 1.
The inspector deter-mined that management has reviewed this surveillance requirement with operating personnel and the procedure establishing the need for this surveillance has been updated.
(Closed) Noncompliance (249/76-30):
Failure to maintain the Unit 3 LPCI. pump room flood door closed.
T.le inspector noted that these doors are now verified closed daily.
-2-
.
m==
--
,
_
..
- - -
--
,
.
'
-
,
c
.=
C-(Closed) Noncompliance (237-76-28): Failure to insert and disarm i
an uncoupled control rod.
The inspector noted that the operating order requiring insertion and disarming was in effect prior to
,
the licensee's Technical Specification change approval.
The licensee's new Technical Specification requirement now allows for recoupling of uncoupled control rods.
3.
Licensee Internal Audit _s The inspector reviewed four audits conducted by the licensee's Quality Assurance Program for 1977 and noted that one repetitive item of noncompliance had becu identified and corrected by the licensee.
.
4.
Review of Annual Reports (Units 1, 2, and 3)
The inspector reviewed the facility records to determine that
.
information requested to be reported in the annual report has been reported. The licensee's aanual report accurately reflects infor-matica documented in the facility records with respect to forced
~
outages.
During a review of the Unit 3 startups and shutdowns the inspector
-
determined that on November 8, 1976, the Unit 3 reactor scrammed
"
during a moderator temperature coefficient test (MTC).
The control
'
room log book indicated the cause of the scram was due to spiking on IRM's 17 and 12.
Further investigation by the inspector indi-cates that while IRM's 17 and 12 appeared to have spiked, the IRM chart speeds were on slow speed, therefore, not substantiating a
.
spiking problem. However, the SRM charts were on fast speed and indicated the reactor was on a positive period of 12-to-15 seconds at the time of the scram, indicating the cause of the scram as an operator error. Operating with the chart speeds on " slow" during an MTC test is a procedutal noncompliance, however, the licensee was cited for this weakness in an inspection subsequent to this incident (237/77-09).
During this incident, the operator error consisted of failure to uprange the IRH's prior to reaching the 120/125 high trip. In reviewing the licensee's deviation reports for this time period the inspector noted that no deviations had been reported to management. The licensee's Technical Specifica-tions section 6.2.A requires procedures to be adhered to.
The nonexistence of a deviation report for the scram occurring on November 8, 1976 indicates that licensee's procedure DAP 11-6, Deviation Reporting, was not adhered to.
-3-
.
O
---
.
.
.
.g
,
-
-
,
.
.
,
---
.
.
N
- - -
_
A
.
,
s
",
-
-
,
.
j
'
g.
5.
Review o'f Licensee Event Reports (Units 2, and 3)
i The insp'ector reviewed licensee actions with respecc to the
~
following listed nonroucine events to verify that the events were reviewed and evaluated by the licensee as required by Technical Specifications, that corrective action was taken by' the licensee, and that safety limits, limiting safety system settings, and limiting conditions for operation were nat exceeded.
The review consisted of examination of licensee dev stion reports, log books, records, and interviews with selective personnel.
, Loss of Unit 2 feedwater heaters causing a 145 F feedwater transient (LER 77-09)
Unit 2 shutdown as a result of excessive leakage in the dry-
'
well (LER 77-13)
Failure of both Unit 3 diesel generators (LER 77-11)
Failure of Unit 3 undervoltage relay on bus 34-1 (LER 77-10)
_
Failure of both channels of the rod block monitor system on Unit 3 (LER 77-09)
One item of noncompliance relating to the licensee's undervoltage relay test was identified.
The inspector determined that special operating procedure No. 185 was not followed and was inadequate for.
-
the following reasons.
a
-
a.
The procedure did not identify acceptance criteria.
(Inadequate)
b.
The procedure data sheet did not indicate the failure of bus 34 relay to perform its function.
(This information was given to the operating engineers in a telephone conversation three days after the test was completed.) (Procedure not followed)
c.
There was no indication on the data sheet or in the control room log book that the shift engineer was notified that a test' of the relays would occur (Procedure not followed).
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion 5, and the licensee's quality pro-cedure No. 5-51 require that activities affecting quality shall be described by documented instructions, procedures, drawings, and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, pro-cedures, and drawings. The procedures shall also include appropriate quantitative or qualitative acceptance criteria for determining important activities have been sat sfactorily accomplished.
i No other noncompliance or deviations were identified.
