IR 05000237/1980008
| ML19318C950 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 05/23/1980 |
| From: | Barker J, Spessard R, Tongue T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19318C948 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-010-80-09, 50-10-80-9, 50-237-80-08, 50-237-80-8, 50-249-80-12, NUDOCS 8007070080 | |
| Download: ML19318C950 (7) | |
Text
p
.
G U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-010/80-09; 50-237/80-08; 50-249/80-12 License No. DPR-02, DPR-19, DPR-25 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: Dresden Nuclear Power Statiran, Units 1, 2 & 3 Inspection At: Dresden Site, Morris, IL Inspection Conducted: April 7 - May 2, 1980 II m4 Inspectors:
J. L. Barker 4 5Y23//c T4-m A T. M. T ngue f,_
6[33/7e T g' @ d, Chief, 4/23lPb
.
,t Approved By:
R. L. Spessar Reactor Projects Section 1-1 Inspection Summary Inspection on April 7 - May 2, 1980 (Report No. 50-010/80-09; 50-237/80-08; 50-249/80-12)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced resident inspection of operational safety verification, maintenance observation, routine surveillance observa-tion, startup testing-refueling (Unit 3), major surveillance-outage (Unit 3), and inspection during long term shutdown (Unit 1).
The inspection involved 123 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspectors.
Results: Of the six areas inspected, there were no items of noncompliance identified in five areas. There were three items of noncompliance (infraction-failure to follow procedures - Paragraph 7; infraction-failure
,
'
to adher to QA Program requirements - Paragraph 7; and infraction-failure to follow procedures - Paragraph 7) in one area.
)
~
$60ye7 0 oSo
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted A.
Management Meeting in Region III Office on April 28, 1980.
Commonwealth Edison
- C, Reed, Vice President, Nuclear Operations
- F. Palmer, Division Manager, Nuclear
- J.
Bitel, Manager, Technical Services Nuclear
- D. Peoples, Director of Nuclear Licensing
- B. Stephenson, Dresden Station Superintendent
- B. Shelton, Dresden Assistant Superintendent, Administrative Services and Technical Support
- G. Myrick, Dresden Radiation-Chemistry Supervisor USNRC R. Heishman, Chief, RO&NS, Region III C. Norelius, Assistant to Director, Region III R. Spessard, RO&NS Section Chief, Region III J. Barker, Senior Resident Inspector, Dresden
,
T. Tongue, Resident Inspector, Dresden N. Chrissotimos, Senior Resident Inspector, Quad Cities B.
Dresden Nuclear Power Station
- B. Stephenson, Station Superintendent
- R. Ragan, Operations Assistant Superintendent
- J. Eeingenburg, Maintenance Assistant Superintendent
- B.'Shelton, Administrative Services and Support Assistant Superintendent
- D. Farrar, Technical Staff Supervisor C. Sargent, Unit 1 Operating Engineer J. Wujciga, Unit 2 Operating Engineer M. Wright, Unit 3 Operating Engineer E. Budzichowski, Unit Support Operating Engineer D. Adam, Waste Systems Engineer J. Parry, Rad-Chem Supervisor B. Sanders, Station Security Administrator
- E. Wilmere, QA Coordinator 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 personnel, and contract security personnel.
- Denotes those attending one or more exit interviews conducted April 11, 18, and 28, 1980 and May 2, 1980.
l
!
-2-l
!
-
-
.
,
,.
.
T 2.
Operational Safety Verification The inspector observed control room operations, reviewed applicable logs and conducted discussions with control room operators during the month of April,1980. The inspector verified the operability of selected emergency systems, reviewed tagout records and verified proper return to service of affected components. Tours of Unit 2 and 3 reactor buildings and turbine buildings were conducted to observe plant equipment conditions, including potential fire hazards, fluid leaks, and excessive vibrations and to verify that maintenance requests had been initiated for equipment in need of maintenance.
