IR 05000010/1979012
| ML19225C600 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 06/13/1979 |
| From: | Barker S, Spessard R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19225C595 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-010-79-12, 50-10-79-12, 50-237-79-15, 50-249-79-13, NUDOCS 7908010231 | |
| Download: ML19225C600 (11) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. . U.S. bTCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
. . , , Report No. 50-10/79-12; 50-237/79-15; 50-249/79-13 Docket No. 50-10; 50-237; 50-249 License Wo. DPR-2; DPRr19; DPR-25 Licensee: Commorwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: Dresden Nuclear Power Stations, Units 1, 2 and 3 Inspection At-Dresden Site, Morris, IL Inspection Conducted: May 1-June 1, 1979 f k)< wC l l Inspector: ' J. L. Barker 6/13/ 74 v , H OM# [ Approved By: R. L. Spessard, Chief b /3/7M ' Reactor Projects Section 1 -' Inspection Summary Inspection on May 1-Jane 1, 1979 (Report No. 50-10/79-12; 50-237/79-15; 50-249/79-13) Areas Jnspected: Routine, announced resident inspection of plant operations; physical protection-security organization; physical protection physical barriers; physical protectien-access control (identification, authorization, hadging, search and escorting); phycical protection-communications; review of plant operations-refueling, Unit 2; startup testing-refueling, Unit 2; review and followup of licensee event reports; licens'1l operator requalifi-catien training; and followup on inspector identified problems. The inspection involved 83 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results: Of the ten (10) areas inspected, there were.'no items of noncompliance or deviations in nine (9) areas. There was one appar-ent item of noncompliance (infraction - violation of a Limiting Condition for Operation during a unit reactor startup - Paragraph 9) identified in one area.
400 USI "A ' 7908 010 4 s ~l, / s
. . . , DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted i .x
- B. Stephenson, Station Superintendent
- A.
Roberts, Assistant Superintendent
- B.
Shelton, Assistant to Station Superintendent
- R. Ragan, Lead Operating Engineer
,
- D.
Farrar, Technical Staf f Supervisor E. Budzichowski, Unit 1 Operating Engineer J. Wujciga, Unit 2 Operating Engineer C. Sargent, Unit 3 Operating Engineer B. Sanders, Station Security Administrator
- R.
Stobert, QA C The inspector also talked with and interviewed several other licensee employees, including members of the technical and ^ engineering staf fs, reactor and auxiliary operators, shif t - engineers and foremen, electrical, mechanical and instrument , personnel, and contract recurity personnel.
.,. ~
- Denotes those attending one or more exit interviews conducted on May 4, 11, 17, 24 and June 1, 1979.
. v-2.
Plant Operations . F'N'** The inspector reviewed the plant operations including exami-nations of control room log bcoks, routine patrol sheets, shift , S[] engineer log book, equipment outage logs, special operating 3 - orders, and jumper and tagout logs for the month or day, 1979.
b-The inspecter observed plant operations during four of fshif ts b"'", during the month of May, 1979.
The inspector also made visual {{e;f5 observations of the routine surveillacce and functional tests . in progress during the period. This review was conducted to g..., verify t2at facility operations were in conformance with the b. 11_', requirements estsblished under Technical Specifications, 10 fi' *, CFR, and Administrative Procedures. A review of the licensee's deviatic.: reports for the period was conducted to verify that L'~ no violations of the licensee's Technical Specifications were FiCauw made. Tne inspector conducted a tour of Units 1, 2 and 3 I?"'N' reactor buildings and turbine buildings through6ut the period 7[T-and noted that the monitoring instrumentation was recorded as 7?**u required, radiation controls were properly established, fluid l maaun leaks and pipe vibrations were minimal, seismic restraint oil O~'-~ levels appeared adequate, equipment caution and hold cards C - a... l W - 2-NM .
- -;.
.d, 400 055 'c' h1 .., kN ~Wp - 'I 7 **., C,, Y [D1
- [~ [ ^~
, ;,, [ ' / .,,.g[v. o * ' . m' _.h, ".. -.. ... ', '
- g.
. [.,~ '. , f^ ,....w g x
- 4 g,
,.;.. _ ., w.. ...y.
- ,. .
. . agreed with control room records, plact housekeeping con-ditions/ cleanliness were adequate, and fire hazards were minimal, The inspectar observed shift turnovers to verify that , plant and component status and. problem areas were being turned over to relie"ing shift personbel..The inspector observed sampling and chemical analysis of water chemistry samples to verify that water chemistry was being meintained in accordance with Technical Specifications.
- - No items of noncompliance or deviations were noted.
