IR 05000346/1974006
| ML19329B029 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 09/23/1974 |
| From: | Knop R, Martin R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19329B026 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-346-74-06, 50-346-74-6, NUDOCS 8001290741 | |
| Download: ML19329B029 (6) | |
Text
.
.
,.
_
_..
_
_
_ - _ _
..
.
()
.
O U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION DIRECTORATE OF REGULATORY OPERATIONS
_
REGION III
Report of Operations Inspection RO Inspection Report No. 050-346/74-06
'
.
!
Licensee:
Toledo Edison Company Edison Plaza 300 Madison Avenue
Toledo, Ohio 43652 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License No. CPPR-80 Unit 1 Category: A Oak Harbor, Ohio
Type of Licensee:
PWR (B&W) - 872 MWe Type of Inspection:
Announced, Routine
.
'
Dates of Inspection:
September 3 and 4, 1974 i
j Dates of Previous Inspection: July 17 and 18, 1974 (Construction)
W/h$
f-23 Jy
'
Principal Inspector:
R. D. Martin
,
(Date)
Te 4 Accompanying Inspector:
R. 'C. Knop
~ 2 3 '7
(Date)
Other Accompanying Personnel: None
~
Reviewed By:
R. C. Knop
~
(Date)
Senior Inspector Reactor Operations Branch i
e
I
\\%
l 8 0 012$0 h i
,_..
--s_
-
,,
o e
m
)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
.
Enforcement Action A.
Violations No violations of AEC requirements were identified during the inspection.
B.
Safety Matters
,
No safety matters were identified during the inspection.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters Not applicable.
Design Changes Not applicable.
Unusual Occurrences No unusual occurrences were identified.
N g
Other Significant Findings d
A.
The licensee informed the inspectors that the company had announced a four month construction delay for the unit.
Fuel loading is now projected for January 1976, with commercial operation scheduled for June, 1976.
B.
The station has completed and approved approximately 30% of the station procedures with another 30% in various stages of formulation and/or review.
Management Interview A.
The following persons attended the management interview at the conclusion of the inspection:
Toledo' Edison Company J. Evans, Station Superintendent T. Murray, Operations Engineer L. Stalter, Technical Engineer W. Green, Assistant to Station Superintendent J. Orkins, Instrument and Control Engineer
,
j/"'N-2-
'
\\v!
.
g empapa
.
[*g
,/
}
B. Beyer, Maintenance / Start-up Engineer
\\s_,/
K. Cantrell, Quality Assurance Engineer ~
D. Dibert, Assistant Engineer and Secretary, Station Review Board D. Briden, Chemist and Health Physicist B.
Matters discussed and comments were ao follows:
1.
The inspectors discussed the general conduct of operations inspections.
This included a discussion of the entrance meeting, the performance of the inspection, and the exit interview.
The point was made that a corporate management representative other than the Station Superintendent is not required at the exit interview unless a major problem developes.
The Station Superintendent requested that all personnel contacts be made through him or, in his absence, the Operations Engineer.
2.
The Station Superintenderst stated that he would initiate a review of startup testing procedures for conformance with Regulatory Guide 1.68 in view of inspectors comments, and to perform any revisions indicated by that review.
3.
The inspectors requested that the licensee provide a method for controlling the use of blank spaces in procedures which are to be filled in later. The Superintendent stated that a f'~'S control system will be provided.
'--
4.
The inspectors noted their understanding that it was the intent of the licensee to initiate a review of each test procedure three weeks prior to the conduct of that test.
The Superintendent indicated that such was their intert.
5.
The Superintendent indicated that'a method for identifying those procedures for which Station Review Board (SRB) approval was not required would be developed.
6.
The inspectors stated that a clarification of Safety Guide 1.68 requirements for preoperational tests of Radioactive waste systems and Reactor Protection system timing would be provided.
.
-3-e'%
,i
.
(v
pe
_
['~ }
REPORT DETAILS (~_ /
_
Persons Contacted The following persons, in addition to individuals listed under the Management Interview Section of this report, were contacted during
the inspection.
