IR 05000237/1985032
| ML17195A986 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1985 |
| From: | Hawkins F, Thomas Taylor NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17195A984 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-237-85-32, 50-249-85-28, GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8510210223 | |
| Download: ML17195A986 (4) | |
Text
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.
~,_-
'
REGION III
Reports No. 50-237/85032(DRS}; 50-249/85028(DRS}
Docket Nos. 50-237; 50-249 Licenses No. DPR-19; DPR-25 Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company P. 0. Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name:
Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3 Inspection At: Morris, IL
. Inspection Conducted:
September 16-19, 1985 Inspector: ){~~
- Approved By: l~< H;;£s, Ch1ef Quality Assurance Programs Section
'
Inspection Sunmary 10/1~/SS- -.
Date'
'
Ins ection on Se tember 16-19, 1985 Re orts No. 50-237/85032 DRS ;
50-9/
R Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection relative to the implementation of Generic Letter (GL} 83-28 in the areas of equipment classification, vendor interface, post~maintenance testing, and reactor trip system reliability. The inspection inv~lved a total of 35 inspector-hours onsit Results: Of the four areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identif1ed in three areas; one violation was identified in the remaining area (failure to document review and approval of test results - Paragraph 5).
~
210223 951016 *,\\'!'.,
9510 Aft...,.K o500Q23!
.UU'M P~
G
.,,
..
~:.-:. '-..
. * 1'
DETAILS -
"
- .,
- ,~.-
_.;~ -*. -
..
.. ~~1?~~~. "' Persons Cont'a'.C,ted Conunonwealth Edison Company
- D. Scott, Station Manager
- J. Brunner, Assistant Superintendent Technical Service E. Armstrong, Assistant Technical Staff Supervisor
- O. Adam, Compliance Administrator
- R. Stobert, Senior Quality Assurance Inspector
- R. Flessner, Services Superintendent
- *T. Ciesla, Assistant Superintendent Operations
- P. Lau, Quality Assurance Inspector B. Zank, Training Supervisor
. R. Stachniak, Technical Staff Group Leader USN RC
- L. McGregor, Senior.Resident Inspector In addition, a number of other plant personnel were-contacte *Denotes those present at the exit interview on September 19, 198.
Equipment Classification Through review of procedures, discussions with licensee personnel, and review of records, the inspector determined that the licensee's programs for equipment classifications met the requirements of Generic Letter 83-28, Sections 2.1 and 2.2. *
The licensee's criteria and personnel responsibilities for classification of systems.and components is described in SNEO/OE Procedure No. 0.12,
"Classification and Listing of Safety-Related Items and ASME Section III Components".
The inspector's review of several work requests, test data r~cords, and procurement documents indicated no evidence of incorrectly classified component No violatiQns.or deviations were identifie.
Vendor Interface Through review of procedures and discussions with licensee personnel, the inspector determined that the licensee's administrative programs for vendor interface are adequate to meet the requirements of GL 83-28, Sections and Procedure No. OAP 2-10, "Control of Vendor Equipment Technical Information",
administratively controls vendor technical manuals and other vendor equipment technical informatio Implementation of OAP 2-10 is approximately five percent complete; Pending complete implementation of OAP 2-10, this matter is considered an open item (237/85032-01; 249/85028-01).
The lic~nsee 1 s system for tracking the_ review and implementation of applicabl~::(Jeneral.'Electric Service Advisory Letters {SAL), Service Infonnatfori. tetters (SIL), and Technical Information Letters {TIL) was aJso:r.e:vt~,W.ep.. During the review, the inspector noted that vendor documents are-tracl<ed-,through the receipt and initial evaluation, but the implementa-tion of the applicable reconvnended actions is no The licensee is in the process of incorporating the tracking of recommended actions for SALs, SILs, and TILs into a computerized system which will allow tracking of the item to completion. Pending further review this is considered an open item
{237/85032-02; 249/85028-02).
No violations or deviations were identifie.
Post-Maintenance Testing Through discussions with licensee personnel, review of administrative procedures and review of completed work request packages, the inspector determined that the licensee 1s program for post-maintenance testing, with one exception, met the requirements of GL 83-28, Sections 3.1 and While reviewing the post-maintenance testing documentation for scram testing of single control rod drive hydraulic control units (HCU), the
__.
inspector determined that the review and approval-of the test data was not properly documented. Specifically, Procedure No. DTS-300-2 ("Control-Rod Drive Scram Testing and Scram Valve Timing Test
) used for post-maintenance test of individual HCUs, did not provide for documented evidence that the test results had been evaluated to determine their acceptability. This failure to document the review and approval of test results is in violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XI
{237/85032-03; 249/85028-03).
Reactor Trip System Rel iabi*l ity Through review of surveillance procedures, schedules, test records, and discussions with licensee personnel, the inspector determined that the license,e 1s surveillance program met the requirements of GL 83-28, Section 4. 5.1..
- For reactor trip surveillances, the licensee has proceduralized programs providing for their performanc The surveillances provide for on-line testing of the reactor trip circuits, while other administrative programs provide fo~ the tracking, review, and approval of surveillance activitie No violations or deviations were identifie.
Open Items Open items are matters which have been discussed with the licensee, which will be reviewed further by the inspector, and which involve some action on the part of the NRC or licensee or bot One open item disclosed during the inspection is discussed in Paragraph.
Exit.-Interview The, i~spe#,':hQ~;;met with 1 i censee representatives listed in Paragraph 1 on *Sep,tejil_tit~:19, -1985, and summarized the scope and findings of the i nspectt<l'i'li~:, The. inspector a 1 so discussed the 1 i ke ly informationa 1 content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspector during the inspectio The licensee did not identify any such documents or processes as proprietar