Text

Forwards Insp Repts 50-010/73-02 & 50-249/73-03 on 730417, 19,20,23-25.Noncompliance Noted
	ML19340A600
Person / Time
Site:	Dresden
Issue date:	05/25/1973
From:	Grier B; NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Brian Lee; COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
Shared Package
ML19340A601	List: ML19340A600; ML19340A603;
References
	NUDOCS 8008280653
	Download: ML19340A600 (5)
	v • d • e

_ _

_

.

g

'

g

k

g QL J

,,

-

U

.

Zvd

p*GY c

g

UNITED STATES

T ])

e

l

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

i

T

DIRECTORATE OF REGULATORY OPERATIONS

REGION Pil

Ms o' "

799 ROOSEVELT ROAD

mg

GLEN ELLYN. ILLINOIS 60137

(312) 85s-2660

May 25, 1973

Commonwealth Edison Company

Docket No. 50-10

ATTN: Mr. Byron Lee, Jr.

Docket No. 50-249

Vice President

P. O. Box 767

Chicago, Illinois

60690

Contimmen:

This refers to the inspection conducted by Massrs. Maura and Brown of this

office on April 17, 19, 20, and 23-25. 1973, of activities at Dresden Units 1

'

and 3 authorized by AEC Operating Licenses No. DPR-2 and No. DPR-25, and to

tha discussion of our findings held by Mr. Maura with Messrs. Worden, Morris,

and Roberts of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection on April 25, 1973.

-

Areas mumined during this inspection included Unit 3 refueling operations

and the results of fuel sipping and reconstitution; work performed in the

Unit 3 torus during this outage; performance and surveillance testing of

Unit 1 125 volt batteries, emergency diesel generator, control rod drives,

and reactor coolant system; and Unit 1 abnormal occurrences since November

1972. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations

of procedures and representative records, interviews with plant personnel,

and observations by the inspectors.

In addition to the above matters, the inspectors e= =ined the corrective actions

described in your letters of November 21, 1972, and February 7, 1973, which

were in reply to out letters of October 19, 1972, and January 18, 1973,

respectively. It was noted that the corrective action described in your

letter of February 7, 1973, with regard to the reporting of abnormal occurrences

in accordance with paragraph J.5 of the Technical specifications, was not

implemented during the week of March 5-11, 1973. This matter is referenced

in iten B.2 of the enclosure. We also noted that you have completed the

design review of Unit 1 primary steam drum safety valves, as identified in

our letter of May 15, 1972, and that the highest calculated stress level is

within tha alloweble limit. We have no further question on these items at

this time.

During this inspection, it was found that certain of your activities associated

with Unit 1 appear to be in noncompliance with AEC requirements. The items

and references to the pertinent requirements are listed in the enclosure to

this letter.

.8008280 [63

-

._.

.

,

.'

'

-

~

$

2

.

Commonwealth Edison Company

-2-

May 25, 1973

Thia letter is a notice of violation sent to you persuant to the provisions

of Section 2.201 of the AEC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, code of

Pederal Regulations. Section 2.201 requires you to subctit to this office,

within twenty (20) days of your receipt of this notice, a written statement

or explanation in reply including:

(1) corrective steps which have been

taken by you, and the results achieved; (2) corrective steps which will be

taken to avoid further violations; and (3) the date when full compliance

will be achieved. Such a statesent or explanation should be provided for

each of the items listed in the enclosure. With respect to item C.2 of our

enclosure, we have examined your corrective actions relative to procedure

modifications and have no further questions at this time. However, your

response to this item should include your actions with respect to how this

and similar evente are being incorporated into your retraining program so

that the number of operator errors are minlaimed.

It is our understanding from discussions with your site management that you

will develop the necessary emergency procedures to ensure safe and efficient

plant shutdown in the event that:

(1) the Unit 1125 volt battery chargers

are lost from service, and (2) all Unit 1125 volt de power is lost. We

will examine these matters further during a future inspection.

,

Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be glad

to discuss them with you.

Sincerely yours,

Boyce H. Crier

Regional Director

Enclosure

Description of Noncompliance Items

cc:

W. P. Worden

Dresden Station Superintendent, w/ enc 1

bec: R0 Chief, FS&EB

RO:HQ (4)

Licensing (4)

DR Central Files

Regions I & II

PDR

Local PDR

NSIC

DTIE

. .

. -

-

.

. -

-

_

.- - -

-

.._ _

- -.-- = - --

- . - - - - - - -

.

-

,

.

I

j

/

.

,

.

I

ENCLOSURE

Commonwealth Edison Company

Dockats No. 50-10 and No. 50-249

Certain activities under your licenses appear-to be in noncompliance with

AEC regulatory requirements as listed below:

A.

Deviations from Unit 1 Technical Specifications surveillance testing

requirements were as follows:

1.

