IR 05000237/1991004
| ML17202V019 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 03/05/1991 |
| From: | Holmes J, Jablonski F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17202V017 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-237-91-04, 50-237-91-4, 50-249-91-04, 50-249-91-4, NUDOCS 9103130010 | |
| Download: ML17202V019 (7) | |
Text
~.
U. * S. NUCLEAR REGUlATORY COMMISSION
.REGION HI
"
.
Reports *No. 50-237/91004(DRS); No. 50-249/91004(DRS)
Docket Nos; 50-237; 50-249 Licenses No. DPR-19; No. DPR-25 Licensee:
Commonweal th Edis.on Compariy Opus West. Il 'opus Plac~
DoWners* Grove, IL 60515
.~acility Name:
Dresden Nuclear Power Station; Units 2 and*3
- . Inspe~tion At:
Morris, illin6is Inspection Conducted:
January 22-29 anq February 13, 1991 Irispector:
Appro~ed*By:
F..
Mai
\\
Section:
Inspection Summary
,
.
.
.
3-S-qi
.
.
Date Date Inspection on Janu~ry 22~29; arid February *13. 1991 (Repoits N /91004CDRS): No. 50-249/91004(DRS)).
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection to assess the implementation of the licensee's fire protection program, which included a review of licensee actiO!l on previOl!S inspettiOn findings, a review.of the completed ffre prot~ction ~urveillances*, fire protection audits, fire reports and _observation of a fire dril An inspection was *performed of tools re*quired for hot shutdown and of equipment required for _cold shutdown repafr.* The inspecto utilized modules 30703, 64704, and 9~70 *
.
.
Results:
Of the are<;ls inspected', one apparent violation and one unresolved-item were identifie The violation identified the failure to develop and implement a surveillance 'test* for the linear thermal detectors located in fire zones 1.1.1.1 and 1.1.2... 1 (Paragraph 2.d.).
Th~ unresolved item was about the
. reportability requirements when'both *fire pumps are. inoper'able (Paragraph
- 3.c.).
In general, the.licensee's implementation.of the fire_protection program was good, although some areas of *i~pr~vement are nee_de.
.The* fo:llowfng strengths w.~re *:identified in the _lice~see' s fire protectio program:
'.The fire marshal appeared knowledge~lile*::*i~ fire protection systems. and initiated action.regarding:a trend of t'ral)sformer fire PDR ADOCK 05000237 G
.
'
.
.
The fire.. marshal and the assistant fire marshal were dedicated and professional in addressing 6oricern.
.
.
.
- Overall implementation of the routipe fire protection program appeared*
- to be good.*
The following weakness was observed:*
In 1989,*the licensee and the NRG identified a lack of surveillance testing for "the linear thermal.~etection. When the inspector. returned *to evaluate licensee action in this area during this inspection, the testing was still :not being conducted and.the
"licensee's corrective actions had rn;>t be.en accomplished. (Paragraph 2.d.).
,....
,,*.
- 2
- DETAILS Persons Contacted *
Commonwealth Edison ~ompany (CE-Co)
- E.: Eenigenburg,. Station Manager
- R.'.Black, Assistant* FLre Marsha *M. Churilla, Technical Staff Engineer
- M.' Dillon, Fire Marshal
'
.
- L.* Gerner; Technical Superintendent
'-_'
- R. Jackson, Techii.ical Staff Group Leader
- K. Kociuba, Quality.~ssurance Superintendent*'
- K. Peterman, Regu.latory Assuranc~ Supervisor
- M. Strait, Techn.ical Staff Supervisor
- E. Skowron, Technical Statf Engiheer
- G.. Smith, Ope tat.ions Assistant Superintendent
- B. Whalen, Assistant Technical Staff Supervisor
,
.
'
.
.The inspector also contacted other licensee personnel' _during the.course of the inspectio *Denotes those attending the January *29, -199i, exit meetin.
Licensee Action on.Previous Inspection Findings (Open) Unresolved Item (237/88010-01 (DRS); 249/88012-0lCDRS)):
It was the inspector's *concern. that a fire in the decommissioned Unit 1 may *expose operating Unit "2. safety-related areas. * The
.
licensee has requested a change to the required fire protection program for Unit 1, as indicated in a letter dated. November 1, 1989, *to.the NRC~s.Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)
regarding the Supplement to Proposed Amendment to Reflect Non-Operating Statu The inspector discusse.d the concern with NRR and this item will* remain open pending resolution from NRR. *
(Closed) Unresolved Itein (237/88010-02(DRS): 249/88012-02(DRS)):
The licensee's methodology of pulling fuses is considered a hot shutdown repair, which is not permitted by Appendix The licensee had previously submittedan*exemption request for fuse pulling, which was addressed in the.safety evaluation attached to
.a letter dated *July 6, 198 The letter indicated that Region III was to verify the licensee's. abtlity to perform the *identified short-term.ho~ shutdown repaii;-s in a timely manne On February 13, 1991, the 'inspector verified the liceri'see' s ability to perform short term hot shutdown repairs. regaring the. *'
replacement of blown control pqwe:r fuses for the swing'diesel generator starting*controls 1 and removal -0f 20 con~r~l power fuses for.the reactor relief ;valve The proposed manual actions could
.be performed*in a timely mannerand no discrepancies were note This item is closed.
