IR 05000010/1979008
| ML19225A530 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 05/10/1979 |
| From: | Barker J, Spessard R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19225A522 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-010-79-08, 50-10-79-8, 50-237-79-12, 50-249-79-10, NUDOCS 7907190507 | |
| Download: ML19225A530 (12) | |
Text
.
U.S. NUCLEAR RE.ULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-10/79-08; 50-237/79-12; 50-249/79-10 Docket No. 50-10; 50-237; 50-249 License No. DPR-2; DPR-19; DPR-25 Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 1, 2 and 3 Inspection At: Dresden Site, Morris, IL Inspection Conducted: April 2-30, 1979
,k y
Inspector:
J.I, Barker; /^
of -/C - 7 9'
s
$hu1 t
Approved By:
R. L. Spessard, C ief 6 -/ o - 7 9'
Reactor Projects Section 1 Inspection Summar1
_
Inspection on April 2-30, 1979 (Report No. 50-10/79-08; 50-237/79-12; 50-249/79-10)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, announced resident inspection of mainten-ance; plant operations; physical protection-security organization; physical protection physical barriers; physical protection-access control (identification, authorization, badging, search, and escort-ing); physical protection-communications; review of plant operations prior to startup after refueling outage, Unit 2; review and followup on licensee event reports; refueling activities, Unit 2; surveil-lance of safety-related systems / components required by Technical Specifications; and calibration of safety components required by Technical Specifications.
The inspection involved 111 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results: Of the eleven (11) areas inspected, there were no items of noncompliance or deviations in ten (10) areas.
There was one apparent item of noncompliance (infraction - exceeding a limiting condition for operation paragraph 9) identif;ed in one area.
7907190507 353 081
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Conta d
- B.
Stephenson, Station Superintendent
- A.
Roberts, Assistant Superintendent
- B.
Shelton, Assistant to Station Superintendent
- R. Ragan, Lead Operating Engineer
- D.
Farrar, Technical Staff Supervisor E. Budzichowski, Unit 1 Operating Engineer J. Wuj ciga, Unit 2 Operating Engineer C. Sargent, Unit 3 Operating Engineer B. Sanders, Station Security Administrator
- R.
Stobert, QA The inspector also talked with and interviewed several other licensee employees, including members of the technical and engineering staffs, reactor and auxiliary operators, shift engineers and foremen, electrical, mechanical and instrument maintenance personnel, and contract security personnel.
- Denotes those attending one or more exit interviews con-ducted on April 6, 20 and 27, 1979.
2.
Maintenance The inspector, through direct observations and record review, verified that reactor control and power distribution, instru-mentation, emergency core cooling, and containment systems maintenance activities were conducted in accordance with established procedures and Technical 9pecifications; verified that required administrative approvals were obtained prior to initia*ing work; verified that maintenance activities were accomplished using approved and technically adequate proce-dures; verified that the activities were inspected in accor-dance with the provisions of licensee's requirements; verified that the activities included functional testing and calibration as necessary prior to returning the ccmponent or system to an operating ctat s; verified that quality control records were available; verified that activities were accomplished by quali-fied personnel; verified that radiological controls were estab-lished for worker protection, including minimizing personnel exposure; verified that materials or components used were certified as required by plant procedures; verified that QC hold points, plant status and safety controls, and tagging-2-353 082
,
.
operations appeared adequate; and verified that associated limiting conditions for operation were met in accordance with Technical Specifications.
The inspector observed maintenance in progress concerning the following work requests:
(1) Unit 2, WR 841, "B" CCSW pump, WR 2456, Grapple Jam Light, WR 2544, Scram Discharge Volume lest Solenoid, WR 2777, "D" Electromatic Relief Valve, WR 2885, LPCI valve 1501-25, WR 2890, "B" LPCI Heat Exchanger, and WR 2993, LPRM 5A-4D-25; and (2) Unit 3, WR 3011, LPCI Spray Valve 1501-38A, and WR 3432, "B" Squib Valve Circuit Failure.