The inspector by observation and direct interview verified that the physical security plan was being implemented in accordance with the station security plan.
The inspector observed plant housekeeping / cleanliness conditions and verified implementation of radiation protection controls. During the month of April, 1980, the inspector walked down the accessible portions of the Unit 2 Core Spray and Isolation Condenser systems to verify operability. The inspector also witnessed portions of the radioactive waste system controls associated with radwaste shipments and barreling.
These reviews and observations were conducted to verify that facility operations were in conformance with the requirements established under Technical Specifications, 10 CFR, and administrative procedures.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
[onthly Maintenance Observation Station maintenance activities of safety related systems and com-ponents listed below were observed / reviewed to ascertain that they vere conducted in accordance with approved procedures, regulatory glides and industry codes or standards and in conformance with Technical Specifications.
I The following items were considered during this review:
the limiting conditions for operation were met while components or systems were removed from service; approvals were obtained prior to initiating the work, activities were accomplished using approved procedures and were inspected as applicable; functional testing and/or calibrations were performed prior to returning components or systems to service; quality control records were maintained; activities were accomplished by qualified personnel; parts and materials used were properly
_
certified; radiological controls were implemented; and, fire preven-tion controls were implemented.
Work requests were reviewed to determine status of outstanding jobs and to assure that priority is assigned to safety related equipment maintenance which may affect system performance.
-3-
- -
- -
-
-
-
-
.
.
,
,
.
.
'
The following maintenance activities were observed / reviewed:
Unit 2, HPCI Suction Valves 2301-35, 36 Unit 2, Diesel Generator Start Circuit r it 3, HPCI Torus Suction Valve sit 3, 3B Electromatic Relief Valve Fait 3, 3A Target Rock Safety / Relief Valve Unit 3, APRM Channel #4 Power Supply Following completion of maintenance on the Unit 2 Diesel Generator and Unit 3 Automatic Depressurization System, the inspector verified that these systems had been returned to service properlv.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Monthly Surveillance Observation The inspector observed technical specifications required surveil-lance testing on the Unit 2 and 3 LPCI, Core Spray, Diesel Generator and HPCI Systems and verified that testing was performed in accordance with adequate procedures, that test instrumentation was calibrated, that limiting conditions for operation were met, that removal and restoration of the affected components were accomplished, that test results conformed with Technical Specifications and procedure re-quirements and were reviewed by personnel other than the individual directing the test, and that any deficiencies identified during the testing were properly reviewed and resolved by appropriate management personnel.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
5.
Startup Testing - Refueling, Unit 3 The inspector observed the tests listed below and verified that the refueling outage startup testing was conducted in accordance with technically adequate procedures and that the facility was being operated within license limits.
Control rod scram time testing a.
b.
Control rod sequence and reactivity checks c
c.
APRM calibration d.
Determination of reactor shutdown margin
-
e.
Core thermal power evaluation No items of noncompliance were identified.
-4-
-
,
,
~~
,,
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
. _
,
i
<
6.
Surveillance, Unit 3 The inspector observed the intergrated ECCS initiation surveillance and the ADS valve operability surveillance testing on Unit 3 to verify that the tests were covered by properly approved procedures; that the procedures used were consistent with regulatory requirements,
.
licensee commitments, and administrative controls; that minimum crew
requirements were met, test prerequisites were. completed, special test equipment was calibrated and in service, and required data was recorded for final review and analysis; that the qualifications of personnel conducting the test were adequate; and that the test results were adequate.
.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
7.
Inspection During Long Term Shutdown, Unit 1 The inspesctor observed control room operations, resiewea applicable logs and conducted discussions with control room operators during the month of April, 1980. The inspector verified surveillance tests required during the shutdown were accomplished, reviewed tagout i
records, and verified applicability of containment integrity. Tours of Unit 1 accessible areas, including exterior areas were made to
make independent assessments of equipment conditions, plant condit-ions, radiological controls, safety, and adherence to regulatory
,
requirements and to verify that maintenance requests had been initi-
>
'
ated for equipment in need of maintenance. The inspector observed plant housekeeping / cleanliness conditions, including potential fire hazards, and verified implementation of radiation protection controls.