.*....
~.
(Closed) Open Item (237/88030-0l(DR~); 249/88031-0l(DRS)): tiue to the unique design of.fire wrap access covers*to two pull boxes, it was*. requested that 3M Company review the.installation.of this design to-ensure that.the fire rating had not ;been invalidate *(Closed) Open Ite~ 237/89013--0lCDRS}: 249/89012-0lCDRS)):
- In.the original i~em~ *the in~pector had requested the six month functional test for the linear thermal detectors installed in fire zones.l.1.1.1 andl.1. The. test had not been developed; however, *the licensee indicated that a recent audit had identified the same concern, and the surveillance procedure was in the process of being develope The licensee indicated to the inspector.that the surveillance would be completed by July 21, 198 During t~e current inspection,* the* insp~ct~r requested the completed s*ix* month functional* test for the same linear thermal detectqrs. in.fire. zones f.1.1.1 anci *
1.1.2~ The licensee indicat:ed,that the surveillance test had ncit yet been approve The licensee's lack
.of surveillance testing for the thermal detectors has been upgraded to a violation.(237/91004~0l(DRS);
249/91004-0l(DRS)) of the approved fire protection program that required the *detectors to be tested every six months according to the National Fire Protection Associatibn (NFPA) Standard on Automatic Fire >
Detec.tors (NFPA 72E).
- Routine Fii'.-e Protectio'n Program Review (64704)
This ins.pection consis.ted of a review of completed fire protection surveillances,* fire' protection audits; fire reports and.an observation o'f a fire drill. *Inspections were*performed of tools required for hot shutdo~ and of*equ~pment required for cold shutdow Fire Protection* Surveillance.
Th~. inspector reviewed a sample of the. licensee's*. completed sur'VeilianG'e* procedures as listed below:.,,.
. DFPP 4123-6,... "Uilit,2/3 Diesel Fire Puinp *Annual Capacity Check,'.' Revision 5 DFPP 4123-7,... "Unit t Fire* Pump Annual Capacity Test,"
Revision 5
< * :
.*. *
- DFPS 4145~ 1, ** "Cardox Syst~µi Semi~Annual Mairitenance Test.Data
. ~beet~" R~vision 3 DFPS 4183-4, "Unit 2 Heat/Smoke Detector Semi-:An11tial Oper~b.ility. Test," Revisio.n 0
. DFPS 4183_;5, * "Unit 3 Heat/Smoke Detector Semi-Annual Oper.abUity Test," Revision 0 DFPS 4183-6,
."Unit 1,2,3, Heat/ Smoke Detector Semi-An~ual Ope~ability Test," Revision 0 No unacceptable items were identified; however; the fol~owing o~servation was noted:
(1)
- Annual Diesel Fir.e Pump Test
,*,:
The inspector observed.that the fire pump surveillance test results (dated April 5, 1990). were significan~ly different than' the fire pump shop*test curv Procedure Number DEPP 4123-6, Revision 5, verified that the fire pump was
- functioning properly by trending pump performanc Trends of the' pump test results for at least 'four years did no indicate problems with. the pump; however, based on the
.
. discrepancies between the fire pump surveillance test results and the fire pump shop test curve, the licensee agreed to review this concer~ and take appropriate.action.*Fire Protection Audits (1)
Te6hnical Specificatibn 6.0.H.1 requires an independent fire protection and loss prevention
- program inspection and*auditbe performed at least onc.e per 12 months utilizing e'ither qualified off-site licensee personnel or an outside fire prote'ction firm.
(2)
. The last Annual Fire Protection. Inspection Report dated *
April 10..:14, 1989, identifiedfiridings and observations that were either addressed or ~ere ~cheduled to be addressed by the* licensee's staf No unacceptable.res'olutions were
.
- ' '*
.
.
.
observe Technical Specification 6.0.H.2 required an inspection an audit.of the fire protection program to be performed by a qualified outside fire consultant at leas.t once* eve7Y 36 morith The triennial inspection of May 8, 1990,.identified items that were brought to management's attention; and were resolved by the *license No d1°screpancies were. observed in
.this area. *
..
~ *.*.
. *
..,:,
Deviation Report Review
.