Paragraph B.16.f(1) requires that measurements of the voltage and

specific gravity of the pilot cell, the temperature of the adjacent

cells and the overall battery voltage shall be made weekly.

Contrary to the above, the voltage of the pilot cell and the

temperature of the adjacent cells were not measured during the

weeks of January 1-7, 1973, and January 15-21, 1973. Also,

the specific gravity and voltage of the pilot cell, the tempera-

ture of the adjacent cells, and the overall battery voltage was

not measured during the week of February 19-25, 1973.

~

2.

Paragraph B.16.3(1) requires that the diesel generator be manually

started and loaded once each month to demonstrate operational

readiness. The test is to last long enough for the diesel engine

and the generator to reach equilibrium temperature at full load.

Contrary to the s'aove, documentation to show that the generator

was started and loaded to full load output and maintained in that

condition until the engine and generator reached equilibrium

temperature during the month of December 1972 could not be

located by the licensee.

B.

Deviations from Unit 1 Technical Specifications reporting requirements

were as follows:

1.

Paragraph J.3.a requires that all abnormal occurrences shall be

'

promptly reported to the Manager of Production or his delegated

alternate and shall be promptly reviewed by the SRB.

Contrary to the above, the abnormal occurrence concerning the

j

bypassing of in-core monitoring string 113 was not reported to

'

the Manager of Production or the Superintendent of Production,

4

'

Division A, until approximately 63 hours7.291667e-4 days 0.0175 hours 1.041667e-4 weeks 2.39715e-5 months after the event had

taken place and was not reviewed by the SRB until approximately

nine days af ter the event had taken place.

. . .

-,

-

. .--

-.

-

=.

.-_

.

_

. _ . _

. _ - _ _

-

--

-

.

_

.

'

Paragraphe J.5.a and J.5.b require that abnormal occurrences be

2.

f

reported to the AEC.

Contrary to the absve, operation during the week of March 5-11,

-

1973, with the emergency condenser shell-side water temperature

in excess of its limit of 100'F was not reported to the AEC.

4

C.

Deviations from Unit 1 Technical Specifications operating requirements

were as follows:

'

1.

Paragraph J.2.a(9) requires that detailed written procedures,

includ:"ng applicable checkoff tests and instructions shall be

prepared and approved to assure the safe shutdown of the plant

in the event of a flood designated as a Probable Maximum Flood.

Contrary to the above, the licensee has failed to prepare and

approve such a procedere although this requirement has been in

effect for over 10 months.

2.

Paragraph B.9.a requires that an in-core monitoring system be

provided capable of automatic scram at not more than 125 percent

of rated local power whenever the reactor is operating at power

levels greater than 350 Mwt. The scram is to be actuated by

coincidence of signals from two or more monitors, provided that

the arrangement does not have the effect of leaving unmonitored

a core region exceeding any vertical cylindrical core volume

-

four feet in diameter within the central 8.5-foot diameter

vertical cylindrical core volume.

Contrary to the above, on April 8-9, 1973, with the reactor at

407 Mwt, the licensee bypassed the scram capabilities of in-core

monitor string 113, leaving two four-foot diameter vertical

cylindrical core volumes without the required scram capability

foi

a, period of approximately 10 hours1.157407e-4 days 0.00278 hours 1.653439e-5 weeks 3.805e-6 months .

.

- 2 --

i

l

.

. _ _ _ _ -

.

--

_ _ . --_

.

- . . _ ,

,

.

-

__

~

.;.

..:

.

..

,

-

.

,

.

<

f

g

UNITED STATES

'.y

' .

.

f.

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

.

DIVISION OF COMPl LANCE

f

, ,

RE:GION lit

799 ROOSEVELT ROAO

,

arts ,

GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOls 60137

012) ess-zaso

050-010/73-02

A.

RO Inspection Report No.

050-249/73-03

Transmittal Date

May 31, 1973

Distribution:

RO Chief, FS&EB

R0 Chie f, FS&EB

RO:HQ (5)

RO:HQ (4)

DR Central Files

L:D/D for Fuel & Materials

Regulatory Standards (3)

DR Central Files

{

Licensing (13)

'

l

i

B.

RO Inquiry Report No.

Transmittal Date

.

Distribution:

RO Chie f , FS&EB

RO Chie f, FS&EB

RO:HQ (5)

RO:HQ

DR Central Files

Regulatory Standards (3)

Licensing (13)

{

i

..

!

l'

C.

Incident Notification From:

i

(Licensee & Docket No. (or License No.)

,

Transmittal Date

!

'

Distribution:

Distribution-

RO Chie f , FS&EB

RO Chie f, FS&EB

,

'

RO:HQ (4)

Licensing (4)

L:D/D for Fuel & Materials

l

'

DR Central Files

,

!

4

.'

!!A

I

._

ML19340A600

Text

Navigation menu

Search