ML19340A650

Forwards Response to NRC Re Violations Noted in IE Insp Repts 50-010/76-02,50-237/76-01 & 50-249/76-01. Corrective Actions:Procedure Change Made to Establish Min Startup Checklist DGP-1-S

ML19340A650
Person / Time
Site:	Dresden
Issue date:	03/26/1976
From:	Bolger R COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:	Fiorelli G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
Shared Package
ML19340A651	List: ML19340A650
References
NUDOCS 8009020592
Download: ML19340A650 (3)

Text

(

C:mmonw cith Edison ono First Nitional Ptsrs. Chiergo. filinois Addr:ss Riply tr Post Ollica Box 767 Chicago. Illinois 60690 March 26, 1976

~

Mr. Gaston Fiore.lli, Chief Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137

Subject:

Dresden Station Units 1, 2, and 3 Response to IE Inspection Report Nos.'50-10/76-02, 50-237/76-01 and 50-249/76-01, NRC Docket Nos.

50-10, 50-237, and 50-249

Dear Mr. Fiorelli:

This letter is in response to your letter dated March 5, 1976.

This letter contained the subject IE in-spection reports and referred to items in apparent noncom-pliance with NRC requirements.

Included in Attachment A of this letter are written statements which reply to the specific items requiring a response.

The subject report and this response contain no proprietary information.

Additional questions should be directed to this office.

Very.truly yours, R.

L. Bolger Assistant Vice President

Enclosure:

Attachment A lu R ' 2 - i 80090go Syq

~

Comm:nw::lth Edison NRC Dkte. 50-10 50-237 50-249

' ATTACHMENT A

}

Infraction No. 1:

Failure' to use startup checklist DGP-1-S3 for Unit 1 start-up January 28, 1976..

Discussion:

On January 26,1976, Unit 1 was returned to service following a reactor shutdown.

Two items on the Master Startup Checklist, 1-S3, were to be completed as soon as practicable after startup.

Prior to completing those two items, the reactor was shutdown.

On January 28, 1976 during recovery from this shutdown only the two missing items from the previous checklist were completed.

Corrective Action:

The situation was evaluated and it was concluded that com-pletion of the initial Mastor Startup Checklist documented plant conditions for both startups.

Corrective Action to Avoid Recurrence:

To provent recurrence, a proceduro change has been made to establish a !!inimum Startup Checklist, DGP l-S2.

This checklist covers Technical Specification startup requirements and checklist l-S3 can be used at.the Operating Engineer's discretion.

Date of Full Compliance:

The corrective actions described in this reply have been completed as of the date of this letter.

DeficiencV No. 1:

Lack of documentation for Unit 1 core spray surveillance test.

Discussion:

A review of plant status was'h' eld prior to startup of Unit 1 and the completed core spray surveillance test was available at that time.

e 9

e

,,y

Crmmonwnith Edis:n Corrective Action ~and Action to Avoid Recurrence:

Since the surveillance testing was satisfactorily completed, no further immediate corrective action was taken except to locate the documentatio.n.

A memoranda will be placed in the surveillance file indicating the test was completed but the documentation was lost.

To avoid recurrence, the individuals involved have been made aware of the importance of maintaining surveillance documentation.

Date of Full Compliance:

The corrective -actions described in this reply are completed as of the date of this letter.

Deficiency No. 2:

Use of unapproved procedure for Unit 1 CRD testing setup.

Discussion.

The procedure used to document the setup of instrumentation for the friction and scram time testing of Control Rod C-3, which did not shcw evidence of having been reviewed by the onsite review function, was taken from the CRD testing file.

This unapproved procedure was identical to an approved version of the procedure.

j Corrective Action:

I Copies of unapproved procedures for documenting the sd:up of the friction and scram time testing have been discarded.

Since the unapproved copy was identical to the approved procedure, the test setup and results are considered acceptable.

i Corrective Action to Avoid Recurrence:

l A procedure revision has been initiated for 300-S-VI, i

" Control Rod Drive Scram Test" and 300-S-III, " Control Rod Friction Test" to require use of approved procedure 38-300-S-IV,"CRD Friction and Scram Test Calibration and Equipment Setup" for documenting the i

setup of instrumentation for both tests.

l l

Date of Full Compliance:

Full compliance was achieved when the unapproved copics of the procedure were discarded.

i i

m

.