The inspector reviewed the following complete work packages:
(1) Unit 2, WR 2472, SRM 21 Discriminator and (2) Unit 3, WR 2370, Stop Valve PS 3 t~55 (HPCI Supply Discharge Pressure Switch).
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
Plant Operations The inspector reviewed the plant operations including exami-nations of control room log bcoks, routine patrol sheets, shift engineer log book, equipment outage logs, special operating orders, and jumper and tagout logs for the month of April, 1979.
The inspector observed plant operations during six offshifts during the month of April, 1979 The inspector also made visual observations of the roccine surveillance and functional tests in progress during the period. This review was conducted to verify that facility operations were in conformance with the requirements established under Technical Specifications, 10 CFR, and Administrative Procedures.
A review of the licensee's deviation reports for the period was conducted to verify that no violatiens of the licensee's Technical Specifications were made.
The inspector conducted a tour of Units 1, 2 and 3 reactor bui'. dings and turbine bui3 dings throughout the period
.
and acted tnat the monitoring instrumentation was recorded as regaired, radiation controls were properly established, fluid leaks and pipe vibrations were minimal, seismic restraint oil levels appeared adequate, equipment caution and hold cards agreed with control room recoros, plant housekeeping condi-tions/ cleanliness were oJos;-te, and fire hc7,rds were minimal.
The inspector observed shift turnovers to verify that plant and component status and problem areas were being turned over to relieving shift perronnel. The inspecter observed sampling and chemical analysis of iater chemistry samples to verify that-3-353 093
.
.
water chemistry was being maintained in accordance with Technical Specifications.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were noted.
4.
Physical Protection - Security Organization The inspector verified by observation and personnel interview (once during each operating shift) that at least one full time member of the security organization who has the authority to direct the physical security activities of the security organi-zation was onsite at all times; verified by observation that the security organization was properly manned for all shifts; and verified by observation that members of the security ocgani-zation were capable of performing their assigned tasks.
There were no weapons qualifications conducted during this monthly inspection.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Physical Protection - Physical Barriers The inspector verified that certain aspects of the physical barriers and isolation zones conformed to regulatory require-ments and commitments in the physical security plan (PSP); that gates in the protected area were closed and locked if not attended; that doors in vital area barriers were closed and locked if not attended; and that isolation zones were free of visual obstructions and objects that could aid an intruder in penetrating the protected area.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Fhysical Protect'
- Access Control (Identificatian, Authorization, Badging, Search, and Escorting)
The inspector verified that all persons and packages were identified and authorization chteked prior to entry into the protected area (PA), all vehicles were properly authorized prior to entry into a PA, all persons authorized in the PA were issued and displayed identification badges, records of access authorized conformed to the PSP, and all personnel in vital areas were authorized access; verified that all persons, packages, and vehicles were searched in accordance to regulatory require-ments, the PSP, and security procedures; verified t hat persons authorized escorted access were accompanied by an escort when-4-353 084
.
within a PA or vital area; verified that vehicles authorized escorted access were accompanied by an escort when within the PA; and verified by review of the licensee's authorization document that the escort observed above was authorized to perform the escort function.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Physical Protection Communications The inspector verified by observation (during each operating shift) that communications checks were conducted satisfactorily at the beginning of and at other prescribed time (s) during the security personnel work shift and that all fixed and roving posts, and each member of the response team successfully communicate from their remote location; and verified that equipment was operated consistent with requirements in the PSP and security procedures.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Review of Plant Operations Prior to Startup after Refueling Outage, Unit 2 The inspector verified that plans existed to test the primary cooling system, nuclear instrumentation system, feedwater system, control rod drive system, and emergency core cooling systems which underwent maintenance or were disturbed during the refueling outage and that the plant startup procedures require adherence to the licensee's Technical Specifications and commitments, as they pertain to startup testing and power operation prerequisites.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
9.
Review and Followup on Licensee Event Reports Through direct observations, discussions with licensee person-nel, and review of records, the following event reporta were reviewed to determine that reportability requirements were fulfilled, immediate corrective action was accomplished, and corrective action to prevent recurrence had been accomplished in accordance with Technical Specifications.