, Physical Protection - Security Organization The inspector v-rified by observation and personnel int rview (once during etch operating shift) that at least one full time member of the security organization who has the authority to direct the physical ?curity 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 organi-zation were capable of performing their assigned tasks. There were no weapons qualifications conlucted during this monthly inspection.
No items of 7tacor licact or dtviations were identified.
4.
Physical Protection - Physical Barriers The in3pector verified chat certain aspects of the physical barriera and isolation zones conformed to regulatory requice-mente atd commitments in the physical security plan (PSP); that gates it 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 er deviations vere identified.
, 5.
Physical Protection - Access Control (Identification, Authorization, Badging, Sehrch, and Escorti g). The inspector verified that all persons and packages were identified and authorization checked prior to entry into the protected area (PA), all vehicles were properly athorized prior to entry into a PA, all persons authorized in the PA were issued and displayed identification badges, records of access-3- ,,e-
.
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 regu-latory requirements, the PSP, pnd security procedures; verified that persons authorized escorted acc(ss were accompanied by an escort when within a PA or vital area; verified that vehicles authorized escorted access were accompanied by an escort wher within the PA; and verified by review of the licensee's autho-rization document that the escort observed above was authorized " to perform the escort function.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Physical Protaction Communications The inspector verified by observation (during each operating shift) that communications checks were conducted satim :ctorily at the beginning of and at other prescribed time (s) during the security perscnnel work shift and that all fixed and roving posts, and each member of the response team successfully com-municate 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.
7.
Review of Plant Operations - Refueling, Unit 2 Prior to the plant startup after the refueling outage, the inspector performed a walk through of the Source, Int e rme dia t e, and Local Power Range Monitors, the Control Rod Drive System, and the High Pressure Coolant Injection System and verified that the systems had been returned to service in accordance eith approved procedures. The inspector witnessed the unit startup and verified that the control rod withdrawal sequence and rod withdrawal authorization were available and all sur-veillance tests required to be performed prior to the startup were satisfactorily completed; verified that the startup was performed in accordance with technicall'y adequate and approved procedures which had been revised to reflect changes made to the facility and to the startuo testing program; and verified ~ that startup activities were conducted in accor' dance with Technical Specification requirements.
During his review of the control rod drive system, the inspec-tor determined that the scram valves and backup scram valves were not documented as being sa' related components. The-4-400 057
. . inspector further determined that the facility's FSAR Section 14, Exhibit 2.6 identifies all of the components generally in the control rod drive hydraulic system as being class one nuclear safety components.
The licensee believes that a request from the NRC for relief exempting the scram valves and backup scram valves from the safety related component list may hace been reviewed by the NRC.
The licensee will investigate the problem further.
The inspettor indicated that the scram valves I and backup scram valves should be included on the class one nuclear safety component list under the definition of " safety related." This is considered an unresolved item.
(237/79-15-01).
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Startup Testing - Refueling, Unit 2 The inspector observed three tests (control rod drive scram time and friction tests, nuclear instrumentation response to rod movement and temperature coef ficient determination, and shutdown margin determination) and verified that the tests were perforr.ed in accordance with technically adequate and approved procedures and the Technical Specifications. The inspector further verified that the test data and results met acceptance criteria and that deficiencies were resolved in a timely manner.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
Review and Followup on Licensee Event Reparts Through direct observations, discussions with licensee per-sonnel, and review of records, the following event report was 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.
Unit 3 LER 79-06, Unit started up with only one 250 VDC system operable.
Regarding LER 79-06, the inspector determined that on April 24, 1979, Unit 3 reactor was started up with Unit 2 250 VDC Battery not connected to the bus as required by Technical Specifications Section 3.9.A.5.
The event was caused by confusion over the operability of the Unit 2 250 VDC system and inadequate review-5- -ra 400 0Jo
. . and followup of the unit master startup checklist. This is considered an item of noncompliance.
No additional items of noncomp,liance or deviations were identified.
l
10.
Licensed Operator Requalification Training The inspector attended two of the licensee's operator requali-r fication lecture series and verified adequacy of the technical content of presented information. He further observed reactivity control manipulations and verified sufficient manipulations were performed by the licensed operators to maintain their license current.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
11.
Followup on Inspector Identified Problems During a special inspection as a result of the Three Mile Island incident (details documented in Inspection Reports No.
50-237/79-13 and No. 50-249/79-11 requiring 92 inspector-hour, onsite not documented in this report), the inspector identified areas of concern in the health physics area.
E= determined that there were several inplant areas (eg., reactor feed pump rooms, LPCI and Core Spray corner rooms, and HPCI rooms) which have, for a considerable period of time, been maintained as controlled, contaminated areas, thus retarding entrance and exit to the areas by operations, maintenance, and technical staff personnel.
