ML17201Q453
| ML17201Q453 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 05/08/1989 |
| From: | Miller H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Reed C COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17201Q454 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8905180304 | |
| Download: ML17201Q453 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000237/1988025
Text
. .J .
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:
MAY o s 1989
This refers to the team inspection- conducted by A. M. Bongiovanni,
V. P. Lougheed, F. A. Maura, and P. R. Rescheske of this office on November 1,
1988, through March 30, 1989, of acti~i~ies at Dresden Nuclear Power Station
authorized by NRC Operating Licenses No. DPR-19 and No. DPR-25 and to the
discussion of our findings with Mr. J. Brunner at the conclusion of the
inspection.
The purpose of this inspection was to determtne if design changes ~nd
modifications and the dedication of *commercial grade equipment for
safety-related applications were being conducted in accordance with regulatory
requirements.
Within these areas, the inspection consisted of a selective
examination of procedures and representative records, observations, and
interviews with personnel.
The results of this inspection indicated that for the limited number of
modifications examined, corrective actions- responding to the previous SSOMI
findings appear to have been generally effective.
The design calculations
and 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluations were of good quality.
However, some
weaknesses in the areas of post-modification testing; attention to detail;
and commercial grade procurement, receipt inspection, and dedication were
noted as follows:
1.
Tests performed on 125 vdc and 250 vdc batteries by your Operational
Analysis Department were not consistent with design test specifications.
In the several instances observed, design engineering was not consulted
on the deviations, which had the effect of negating the purpose of the
test.
2.
Completed modification packages were reviewed by all required groups and
approved when they contained obvious errors such as test results not
meeting acceptance criteria, bolt projection length had "shrunk
11 after
torquing, and bus voltage higher than the associated battery voltage, a
physical impossibility.
3.
The procurement and receipt inspection process failed in several
instances to identify critical characteristics for material purchased as
commercial grade, and the receipt inspection consisted of nothing more
than a verification of part number on the outside of a box.
In one case,
8905180304 ~~g5g~37
ADOCK
PNU
Q
J
/
MAV
'
. I
LI e 1ggg
Commonwealth Edison Company
2
this led to the installation of a globe valve instead of the required
stop check valve.
This was not identified until performance of the
post-installation test.
4.
In modifying the 250 vdc battery, load shedding design assumptions
were not incorporated into operating procedures. This is significant
as the battery life calculation were based on certain de loads being
shed by operator action.
Some of the above concerns appear to be in violation of NRC requirements, as
specified in the enclosed Notice.
With respect to Item C, the inspection
showed that actions had been taken to correct the identified violation and to
prevent recurrence.
Our understanding of your corrective actions is described
in Paragraph 6 of the enclosed inspection report.
Consequently, no reply to
that violation is required and we have no further questions regarding this
matter at this time.
Regarding the remaining items, a written response is
required.
Your responses should also address the following specific issues.
(1) how you
will eliminate unauthorized changes made to post-modification testing require-
ments by groups outside of the Engineering Department involved with the initial
design and testing specifications; (2) your measures to increase the level of
attention to detail in the review of completed modification packages; and (3)
the ~easures* you have taken or plan to take to ensure that material purchased
as commercial grade but installed in safety-related applications have clearly
defined critical characteristics for the safety-related application and the
material can be shown to have met those characteristics prior to installation
in the safety-related application.
In accordance with 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 NRC Public Document Room.
The responses 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.
vJe will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this ins*pection.
See Attached Distribution
f)..II I
NfV~t) 5/4,
,Bongiovanni
~t
R~~-;
r~*-. ..)./v
Lough~ed
Sincerely,
Hubert J. Miller, Director
Division of Reactor Safety
Commonwealth Edison Company
Enclosures:
1.
2.
Inspection Reports
No. 50-237/88025(DRS);
No. 50-249/88027(DRS)
Distribution
cc w/enclosures:
T. Kovach, Nuclear
Licensing Manager
J. Eenigenburg, Plant Manager
DCD/DCB (RIDS)
Licensing Fee Management Branch
Resident Inspector, RIII
Richard Hubbard
J. W. Mccaffrey, Chief, Public
Utilities Division
MAY o 8 199g
3