...... '*
'I
'
Deviation Repoi"t (DVR) 2/3*90..:130 states; ***on November 20, 1990, at 0147 hours0.0017 days <br />0.0408 hours <br />2.430556e-4 weeks <br />5.59335e-5 months <br />, with Unit 2 in the Refuel mode* and Unit 3 in the
- Run. mode at 95% *of ~ated core -flow,. a simultaneous coolant system
.failure of the Unit 1 and the Unit 2/3 diesel *driven fire pumps
-*(DFPs) occurred during weekly operability testing.":
The DVR indicated that Unit 2/3 die.sel fire pump. fail~d due. to the rupture o.f its engine coolant hose:* The apparent*cause of the rupture.was a small tear/split from* normal deterioratio This *
tear/split then propagated into.the eventual ruptur The DVR indicated that tpe Unit 1 ciiesei fire pump had previou*s problems
'with its coolant system and.the exact.cause would not be determined until the diesel. was.' disassembled by the vendo According to the* OVR, immediate corrective* actions were taken to replace the failed cooling water hose of the Unit 2/3 DFP, which was _comp.leted approximately nine hours* later.* *
The licensee indicated '.. that thh was a non-reportable even This
. position does not appear consistent with Generic Lette.r 86-10, which indicated that the licensee is to report deficiencies in the Fire Protec~ion Program which meet the c~iteria of 10 CFR, 50.72
- and 10 CFR 50.73.. This concern was discussed with the NRR project manager on February 26, 1991, and is considered_an Unresolved Item
.(237/91004-02(DRS); 249/91004-02(DRS)).
Fire' Drill On January 22, *1991, at approximately 3:30 p.m. a fire drill was initiated when a trouble and fire alarm was received in the control room from the Unit 2 diesel generator room. The fire drill postulated a fire as a result: of an oil spill at the Unit 2 diesel generato The. carbon dioxide* system was considered out of service and pot oper,able.. in the* both the automatic and manual mod The. fire brigade responded* fully dressed within five minute The brigade leader.was assertive and appeared knowledgeable* in directing his.. team in attacking the fir The*
fire brigade performance was good.' During the.critique, the inspec~or indicated that all members of the fire brigade should be
- equipped with self contained breathing apparatus (SCBA);. The licensee indicated that normally during refueling outages, due to time required to clean and maintain the SCBA~ it was decided that only two fire* brigade personnel utilize SCB Th.e: inspector informed the licens.ee to* consider requiring all fire brtgade member*s to utilize 'SCBA.during* the* fire drill in order that the fire brigade members become more profici.erit in the. use of SCB Redundant Safety-Related Cable
"The.inspector verified the :power cables* for the control rod drive
. ~ ~*.
- i. **
pump 2A-302-3 and powercabl~s from the isolation condenser valve
!102-1301-1 were adequately separated as require'd by Appendix No unacceptable items were observe f.. *
Safe Shutdown* Repair Eguipment and Tools.. The licensee has been granted several _exemptions about-hot shutdown repair Specific pieces of.equipment such as fuse
- pullers and fuses,* are required to be. readily available to ac.complish *hot shutdown repairs in a timely manner.. Several equipment boxes a~d the safe shutdown equipment cart were
.
inspected to ensure that.the proper.equipment was available.. In addition, C()ld shutdown repair equipment was also inspecte No unacceptabl~ items" were c)bserve Fire Reports *
.Th*e inspector reviewed the fire reports* for 1989 and 199 The
.fires that occurred.consisted of shorts iri motor windings,
. electrical faults in.breakers,* failure* of j>wnp bearings, water leak shorting a breaker, and. so forth,.The reported fires in man of the cases were small and insigni*ficant -and were immediately id,entified by plant pe~sonnel or fire detection equipmen There was, however, a trend developing regarding the fires in contro_l.
transfo.rmers, in nonsafety-related areas where the equipment was
. not maintained at the same level as the equipment in' safety-.
related area The fire marshal infbrmed_the appropriate personnel to address this concer As a result, the licensee's proposed corrective acti6ns included replacement of existing control transformers with new ones that have built in fuse block The work wlll be.cione during routine preventive mainten~nce of 480 V breakers. or during any corre'ctiv.e"maintenance wor The work is tentatively expected to begi~ rio later than April 15, 199 Plant Observations The inspector observe_d several areas of the reactor bµilding and turbine building tha.t included several hose stat:Lons, extinguishers, sprinkler-valves;* emergency lights an~
housekeeping: :The inspector. concluded that the equipment was well*
.maintaine Housekeeping. in.- these* areas was goo.
-Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee r~presentatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
on January 29, 1991; and summarized the scope and* findings.of the inspectio The likely informational content of the inspection report was discussed with regard to documents *r~viewed during the inspectio The licensee did not identify any of the documents as proprietar The inspector also conducted a walkdown of fire.areas on February 13, 1991, which resulted in no new findings.. *
..,..
'I,'