It appears that the station policy has been to maintain a status quo rather than to allocate the necessary manpower and management control to ensure these areas are main-tained as uncontaminated and uncontrolled areas.
These con-cerns were brought to the attention of station management. As a result, the licensee has initiated a program to systematically decontaminate as many areas in the plant as possible.
Each day an area is identified as a priority item to decontaminate and paint so that the area may be released to uncontrolled access.
The station management has held meetings with all personnel on cite to emphasize that the cleanup of these areas and the maintaining of these areas open are the responsibility of all personnel and departments on site. The inspector will follow closely the licensee's effort in this program.J This will be an outstanding inspection item.
(10/79-12-01; 237/79-15-02; 249/79-13-01) -6-400 059
. . . . No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
12.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee repfesentatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) on May 4, 11, 17, 24 and June 1, 1979, and sum-marized the scope and findings of that weeks' inspection activities.
- Attachment: Preliminary Inspection Findings . v-7-t00
1
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCE"E?E . . PRELIMINARY INSPECTION FINDINGS . . . '. _ + 1.
LICENSEE '2.
REGIONAL OFFICE Co==onwealth Edison Co:pany U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co=rission Dresden Units 1, 2, 3 779 Roosevelt Rd.
! Glen Ellyn, IL.
60137 Region III _ DOCKET NUMBERS 4.
LICENSE NUMBERS 5.
DATE OF INSPEC ION s.
5c-010, 50-237, 50-249 DPR-02, DPR-19, DPR-25 t/[3v-f 7[ / f l' 6.
Within the scope of the inspection, no itees of noncompliance or deviation 'I were found.
_j 7.
The following matters are preliminary inspection findings: / v . w l5 These preliminary inspection findings will be reviewed by NRC Supervision / Managdment at the Region III Office and they will correspond with you rencerning any enforcement action.
& $9' " . Nuclegr' Regulatory Commission Inspector 400 0u
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEME'; . . . PRELIMINARY INSPECTION FINDINGS
. s 1.
LICENSEE 2.
RIGIONAL OFFICE Cor:nonwealth Edison Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co=rission 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 / C/7-il/7'] 6.
k'ithin the scope of the inspection, no items of noncompliance or deviation were found.
U 7.
The following matters are preliminary inspcction findings: Mf 6/5 TeL uol spet.f cd,n s, Suf.m 5 9. A C r eg u. > < s tl, e r-e m ch r-s A *. II crf le. was enlical unless u,..+ 2//n pl4 h.. An; e s,7/,t. k s-jaf,n 95 vot} d c. Hent s, a nd TA c M s M, en J w D H b r Nerr'n, " W L l a Nery CA'r p r kr ^* ck h a decy a e op n bic.
hr/lE l f,Y< NY/ "'#[ (nfror Tt, Y e- *. lstWl, O rt 2s0 ee// fir /fe,y 9pf ws w, de. c+;4; eal w, M 1A c %/ 2 apero.bie.. y V 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.
S$$f
l < Nuc'. fear Regulatory Commission Inspector 400 062
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEM . PRELIMINARY INSPECTION FINDINGS . t - 1.
LICENSEE 2. 4EGIONAL OFFICE
Commonwealth Edison Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dresden Units 1, 2, 3 799 Roosevelt Rd.
Glen Ellyn, IL.
60137 , Region III 3.
DOCKET NLMBERS 4.
LICENSE NUMBERS 5.
DATE OF I 'SPECTION 50-010, 50-237, 50-249 DPR-02, DPR-19, DPR-25 g g 97 6.
Within the scope of the inspection, no items of noncompliance or deviation u " were found.
.. L 7.
The following matters are preliminary inspection findings: f , ... ! l 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.
- 9 -[- /$/ ~ Nuc1(ar Regulatory Commission Inspector kb bb
, PRELIMINARY INSPECTION FINDINGS '
% 1.
LICENSEE 2.
- REGIONAL OFFICE U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co=rission Co=nonwealth Edison Company Dresden Units 1, 2, 3 799 Roosevelt Rd.
Glen Ellyn, IL.
60137 ' Region III 3.
DOCKET NUMBERS 4.
LICENSE NLM ERS 5.
DATE OF INSPFCTION 10-010, 50-237, 50-249 DPR-02, DPR-19, DPR-25 g _ 7f j '6.
Within the scope of the inspection, no ite=s of nonco=pliance or deviation ~ " ware found.
7.
The following catters are preliminary inspection findings: , n .~ _.
These preliminary inspection findings vill be reviewed by NRC Supervision / E.
Managdment at the Region III Office and they will correspond with you concerning any enforcement action.
h - , Nuedlar Regulatory Commission Inspecto
n.<J a v .. g }}