ML17201Q406
| ML17201Q406 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 04/04/1989 |
| From: | Miller H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Reed C COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17201Q407 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8904180098 | |
| Download: ML17201Q406 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000237/1988029
Text
~* .
Docket No. 50-237
Docket No. 50-249
Commonwealth Edison Company
ATTN:
Mr. Cordell Reed
Senior Vice President
Post Office Box 767
Chicago, IL
60690
Gentlemen:
APR
I
- 9"0
t;
L .) .
.J
This refers to the special maintenance team inspection conducted by
Mr. W. J. Kropp and others of this office on January 23-27, February 6-10,
and 16, 1989.
This inspection covered activities at Dresderi Nuclear Power
Station as authorized by NRC Operating Licenses No. DPR-19 and No. DPR-25.
The inspection findings were discussed with Mr. N. Kalvianakas and others of
your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
The inspection was* conducted to assess and evaluate your support and
implementation of maintenance at the Dresden Nuclear Power Station to assure
that plant structures, systems, and components r~liably perform on demand.
Various activities w~rE evaluated to determine if mainten~nce was accomplished,
effective, and adequately assessed by your own quality ve~ification process.
The et1closed copy of our inspection report identifies specific areas examined
during the .. inspection.
Within these areas, the inspection consisted of a
selectiV8 examination of procedures and representative records, observations,
and interviews \\'lith personnel.
In an attempt to focus on those activities
that are most risk significant, insights from a generic Bciiling Water Reactor
Probabilistic Risk Assessment study, performed by the NRC, were used to select
systems and components important to safety.
Overall, th~ inspection team concluded that maintenance at the Dresden Station
appeared to be satisfactorily performed, effective, and assessed.
The team
id~ntified strengths as well as weaknesses in the maintenance process.
The
executive summary highlights our inspection findings and Sections 2.6
through 2.8 of the inspection report provides a more complete summary of the
maintenance process.
Based on the last twelve months of plant performance in the areas of reactor
scrams, forced outcige rate, and the availability of the High Pressure Coolant
Injection system and the Emergency Diesel Generators, the team concluded there
98 990404
89041000
05000237
pDR . ADOCK
p\\\\\\U
G
' '
APR L;,
1989
Commonwealth Edison Company
2
has been noticeable improvement in maintenance activfties.
Improvement to
sbme degree was attributed to the Dresden Maintenance Improvement Program;
however, most of the improve~ent was the result of ~ggressive management
involvement and the attitude of maintenance personnel.
However, weaknesses were n6ted during this inspection.
The most significant
weaknesses were:
(1) severe shortcomings in preventive maintenance and root
cause analysis of problems in the electrical area; and (2) a weak and fragmented
system for identification of potential trends in systems/components performance.
Al though some actions were in progress to address these concerns, i ncrease,d
management attention is required to affect needed improvement.
During' this inspection, certain of your activities app-eared to be in violation
of NRC requirements, as described in the enclosed Notice.
One item involves.
ineffective preventive maintenance on 4.16kV breakers, 250Vdc motor control
centers and breaker auxiliary switches; a written response is required on this
item.
Problems with preventive maintenance of 4.16kV breakers are similar to
problems identified at Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station.approximately seven
months ago.
These same type problems were also identified in a Commonwealth
Edison Operating Experience Report, but the problems were not corrected.
Your
response to the violation should address steps you have taken to ensure that the
4.16kV breaker preventive maintenance progran1 is technic~lly sound at all of your
nuclear facilities.
With respect to the second violation involving engineering evaluation of
temporary alterations, the inspection showed that action had beer1 taken to
correct the identified violation and to prevent recurrence.
Our understanding
of your corrective actions are described in Paragraph 2.4.2.3 of the enclosed
inspection report.
Consequently, no reply to the violation is required and we
have no further questions regarding this n1atter at this time.
A written
response is required for Unresolved Item 237/88029~01 and 249/88030-01 which
pertains to lack of adequate evaluation of trip armature travel on 4.16kV
breakers.
In accordance wlth 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of this
letter, the enclosures, and your response to this letter will be placed in the
NRG Public Document Room.
The response directed by this letter and the accompanying Notice are not
subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
,
Conmonwealth Edison Company.
3
APR L:
19')\\'
>*"
-
U.J
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
. r-.
Enclosures:.
1.
2.
Inspection Reports
No. 50-237/88029(DRS);
No. 50-249/88030(DRS)
cc ~i/enclosures:
P. Kovack, Nuclear
L1cen~ing Manager
J. Eenigenburs~ Plant Manager
DCD/DCB (RIDS)
Conmissioner Curtiss
Licensin£ Fee Management Branch
Resident Inspector, RIII
Richard Hubbard
J. W. Mccaffrey, Chief, Public
Utilities Division
RII I
\\ \\
- wr *P\\\\~\\
.'\\t\\ Kropp/lms/lc/lms
Sincerely,
Hubert J. Miller, Director
Division of Reactor Safety
~*
RII~
JiJJlil_
Coqper
,./ii~~
I