ML17180A762
| ML17180A762 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 05/20/1994 |
| From: | Langstaff R, Vanderniet C, Walker H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17180A760 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-237-94-03, 50-237-94-3, 50-249-94-03, 50-249-94-3, NUDOCS 9405240107 | |
| Download: ML17180A762 (2) | |
See also: IR 05000237/1994003
Text
utilizing portions of inspection procedures 37700, 92701, 92702, and 92720 and
draft inspection procedure 37550 to ascertain whether engineering and
technical support was effectively accomplished and assessed by the licensee.
Results:
Based on the items inspected, overall performance in engineering and
technical support was considered acceptable. The level, quality, and
timeliness of engineering and technical support for the plant appeared to be
acceptable.
Most of the individuals contacted were knowledgeable and
motivated and displayed a strong sense of ownership in their areas of
responsibility, however, there were some exceptions as noted in this report.
Significant improvements were noted in the Site Engineering and Construction
Organization, however, there were several findings where engineering
activities had not been thorough and the necessary attention to detail was
lacking. Little improvement was evident in the Systems Engineering
Organization.
The most significant weakness appeared to be in the control of temporary
alterations and lack of compliance to plant procedures.
The most significant
strength appeared to be the Site Engineering and Construction Organization
management's motivation and commitment to improvement.
Two violations, one with three examples, were identified. Violations included*
weaknesses in design control and a lack of compliance to procedures.
9405240107 940520
r.
ADOCK 05000237
G
2
time delay was 2-seconds rather than the required 7-seconds.
The
replaced relay was still indicated as an instantaneous relay,
rather than the installed time delay relay, as called for in the
TA documentation.
Procedure DAP 02-09, "Control of Critical Drawings," requir~d that
control room drawings be revised or updated to reflect the.correct
plant configuration. The failure to implement the requirements of
this procedure and correctly update the control room drawing with
the plant configuration for this temporary alteration is
considered an example of a violation of Criterion V of 10 CFR 50,
Appendix B (249/94003-02C(DRS)).
A ~iolation example was identified in this area.
4.3.2.4 Review of Safety Evaluations and Screenings
The inspectors reviewed the methods used- to perform 10 CFR 50.59 safety
screenings and evaluations.
Records of the screenings and evaluations
were reviewed for the selected modification, exempt change and temporary
alteration (TA) packages to verify completeness, accuracy, and
compliance with regulatory requirements.
Procedure DAP 10-02, "10CFR50.59 Review Screenings and Safety
- Evaluations," Revision 8, was reviewed and found to be well .written and
concise. Several minor weaknesses were noted and discussed with
licensee personnel for possible procedural improvements.
Licensee
personnel acknowledged these weaknesses and indicated that the procedure
would be revised.
During the review of modifications Ml2-2(3)-93-004, the inspectors noted
that an unreviewed safety question was identified during the original
10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluation performed for the modifications.
Due to
discussions with the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation regarding the
issue, the modification was subsequently redesigned to eliminate the
unreviewed safety question.
As a result of the identification of this
problem, Information Notice 93-89, "Potential Problems with BWR Level
Instrumentation Backfill Modifications," was issued.
The inspectors
considered the identification and resolution of this issue to be a
positive application of the 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluation process.
Safety evaluations or screenings were usually performed and were
acceptable.
The modification and TA packages reviewed contained the
required 10 CFR 50.59 safety screenings or evaluations and they appeared
to be well documented.
Some of the packages contained additional
supporting information.
Procedure OAP 10-02, if properly implemented,
provided sufficient controls.to ensure that proper 10 CFR 50.59
screenings and safety evaluations were performed and documented as
required.
Based on the review,of records and subsequent discussions
with licensee personnel, the inspectors concluded that the safety
- screenings and evaluations were acceptable.
4.3.2.5 Review of Calculations
In order to complete the assessment of the design change and
modification process, the inspectors reviewed portions of selected
20