IR 05000010/1978002
| ML19340A668 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 02/08/1978 |
| From: | Charles Brown, Little W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19340A666 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-010-78-02, 50-10-78-2, 50-237-78-02, 50-237-78-2, 50-249-78-02, NUDOCS 8009020605 | |
| Download: ML19340A668 (5) | |
Text
.
/+
.
U
.
.
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT.
REGION III
Report No. 50-010/78-02; 50-237/78-02; 50-249/78-02 Docket No. 50-10; 50-237; 50-249 License No. DPR-2; DPR-19; DPR-25 Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company P.O. Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility name: Dresden Puclear Power Station Inspection at: Dresden Site, Morris, IL Inspection conducted: Janua ry 10, 12, 13, and 16, 1978
_ALA FC.H.B j
/8
~
11spector:
-
nu
<
<
Approved by:
k.
S. L f
f)f Nuclear Support Branch r'j/' ' ~
j Inspect r in Summary Inspection on January 10, 12, 13, and 16, 1978 (Report No. 50-010/78-02; 50-237/78-0. 50-249/78-02)
Areas Inspectsti Routine, unannounced inspection to review fire protection and prevention.'quipment, work control procedures, operational control of work, QA/QC verification of performance, and control of ignition sources in vital areas. The inspection involved 28 inspection-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified for the areas inspected.
l
.8009020 Of
- _.
._
_ __
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted W. Joyce. Training Supervisor B. Zank, Assistant Training Supervisor J. Eenigenbury, Maintenance Engineer R. Ragan, Senior Operating Engineer
- C. Sargent, Operating Engineer
- G. Reardanz, Quality Assurance Coordinator
- B. Stephenson, Plant Superintendent J. Bauer, Shif t Engineer R. Williams, Shift Foreman
- M. Dillon, Assistant to U-l Operating Engineer
- R. Kyrouac, Quality Control Engineer C. Lawton, Office Supervisor R. Dyer, Station Modification Coordinator
- B. Shelton, Assistant to Plant Superintendent
- Denotes licensee representatives attending management interview.
-
2.
Work Control Procedures
-
a.
Approval Requirements The review of the facility's. work control procedure revealed that operation's approval is required on the work request verifying that the job can be performed as set forth in the werk request.
The operations group also evaluates and classifies the work as safety related or non-safety related.
The request is then pro-cessed thrcugh the QA/QC department and scheduling. The work request is routed to the appropriate work group which makes out an " outage" form. This form is submitted to the Shif t
,
Supervisor to take the equipment out of service at a specific time. The " Supervisor" may be Shif t Engineer or one of the three Shift Foreman. The Supervisor has the control at this point of placing, or not placing, the equipment out of service. He does not sign the form, but approval is assured if the equipment is taken out of service. The " outage" form does not contain the number of the Work Reqcast or Plant Modification for which it was written so as to provide a correlation with the work document. The licensee stated that the form was under revision at the time to correct thir, area.
-2-
.
-
.-.
-
.
.
-
%
.
.
b.
Ignition Source Authorization The ignition source control at the facility is provided by the procedural requirements that any welding or burning operations to be performed outside the designated areas in the shops is to have a " Burning and Welding Permit" approved by the work super-visor. This form is a verification that the area is safe for the ignition source to be used. The documentation procedural requirements for all welding and burning is provided by OA procedures 3-51 and 3-52 (Work Requests and Plant Modification).
These QA procedures also provide control and review of the job, and verification of performance of work.
c.
Firewatch The procedures in 2.b above provide for a firewatch to be posted.
The training provided personnel coming onsite contained informa-tion on fire protection equipment and communication procedures.
>
The contractors are normally given a label that will stick inside a hard hat that has the site's emergency phone number, (Control Room). These labels are also placed on phones throughout the
,
facility.
_
No itens of nonccmpliance or deviations were identified during the review of this area.
'
3.
Quality Assurance Surveillance Surveillance of work in progress is performed under the quality assurance prograr to verify procedural compliance and sufficient work controls. Periodic work authorization audits are performed per QA procedures 3-51 and 3-52.
The licensee's commitment to place the majority of the fire protection equipment under the controls of procedures has been initiated by stating that these are " Plant l
Reliability Systems". The full implementation of the new procedures and training is to be accomplished in 8 months to 1 year.