-5-353 085
.
Unit 1 LER 78-24, Backup diesel generator inoperative due to failure of fuel oil transfer pump.
Unit 2 LER 78-23, HPCI system isolated and declared inoper-ative during surveillance testing.
LER 78-35, Fuel storage racks cracked.
LER 73-45, Auto blowdown switch, PS 2-1430-1466D, failed to trip within Technical Speci-fication limits.
LER 78-57, Core spray system flow test valve, 2-1402-4B, failed to shut against pump pressure.
LER 78-68, Recirculation system discha ge bypass valve breaker tripped.
LER 79-01, Torus level in excess of Technical Specification limits.
LER 79-02, HPCI failed to start.
LER-79-03, LPCI/ Core spray pump discharge on auto blowdown permissive, PS 2-1430-1466D, tripped in excess of Technical Specifi-cation limits.
LER 79-04, LPCI full flow test valve, MO-2-1501-38A, failed.
LER 79-05, "D" Main steamline radiation monitor failed.
LER 79-08, LPCI minimum flow valve failed to shut.
LER 79-09, Loss of stack gas monitor.
LER 79-13, Unit 2/3 DG cooling water pump failure.
-6-353 086
.
LER 79-14, Unit 2 DG failed to start.
LER 79-15, Generic loss of reactivity on control rod blades.
LER 79-16, Crack on 1 inch drain line on LPCI System.
LER 79-17, Containment isolation valves, A0-2-1601-23, 24, 60, 61 and 63, leakage exceeded Technical Specification limits.
Regarding LER 79-01, the inspector determined that on January 3, 1979 the maximum level in the torus as specified by Technical Specifications Section 3.7.A.1 was exceeded while troubleshooting a failure of the motor speed changer on the HPCI system.
The inspector further determined the cause of exceeding Limiting Condition for Operation was personnel error rather than an inadequate procedure, as was reported by the licensee on January 31, 1979.
The licensee agreed to change to event report to indicate personnel error.
The cause of personnel error was attributed to his attention being directed to the operation of the HPCI turbine during repeated starting and stopping and the lack of continued monitoring of the torus level. This is considered an item of noncompliance (237/79-12-01).
The licensee has cautioned operators on the importance of continuous monitoring of torus level during HPCI system testing and has initiated procedure changes to delineate more explicitly maximum and minimum levels to be maintained in the torus and to specifically caution the operator when evolu-tions are in progress which could affect torus level. The inspector has no further concerns on this matter. We will review the procedure changes when they have been completed.
Unit 3 LER 79-01, Main steamline high flow isolation switch, DPIS 3-261-2C, trip exceeded Technical Specification limits.
LER 79-03, Main steamline radiation monitor failed.
LER 79-04, Failure to perform full core scram testing on two control ~ rod drives.
Regarding LER 79-04, the licensee determined during a quality assurance audit that control rod drives H-8 and K-8 were not-7-353 087
scram tested on May r 1978, as is required by Technical Specifications 4.3.C.I.
Corrective actions to prevent recurrence have been completed. This is considered a licensee identified item.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified, e: cept as previously described.
10.
Refueling Activities, Unit 2 The inspector verified that prior to the handling of fuel in the core, all surveillance testing required by the Technical Specifications and licensee's procedures had been completed; verified that during the outage the periodic testing of refueling related equipment was performed as required by Technical Specifications; observed all shifts of the fuel handling operations (removal, inspection and insertion) and verified the activities were performed in accordance with the Technical Specifications and approved procedures; verified that containment integrity was maintained as required by Technical Specifications; verified that good housekeeping was maintained on the refueling area; and, verified that staffing during refueling was in accordance with Technical Specifications and approved procedures.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
11.
Surveillance of Safety Related Systems /Cemponents Required by Technical Specifications The inspector observed Technical Specifications required sur-veillance testing (other than calibrations and checks) on the emergency core cooling system, Automatic Depressurization System (ADS) and High Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI) system and verified that testing was performed in accordance with technically adequate procedures, that test results were in conformance with Technical Specifications and procedure requirements and were reviewed by personnel other than the individual directing the test, and that any deficiencies identified during testing were properly reviewed and resolved by appropriate management personnel.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
-8-bb b
12.
