IR 05000237/1989008
| ML17201Q419 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 04/13/1989 |
| From: | Gardner R, Holmes J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17201Q418 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-237-89-08, 50-237-89-8, 50-249-89-08, 50-249-89-8, 50-249-89-9, NUDOCS 8904240406 | |
| Download: ML17201Q419 (4) | |
Text
'**
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I I I Reports No. 50-237/89008(DRS); 50-249/89009(DRS)
Docket Nos. 50-237; 50-249 Licenses No. DPR-19; DPR-25 Licensee:
Conunonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name:
Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3 Inspection At:
Morris, IL 60450 Inspection Conducted:
March 16-28, 1989 Inspector: ~~
~\\\\-~~
Approved By:
R. N. Gardner, Chief Plant System Section Inspection Sununary Inspection on March 16-28 1989 (Reports No. 50-237/89008(DRS);
50-249/89009(DRS))
1-f 3,-39 Date Areas Inspected:
Special safety inspection regarding allegations concerning unsealed openings inside conduits in firewalls and the use of polyurethane in fire wall Results:
No violations were identified. The inspection concluded that the one allegation was substantiated, however, no violations of NRC regulatory requirements were identified *
8904240406 890414 PDR ADOCK 05000237 Q
I
"~
DETAILS Persons Contacted
" Commonwealth Edison (CECo)
- E. D. Een i genburg, Station t1anager
- K. Deck, Quality Assurance
- M. Dillon, Fire Marshal
- R. Falbo, Regulatory Assurance
- L. Kline, Regulatory Assuranc
- D. Roberts, Fire Protection Engineer Sargent and Lundy (S&L)
- Brian Barth, Technical Staff Engineer
- Denotes those attending March 17, 1989 exit meetin Allegation RIII-88-A-180 On December 16, 1989, Region III received an allegation that there were unsealed openings inside conduits in the firewalls at the Dresden Nuclear Power Station. In addition, the alleger indicated that pyrocrete masked the presence of polyurethane in the firewall Each of the individual concerns are addressed below:
Concern l:
NRC Revie\\'/:
The firewalls at Dresden contain unsealed openings inside conduit penetrations. This allegation was general for all firewalls and no specific areas were received from the a llege The requirement for sealing conduits which penetrate firewalls is contained in the licensee 1s updated Fire Hazards Analysis, Section 5.0, entitled 11 Guidelines of Appendix A to APCSB 9.5-1
- This document indicates that conduit and piping should be sealed or closed to provide a fire resistance rating at least equal to that of the barrie In discussions with the cognizant NRR reviewer on March 28, 1989, the inspector determined that the document only required the licensee to install seals between firewalls and conduits which penetrate the firewa 1 The inspector discussed this matter with licensee personnel including the Fire Marsha The licensee was aware of the conduit seal requirements and indicated that seals had been installed between firewalls and all conduits at the points where the conduits enter or exit the firewall During this inspection, the inspector reviewed a sample of the licensee 1 s completed surveillances of conduits which
,1 Cone 1 us ion:
Concern 2:
NRC Review:
penetrate firewall These surveillances did not identify any instances of improper conduit seal installations and were determined to be acceptabl The inspector also selected several representative firewalls for walkdown to determine whether the licensee was complying with the fire seal requirement During the walkdown, the inspector determined that all required fire seals were installe This allegation_ concerned a perceived need to install seals inside conduit openings for all conduits which penetrate firewalls at the Dresden Station. However, since the licensee was not required to seal these conduit openings and since the inspector determined that the licensee was installing all required fire seals, this allegation was not substantiate Pyrocrete covers polyurethane in firewall The licensee 1s Fire Protection Program includes the Guidelines of Appendix A to APCSB 9.5-1. This document requires the licensee to provide 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> rated floors, walls, and ceilings enclosing the separate fire areas identified in the Safe Shutdown Analysis. Deviations in the fire barriers were justified in Exemption Requests and have been reviewed and accepted as identified in the NRC Safety Evaluation Report dated January 5, 198 Based on review of the pertinent documents, the inspector determined that. the licensee was required to remove the polyurethane from the fire walls or demonstrate that the polyurethane in the firewall did not affect the 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> rating of the
- fire barrie During this inspection, the licensee indicated that polyurethane was commonly installed in firewalls in the past to prevent air leaks. The plant had previously realized the potential hazard of utilizing polyurethane in firewalls and had hired outside contractors to remove the polyurethane from the firewall The licensee indicated to the inspector that the majority of the polyurethane had been remove However, the licensee indicated that polyurethane covered by pyrocrete remained in a firewall between the turbine building and Unit 2 on elevation 545 1-6" at coordinates H and 43 through 4 The licensee had elected to cover the polyurethane with pyrocrete due to high radiation exposure and the possibility o breaching secondary containmen The licensee also indicated to the inspector that polyurethane without a pyrocrete covering was located
...
Conclusion: Exit Interview around a 12 inch pipe penetration located between the Units 2 and 3 reactor building on elevation 545 1-6 11 at coordinates 44 and H through The licensee indicated that due to radiation concerns the polyurethane had not yet been remove For both instances of installed polyurethane, the licensee was in the process of assessing the need to remove the installed polyurethan The licensee indicated that the assessment will be completed by May 1, 198 The licensee also indicated to the inspector that an outside fire protection engineering firm has conducted two fire barrier surveillances which did not identify other instances of installed polyurethan This allegation was substantiated in that pyrocrete does cover polyurethane installed in one plant location and polyurethane without a pyrocrete covering exists in another location. However, prior to the allegation the licensee removed and replaced the majority of the polyurethane with an appropriate fire rated barrier or seal. Where the licensee was unable to remove the polyurethane due to high radiation and concerns regarding the breaching of secondary containment, the licensee was performing the required assessment of the effect of the polyurethane on the 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> rating of the fire barrie Therefore, no violations or deviations of NRC requirements were identifie The inspector met with licensee representatives on March 28, 198 The inspector discussed the likely content of this report and the licensee did not indicate that any information discussed during the inspection could be considered proprietary in natur