The flammability of the seal material is not tested onsite. The material is verified to be as specified on the purchase order.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified during the review of this area.
,
,
-3-
_
_
, _.,-
.
. -
_
. _.. -
-
-
i
.
.
'
.
.
4.
Plant Modification Controls The review of the controls provided for Plant Modifications indicated that any of three required levels of review would result in the proper control for repair and maintenance of fire barrier seals disturbed during the the modification. The maintenance procedure was found to i
be contained in selected completed modification work packages. These procedure forms were found to have been completed. The seals were noted to have been repaired.
,
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified during the review of this area.
5.
Emergency Procedures
The review of the emergency procedures indicated that the fire
'
fighting procedures are of a general nature. The plant is presently modifying several fire area systems. These areas and system modifica-tions are to be reviewed during a future inspection for specific or specialized fire fighting procedures as necessary.
The alternate procedures for shutdown and cooldown are available.
-
'
The backup system procedures are separated and sintained under each
'
system.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified during the review cf this area.
6.
Facility Inspection The facility fire inspection is performed by their insurance inspec-tor.
Items pointed out in the inspection reports appeared, to be in the process of being corrected per the licensee's commitments. The corrective actions are to be reviewed during a ftture inspection.
During the tour of selected areas of the facility no major fire hazards were noted. The inspector commented that the procedural control of the flammable material temporarily stored in vital areas of the plant needed to be revised and expanded.
The auxiliary elec-trical room did have signs posted to limit the " Class A" materials taken into the area. The inspector commented on the possible hazard e
of not having the closed position marked on the fire hose nozzles so that the user can know the nozzle position. The licensee stated that these areas would be reviewed.
-4-
.
.
-
-
.
.-.
-.
_ _
__ _
.
,
.
.
-
.
.
.
The review of fire drills revealed that one drill per month had been performed and generally each crew was involved in 2 drills per year.
The inspector commented that the frequency of the fire drills was not very well defined and the personnel participating in the drills should also be better defined. The licensee vill review this area.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified during the review of this area.
7.
Management Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on January 16, 1978.
E
The following areas were included in the discussion.
a.
The licensee stated that a review of work control procedures
would be made and "Shif t Supervisor" would be defined if nden neces sa ry.
(Paragraph 2.a)
'
"E" b.
The licensee stated that the pending revision of the " Outage
-
Sheets" would contain a space for work request number or the modification package number for cross-reference.
(Paragraph
-
2.a)
c.
The licensee stated that a review would be performed and the
,,,
' ' '
'
fire drill schedule would be defined as necessary to conform more exactly to fire protection guides (Paragraph 6)
j,", {,
"
d.
The licensee stated a more comprehensive schedule of flammable material control would be provided for the various areas of
,g y,
.
,
the facility.
(Paragraph 6)
],
,
"
e.
The licensee stated that a review of the matter of the lack of position markings on fire hose nozzles so that theusercantel(f,'_
if it is closed would be made and any necessary action would
.
be taken.
(Paragraph 6)
j']. ' ',
s.c u r r
form :r
,
at mi <-
t' u
.
-ir t c-5-
-
_.
-
._
-
,.
.-
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
r
-
.
The review of fire drills revealed that one drill per month had been performed and generally each crew was involved in 2 drills per year.
The inspector commented that the frequency of the fire drills was not very well defined and the personnel participating in the drills should also be better defined. The licensee will review this area.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified during the review of this area.
7.
Management Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on January 16, 1978.
The following areas were included in the discussion.
The licensee stated that a review of work control procedures a.
would be made and "Shif t Supervisor" would be defined if neces sa ry.
(Paragraph 2.a)
b.
The licensee stated that the pending revision of the " Outage Sheets" would contain a space for work request number or the modification package number for cross-reference.
(Paragraph
,
2.a)
c.
The licensee stated that a review would be performed and the fire drill achedule would be defined as necessary to conform more exactly to fire protection guides (Paragraph 6)
d.
The licensee stated a more comprehensive schedule of flammable material control would be provided for the various areas of the facility.
(Paragraph 6)
i e.
The licensee stated that a review of the matter of the lack of position markings on fire hose nozzles so that the user can tell if it is closed would be made and any necessary action would be taken.
(Paragraph 6)
l l
l-5-
!
_
_ _ -