ML17194A326
| ML17194A326 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 12/03/1981 |
| From: | Baker K, Connaughton K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17194A324 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-237-81-31, 50-249-81-23, NUDOCS 8112160231 | |
| Download: ML17194A326 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000237/1981031
Text
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Report No. 50-237/81-31; 50-249/81-23
Docket No. 50-237; 50-249
Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company
P. 0. Box 767
Chicago, IL
60690
Facility Name:
Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3
Inspection At:
Dresden Site, Morris, Illinois
Inspection Conducted:
October 13-14, 16, 19-20, 1981
11.a,~
Inspector:
K. A. Connaughton
Approved By:~hief
Management Programs Section
Inspection Summary
/?14/17
Inspection on October .13-14, 16, 19'."20, 1981 (Report. No. 50-249/81-23;
50-237/81-31)
Areas Inspected:
The inspector reviewed surveillance procedures; surveillance
activities; procedures and activities associated with inservice testing of
pumps and valves; revisions to the licensee's quality assurance program and
quality procedures.
The inspection involved a total of 28 inspector-hours
onsite and six inspector-hours in office by one NRC inspector.
Results:
Of the four areas inspected, one apparent item of noncompliance
was identified; failure to analyze and document valve leak rate testing
in accordance with inservice test requirements (paragraph 2.d).
8112160231 811204
PDR ADOCK 05000237
-~--
--- -
lj'9~
- .:
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
- D. Scott, Plant Manager
D. Farrar, Administrative and Technical Services Assistant Superintendent
- J. Brunner, Technical Staff Supervisor
D. Ringo, Technical Staff
E. Rawly, Technical Staff
W. Hildy, Instrument Maintenance Master Mechanic
M. Wright, Operating Engineer
R. Cohen, Technical Staff
- G. Tanner, Quality Assurance
H. Waclaw, Instrument Maintenance
The inspector also contacted several other licensee employees, including
plant engineering and administrative personnel.
- Denotes those attending the exit .interview.
2.
Surveillance
a.
Surveillance Activities
Surveillance activities were reviewed to ascertain the following:
whether or nqt tests were conducted in accordance with properly
approved procedures at the required frequencies; whether or not
test results received proper review and approval; and whether or
not appropriate corrective action was taken when acceptance
criteria were not met.
The*following surveillance activities,
performed between January 1, 1981 and October 10, 1981 were
included in the review:
DOS 400-2 Rev. 2, "Rod Worth Minimizer Prestartup Surveillance"
DOS 1600-13 Rev. 2 "Suppression Chamber to Reactor Building
Vacuum Breaker Operability Test for 2/3-1601-314 and B"
DOS 6600-1 Rev. 11 "Diesel.Gene~ator Sur~eillance Tests"
DOS 6900-1 Revs. 4 & 5 "D-213 Weekly and Monthly Storage
Battery Checks"
DOS 6900-4 Rev. 0 "D-2/3 Quarterly Storage Battery Checks"*
DOS 7500-2 Rev. 2 "Removing Moisture From SBGT Charcoal
Absorbers/SBGT Surveillance Tests"
DIS 500-5 Rev. 1 "SCRAM Discharge Volume Level Sensors
Calibration Check"
- 2 -
i.! .
DIS 500-6 Rev. 1 "Condenser Low Vacuum SCRAM"
DIS 1600-2 Rev. 1 "Drywell High Pressure SCRAM"
Monthly surveillance testing conducted in accordance with DOS 6900-1,
Revision 4, between January 21, 1981 and April 2, 1981 revealed that,
several storage battery cell voltage and specific gravity measure-
ments did not meet acceptance criteria.
The procedure required that
if cell voltage and specific gravity acceptance criteria were not
met, charge equalization was to be carried out for 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> .and
voltage and specific gravity measurements taken seven days later.
This requirement was stated on "Checklist G" (the data sheet used
to record volta,ge and specific gravity measurements) of the
procedure.
The licensee performed the required actions, however,
if acceptance criteria for cell voltage and specific gravity were
not met when remeasured seven days after the scheduled monthly
test, no further action was taken.