,
Toledo Edison Company
,
J. Lin'genfelter, Assistant Engineer C. Greer, A/A specialist M. Deriven, Shift Foreman
.
Bechtel Start-up M. Parenteau, Lead Start-up Engineer T. Reddaway, Start-up Engineer Babcock and Wilcox E. Michaud, Test Program Manager i
l A. Mercado, Test Program Scheduler
,
Results of Inspection 1.
The inspectors discussed Regulatory Guide 1.68 noting to the licensee
'
that the content of that guide represents a minimum program and that any safety related systems not specified in the guide must still be tested. Moreover, any tests deferred until after fuel loading must be identified and justified, and the test schedule specified.
J The inspectors indicated that there should be implementing procedures coveri.ng test procedure preparation, review, approval, and require-
,
ments for the performance of tests.
The licensee indicated that these are covered in 1801 series of procedures which are being finalized at present time. Inspectors noted that these would be reviewed and that copies should be made available to the inspectors.
The licensee was informed that any deviation and/or change from FSAR and R,egulatory Guide 1.68 must be resolved with Directorate of Licensing.. Licensee acknowledged this requirement.
.
_4_
b
\\N._
/
-
g--
. - - - -
_
_ _, _
.
.
2.
The licensee presented a review of the status of procedure f-s development for the facility. Approximately 30% of required
, (
)
procedures are approved with another 30% in various stages of
\\/
development.
The licensee described the method used to develop procedures including information inputs from B&W and Bechtel.
The inspectors noted that this procedure development method would be reviewed in greater detail during a subsequent inspection.
3.
The licensee presented a discussion of the status of staffing and training for the facility.
He reviewed the additional training to be received by the facility staff beyond that shown on Figure 13-6 of the FSAR. He indicated that a revision to Figure 13-6 is planned. He produced memoranda between TE Company and OLB (DL)
establishing an understanding of the training to be completed for staff members to be eligible for license examinations prior to fuel loading.
The licensee was informed that the status of staff training will be reviewed by the inspectors in the near future.
4.
The licensee presented a discussion of the status of the pre-operational testing schedule for the plant which is under development. The first tests which are related to switchyard equipment are tentatively scheduled for October 1974. The licensee was informed that, at a subsequent inspection, he would be informed of those tests which the principal inspector may wish to witness.
5.
The inspectors presented their comments on selected procedures
[)\\
reviewed for format against the requirements of ANSI 18.7,
,
(
Regulatory Guide 1.68, the commitments in Chapters 13 and 14 of
_,
the FSAR. The selected procedures commented upon included.
SP 1107.05 IC 2000.02 ST 5002.01 AD 1823.00 ST 5038.02 CH 4053.0 ST 5093.01 LI 4748.00 PT 5179.02 HP 1602.01 MP 1504.04 TP 0310.01 MP 1401.07 The licensee noted our comments and stated they will review them.
6.
The licensee discussed the status of the plant and noted the publication of a four month slip in schedule. This places fuel loading in January 1976 with the estimate for commercial operation at June 1976'. He expects the testing of safety related subsystems to b,egin in the winter of 1975.
-5-
-
O t
>
s~ /
.
e--
_
,
-
_, -,
__... ~
_._. _ _ _.. _. _..
_ _
_ __ _
_.. _
. _. _... _ -
_. _ _ _.._ _. ____._..__ __._,__ __.
'
-
p.
,
<
,
..
e f
i i
7.
The licensee presented a review of the progress and status of the
j environmental monitoring program noting that the,first six month report was hand delivered to DL on August 30, 1974. The licensee was informed that these matters would be the subject of an l-inspection by the REP Branch of Region III.
~
l i
'
,
- I I
k i
,
.
,
!
!
!
.
I I
!
!
)
'
l
,
.
,
.
!
i F
l
.
>
!
-
}
i-
i i
i
$
l
-
l
'
'
b l
l
.
'
e-6-
.
y sm
.
- =r*h--
-%-
J w- -
, _ _ _, _
__y y
,_g..w.,
,,,,
,,,, _*
_
_
_ _ _ _
8