-4-
._ _
.
.
,.
,
,
-
.
--
-
--
_ _.
._..
,_ _
,_
--
.
__
_
.
.
A
"
~
.
,.
.
g. -
6.
Review of Unit 3 Locked Valve List On May 5, 1977, while touring the Unit 3 reactor building, the
~
inspector found several unlocked valves on the standby liquid control system piping. The identified unlocked valves were given to the licensee for corrective action. On May 12, 1977, the inspector again reviewed the locked valves on the standby liquid control system for Unit 3 and found additional valves that were not-locked as required by the Unit 3 locked valve list DOP-040-M1.
In addition, the inspector noted that many of the locked valves were chain locked as required, however, these valves could still be opened and closed several turns due to the length of locking chain. The licensee's Technical Specifications section 6.2. A requires that detail written procedures including applicable check-off list be prepared, approved, and adhered to.
In discussio".a with licensee representatives and review of the records, the inspector found no indication that the locked valve list procedure
_
was being adhered to, as related to the standby liquid control system.
7.
Followup on Licensee's Previous Commitments (Units 2, and 3)
In a previous inspection (237/76-28), the licensee committed to completely insert and disarm all control rods experiencing un-
'
coupling in the event that any additional control rods become
-
uncoupled during this fuel cycle. This commitment is no longer necessary due to the issuance of Amendment No. 28 to the licensee's technical specifications.
In a previous inspection (237/76-25), the licensee committed to monthly visual inspections of all ECCS valve stems on those valves having oversized motors. The inspector noted that this monthly visual inspection is being accomplished and will continue until all oversized motors have been replaced.
8.
Followup on Outstanding Items from Previous Inspections (Units 1, 2, and 3)
In a letter / the licensee reported that the review and implementa-
tion of the instrument departments reformatted procedures shall be completed by the end of January 1977. In discussions with licensee representatives, the inspector determined that this reformatting of procedures has been accomplished.
J/
Abrell to-Ziemann, dated November 26, 1976.
-5-
.
e w=
~
.L t
.
~
-- -
.
.
.
-
m._
__
. - -
_,
.
.. _
_
'
vj,
,
-
.
<-
_
l
l b
In a letter / the licensee is required by the NRC staff to submit
L aquarteklyreportindicatingnumberofstartup/shutdowncycles experienced at Dresden Unit 3 during cycle 5 operation and a
-
detailed evaluatien of the startup/ shutdown transients after 20 additional cycles. The inspector reviewed the licensee's quarterly submittal without comment.
-
In a letter / relatine te discussion of IE Bulletin No. 76-04, the
licensee stated tha*. documentation is 'available onsite certifying that piping on Unit 1 was annealed after bending (north steam supply to the emergency condenser).
The inspector reviewed the available documentation without comment.
As a result of inoperative snubbers due to fluid loss on Unit 3,.
identified on September 24, 1976, the licensee was required by the Technical Specifications to increase snubber surveillance.
The inspector reviewed the drywell snubber inspecticn, DTS-020-1,
_
completed on April 8, 1977. No concerns were identified.
As a result of vendor recommendations (SIL 210), the licensee's
l work request No. 1723 indicates that carbon film resistors have been installed on Unit 2 IRM's.
No concerns were identified.
9.
Tour of Plant Areas (Units 1, 2, and 3)
a
-
The inspector walked.through various areas of the plant to observe operations and. activities in progress, to inspect the general state of cleanliness, housekeeping, and adherance to fire pro-tection rules. The inspector noted that the licensee's work involv-
_ ing housekeeping and cleanliness had improved considerably in the
,
last six months. No concerns were identified.
.
10.
Exit Interview
,
The inspector met with licensee _ representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on May 12, 1977.
The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
The licensee representatives made the following remarks in response to certain items discussed by'the inspector:
'
Acknowledged the statement by the inspector with respect to the
-
items of noncompliance (Paragraphs 4, 5, and 6).
I Stated that during the forthcoming Unit 1 refueling outage no
'
fuel sipping would be accomplished and no control rod work would
'
be accomplished on the two inserted, unavailable control rods.
2/
Goller to Bolger, dated November 8, 1976.
3/
Abrell to Keppler, dated January 12, 1977.
!
-6-
.
l l
i
-
.
.
..
.
-
-
.
-.