The inspector was informed
that Commonwealth Edison's Quality Assurance Department had made
a similar finding during an audit conducted in April of 1981, and
that as a result, a new revision of procedure DOS 6900-1 was .issued
for conducting monthly storage battery tests.
This procedure
rev1s1on contained .new acceptance criteria for cell voltage and
These new acceptance criteria insured adequate cell capacity, but
were slightly less conservative than those they replaced.
The
inspector determined that these new acceptance criteria were met
in earlier and subsequent tests perform~d between January 1, 1981
and October 10, 1981.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
b.
S~rveillance Procedures
The inspector reviewed several surveillance tests selected from
the Technical Specifications to ensure that the tests were covered
by properly.approved procedures; that these procedures contained
adequate preparation or 1prerequisites, included acceptance criteria,
and pro~ided for system restoration following testing.
The follow-
ing procedures were examined:
DOS 400-2 Rev. 2 "Rod Worth Minimizer Prestartup Surveillance"
DOS 1600-13 Rev. 2 "Suppression Chamber to Reactor Building
Vacuum Breaker Operability Test for 2/3-1601-31 A & B"
DOS 6600-1 Rev. 11 "Diesel Generator Surveillance Tests"
DOS 6900-4 Rev. 0 "D-2/3 Quarterly Storage Battery Checks"
DOS 7500-2 Rev .. 2 "Remoying* Moisture From SBGT Charcoal
Absorbers/SBGT Surveillance Tests"
- 3 -
.,..
DIS 500-6 Rev. 1 "Condenser Low Vacuum SCRAM"
DIS 1600-2 Rev. 1 "Drywell High Pressure SCRAM"
No items of noncompliance were identified.
c .. Inservice Testing Program - Pumps_
The inspector *reviewed the licensee's pump testing program to
verify compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(g).
Pump
test records revealed that tests had been conducted on all applic-
able pumps at the required frequencies with properly approved
procedures.
Test methods were found to be satisfactory.
The inspector noted that all required documentation was available,
but rather disorganized.
The inspector urged licensee representa-
tives to assemble required documentation (Le., pump records,
inservice test plans and records of test) in a more orderly format
for easy reference.
The inspector had this concern in light of
the fact that responsibility for coordinating the program and
maintaining required documentation would soon be changing hands.
Also, the inspector could not verify that the licensee was
analyzing pump test data within 96 hours0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> after the test as
required by Subarticle iWP 3220.* The licensee agreed to revise
test procedures .to include a record of the time a test is com-
pleted and the time an analysis of test results is completed.
- A-Sectibq XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 1974
Edition and Addenda through Summer of 1975.
\\
No items of noncompliance were identified.
d.
Inservice Testing Program - Valves
The inspector reviewed the lic~nsee's valve iesting ~~ogram t6
verify compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR S0.55a(g).
Examination of the licensee's approved ISI valve test program,
status summaries, and several test procedures revealed that the
licensee had performed tests at the required frequencies~ .
Appropriate acceptance criteria was provided for all testing
except Category A valve leakage-rate testing.
Specified maximum
allowable leak rates for each valve was not included in inservice
test documentation.
Additionally, the licensee was not analyzing
valve leakrates in accordance with paragraph IWV 3420(f) *Section
XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 1974 Edition and
Addenda through Summer of 1975 nor implementing the corrective
action requirements of paragraphs IWV 3420(g)(l) and (2) *Section
XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 1974 Edition and
Addenda through Summer of 1975.
This is an item of noncompliance identified in Appendix A.
(50-237/81-31-01)
(50-249/81-23-01)
- 4 -
3.
Quality Assurance Program
The inspector reviewed revisions to the licensee's quaJity assurance
program described in Topical Report CE-IA.
These .revisions were made
between January 1, 1981, and the time of this inspection.
The inspector
interviewed quality assurance personnel to assess their understanding
of each revision and to discuss specific changes made to implementation
procedures (quality procedures) to accomodate these program revisions.
The inspector reviewed applicable quality assurance procedures and
found that they had been revised, where necessary, to reflect revisions
to the quality assurance program.
.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Exit Interview
The inspectors met with licensee representatives denoted in Paragraph
1 at the conclusion of the inspection on October 20, 1981.
The in-
spectors summarized the purpose and the scope of the inspection and
the findings.
- 5 -