The inspector by observation and direct interview, verified that the physical security plan was being implemented in accordance with the i
station security plan. The inspector reviewed the licensee's jumper / bypass controls to verify there were no conflicts with Technical Specifications and verified the implementation of radio-active waste system controls. The inspector witnessed portions of
!
the radioactive waste systems controls associated with radwaste shipments and barreling.
-
On April 17, 1980, during a routine tour of Unit 1 turbine building, the inspector observed evidence of eating, drinking and smoking (i.e., the presence of numerous cigarette butts, empty soft drink cans, empty candy wrappers, and a half eaten hamburger) in the north corridor of the turbine building. This event is contrary to the licensee's Radiation Control Standards Procedure 37-1-E-3, " Work in
Controlled Areas (Radiation Areas and High Radiation Areas)." This is the third recurrence of-this type event in the last seven months
,
_
and is considered an item of' noncompliance of'significant safety concern (10/80-09-01). The licensee's immediate corrective action was to lock the entrance to the Unit I turbine building with a Dresden Station personnel key, clean the area, and implement securi-j ty guard patrols of the area on a more, non-routine basis.
'
-5-
"
. ~
,_
,.- _ _. _ _ _
.
.
. -. _ -.. _ - e
?
Additionally, on April 17, 1980, during a routine tour of Unit 1 turbine building, the inspector observed contaminated protective clothing lying inside a controlled contaminated area (The Unit I condensate demineralizer control area) on the second floor of the south corridor of the turbine building. The licensee's Radiation Control Standards Procedure 37-1-A-1 recommends that these areas be kept clear of contaminated clothing and requires that hampers marked
" Deposit Contaminated Rubber Goods Here," and " Deposit Contaminated Canvas Goods Here," be placed at exits from all areas where protec-tive clothing is required. There were no hampers at the exit of the area and, further, the same contaminated clothing had been lying in the area for a period of two weeks.
This is considered an item of noncompliance (10/80-09-02) and is considered additional evidence that the licensee's program for inspection and cleanup of the facil-ity is ineffective (outstanding inspection item 10/80-09-03). The licensee's immediate corrective action was to cleanup the area. The inspector will follow closely the licensee's actions concerning the upgrading of its cleanliness program.
Additionally, on April 17, 1980, during a routine tour of Unit I sphere, the inspector observed a significant fire hazard on the landing above the elevator-shaft. He observed numerous oily rags / papers, a tipped over lube oil can, and flamable debris lying around the operating mechanism for the elevator. The sphere is the primary containment building for Unit I and is an area requiring
" Quality housekeeping practices encompassing all activities related to control of fire prevention and protection, including disposal of combustible material and debris" in accordance with ANSI 18.7-1976, Section 5.2.10 to which the licensee is committed under its Quality Assurance Program. This is considered an item of noncompliance (10/80-09-04). The licensee immediately conducted a cleanup of the area.
No additional items of noncompliance were identified.
8.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) throughout the month and at the conclusion of the inspection on May 2, 1980, and summarized the scope and findings of the inspection activities.
The NRC met with licensee corporate management personnel on April 28, 1980, (denoted in Paragraph 1) to discuss the three items of noncompliance, one of which was repetitive, (Paragraph 7), the
_
apparent ineffectiveness of the licensee's program to maintain the facility at the required level of cleanness and the apparent int-bility of the site staff to respond effectively to concerns identi-fied by the NRC resident inspectors which could become regulatory-6-
~
e
' f concerns of a more serious nature, if not corrected in an expedient manner. The licensee acknowledged the items of noncompliance and stated the company would investigate these items and implement corrective action to upgrade management controls over plant house-keeping practices.
.
,
e U
m-7-
.
,_
. _ _
_
__.. _._.
.
.