Calibration of Safety Related Components Required by Technical Specifications The inspector observed calibration of the high drywell pressure emergency core cooling and isolation pressure switches (DIS 1600-4) and verified conformance with Technical Specifications and use of a technically adequate procedure.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
13.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) on April 6, 20 and 27, 1979, and summarized the scope and findings of that weeks' inspection activities.
The licensee acknowledged the item of noncompliance discussed on April 27, 1979.
Attachment:
Preliminary Inspection Findings
-,
nom s
'
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMI:;
PRELIMINARY INSPECTION FINDINGS
,
1.
LICENSEE 2.
REGIONAL OFFICE Commonwealth Edison Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com ission Dresden Units 1, 2, 3 799 Roosevelt Rd.
Glen Ellyn, IL.
60137 Region III 3.
DOCKET NUMBERS 4.
LICENSE NUMBERS 5.
DATE OF INSPECTION 50-010, 50-237, 50-249 DPR-02, DPR-19, DPR-25 g _ g/,, p 6.
Within the scope of the inspection, no items of noncompliance or deviation were found.
/
V 7.
The following matters are preliminary inspection findings:
S c s' ; ( t'. d, W s S c e &
3 ] A.I. m a n ire c.
ll,,4 ]
Te. I, r. c ^ l f
'
i i, e
,v c v rv e rr v?Iu rn t in 71' <.
f c.~ w. 7e Ac si x & y g g,, j,,,
4'eed e r-l e g it crter/7 [fc.e (. rt ), c.,
h % <-. C-M.' e, of f e, / c,0 u 8 L.. o aey{
$ o.o h h th u r f < 7 ei 71 e. //l' t1 S,, rgn
.
oc Tc.nu-r.;
5, t a G, TH Te c/r. e c I Sp e :{.' << /; a,,
r i.
i.,, uj w t,,r e w y tiv rr e. i e 71 e -/c e t< s wss ey p,, fp.a _
l V 8.
These preliminary inspection findings will be reviewed by NRC Supervision /
Managdment at the Region III Of fice and they will correspond with you concerning any enforcement action.
[A.,
-
Nacn ar Regulatory Commission Inspector
- e, gg
'-
S
OFFICE OF INSFECTION AND ENFORCEME:.
.
PRELIMINARY INSPECTION FINDINGS
_
1.
LICENSEE 2.
REGIONAL OFFICE Co=monwealth Edison Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cc==ission Dresden Units 1, 2, 3 799 Roosevelt Rd.
Glen Ellyn, IL.
60137 Region III 3.
DOCKET NLMBERS 4.
LICENSE ULHEERS 5.
DATE OF INSPECTION
[6. Within the scope of the inspection, no items of noncompliance or detiation were found.
7.
The following matters are preliminary inspection findings:
8.
These preliminary inspection findings will be reviewed by NRC Supervision /
Managdment at the Region III Office and they will correspond with you concerning any enforcement action.
is e)A
&
Nykfear Regulator Commiss; on Inspector 3.3 C h
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMES
.
PRELIMINARY INSPECTION FINDINGS
.
1.
LICENSEE 2.
REGIONAL OFFICE Co==onwealth Edison Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coc=ission Dresden Units 1, 2, 3 799 Roosevelt Rd.
Glen Ellyn, IL.
60137 Region III 3.
DOCKET NUMBERS 4.
LICENSE NLMEERS 5.
DATE OF INSPECTION 50-010, 50-237, 50-249 DPR-02, DPR-19, DPR-25
,g,
/ 6.
Within the scope of the inspection, no itees of noncompliance or deviation were found.
7.
The following matters are preliminary inspection findings:
8.
These preliminary inspection findings will be reviewed by NRC Supervision /
Managdment at the Region III Office and they will correspond with you concerning any enforcement action.
_
d/
Nu Wear Regulatory Commission Inspector
)b
'