IR 05000346/1975006
| ML19319B561 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 05/13/1975 |
| From: | Kister H, Knop R, Martin R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19319B553 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-346-75-06, 50-346-75-6, NUDOCS 8001270091 | |
| Download: ML19319B561 (9) | |
Text
. - -.
. _ _
.
.
-
.
-
-.
-
..
..
...
- - - -
.-
'
O
'
.
,
u U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF, INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
i Report of Operations Inspection
IE Inspection Report No. 050-346/75-06
,
)
Licensee:
Toledo Edison Company i
Edison Plaza
'
300 Madison Avenue Toledo, Ohio 43652 i
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License No. CPPR-80 Unit 1 Cat' gory: B Oak Harbor, Ohio
-
Type of Licensee:
PWR (B&W) - 906 Mwe Type of Inspection:
Routine, Announced Dates of Inspection:
April 24 and 25, 1975
Dates of Previous Inspection:
March 12-14, 1975 I
(Operations)
i
/
-
l Principal Inspector:
R. 'D. Martin kl M f/' k.;'
(Date)
S5G- 0
-
l Accompanying Inspectors: H. B. Kister d~-/.i' '76
!
(Date)
l
]
R. C. Knop i
i I
j Other Accompanying Personnel:
None,
Reviewed By:
R. C. Knop
'
!
Senior Reactor Inspector (Date)
!
Reactor Operations Branch
!
80012V) 89[
'
,
h
..... -.... -
.
, _ -,
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.., - _.
_. _ _
-=..- _ _.._--. -....,_ --__-,_ ---_-._ =-__.,._ _.
. - - - - -
.. - -.
-
__-
'.
__ _.
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
-
{
'
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
.s Enforcement Action
A.
Items of Noncompliance No items of noncompliance with NRC requirements were 1*entified
,
i during the inspection.
,
,
B.
Deviations No deviations from commitments made to the NRC were identified during the inspection.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters Not Applicabic.
Design Chances Not Applicable.
Unusual Occurrences No unusual occurrences were identified.
Other Significant Findings
.
A.
Current Findings 1.
No preoperational tests have been conducted since the inspection covered in OIE Inspection Report 050-346/75-05.
The preoperational a
testing of portions of three electrical subsystems may occur during the next two month period.
2.
The revisions to the Toledo Edison Quality Assurance Manual to make it appropriate for the QA aspects of station operation is approximately 50% completed.
This degree of completion also applies to those Quality Assurance Procedures which address station-operation activities.
The licensee believes the majority of this work may be completed within two months.
,
i
!
- 2-
.
-,, -
- - ~ ~
- - - - - -
-
- ~, -
- -, - -,.,
--n.
,
r
. _. _
.
_
_
_
_ _ _
/
s f
s-B.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items
..
1.
Inspection Report No. 050-346/75-05 summarized certain unresolved aspects of classifications assigned to certain tests to be
'
conducted by the licensee.
Some clarification of these issues
was made during this inspection (Paragraph 3).
2.
Inspection Report No. 050-346/74-09, in the Management Interview portion indicated that the licensee would inform the inspectors
.
of when the Company Nuclear Review Board (CNRB) would start holding its meetings as committed to by the licensee in the FSAR for the facility.
The first meeting was held on April 24
!
while the inspectors were at the site.
Management Interview
.
.
L.
The following persons attended the management interview at the conclusion of the inspection:
Toledo Edison Company I
i J. Evans, Station Superintendent j
J. Lenardson, QA Manager
'T.
Murray, Operation Engineer
L. Stalter, Technical Engineer W. Green, Assistant to the Superintendent K. Cantrell, Operations Quality Assurance Engineer
,
E. Novak, General Superintendent - Power Engineering and Construction
!
Babcock and Wilcox Company
?
E. Michaud, Test Progrdo Manager B.
Matters discussed and comments were as follows:
1.
The inspectors stated that they had conducted a preliminary review of draft copies of Start-up Administrative Procedures No. I and 7 and had provided some preliminary comments to staff members of the licensee.
2.
The inspectors stated that draft copies of the Administrative i
Procedures dealing with maintenance and safety tagging (AD 1844.0C and AD 1803.00) had been pcovided to them by the licensee for preliminary review.
The inspectors informed the
!
~->
,
-3-i
.
.-
--.,-
.
.
.-
- -
-
. -
._ _
_
.
.
.. _.
-
.
-
- .
H
-
-
.
i
'
-
.
licensee that th[ir consente would be provided to the licensee at a later date.
.
3.
The inspectors informed the licensee that certain issues regarding the classification of test procedures which were previously unresolved had been clarified (Paragraph 3).
'
4.
The inspectors informed the licensee that certain comments on
-
test procedure TP 0201.03.0 had been provided to members of his staff.
.
5.
The licensee was informed that procedural controls will have j
to be established to assure that whenever results of a pre-operational test do not meet the acceptance criteria for that test, any decision to declare such results acceptable must undergo an engineering review equivalent to that performed when the original acceptance criteria was established.
The licensee agreed to consider this recommendation.
6.
The inspectors informed the licensee of their congern ov,er the housekeeping conditions in the plant, especially in creas where equipment is in the process of or has completed its testing.
(/)
The licensee acknowledged the coc: ment and indicated their intention s,
to try to keep this problem under control.
m 7.
The inspectors noted that the station staff had brought them up
to date on the licensee's status of and plans for preoperational testing.
8.
The inspector stated that, based on discussions with site personnel
and a review of control procedures, further controls would be required to ensure that tested electrical circuits would not be disturbed without formal subsequent testing.
Specifically, the inspector stated that where construction
I work is being done in the same panels where previously tested
circuits are located, additional controls to preclude unauthorized j
l circuit changes should be provided.
Additionally, field design changes to be implemented for previously tested circuits should be controlled to ensure that
,
]
additional adequate, documented preoperational tests are performed.
l The licensee stated that the matter would be reviewed.
1
]
)
- 4,-
.
. -
__
.-
.
-
-
..
. -. - -
_ -. - _.
_._
_..
_
. __ __
_ _._
_ _.
..
. _. _. _
_
__
.
.
<
.
i j
9.
The inspector stated that based on discussions with site personnel the master drawing index is not being used to ensure that the i
latest drawing revision is being used to formulate the test.
j j
In addition the licensee does not have a system ta ensure that drawing revisions, made subsequent to the preoperational test
'
being approved, are factored into the testing program at the time of the test.
1 10.
The inspector noted that the licensee used many different titles to describe safety related work activities.
Titles are used such
as " Nuclear Safety Related" " quality affecting activities"
and " safety related".
It was not clear that these titles ccant i
the same thing to all parties, since there were no con =on I
definitions.
The licensee stated that relative definitions would be made i
j and incorporated into applicable documents.
<
i e
l
i
.
.
,
f
!
!
i a
I
'
i
.
,_ /
,
'
- 5-
,
-
- -,, -.,,
-e
,
.w.-,ww.,-,,.,.,,,,,_m
,,4
-,en.,
-.-,r.e.-s-.
,,_..-w.
_ - _. _,
,,.7,,..
-,,,
.-,---.-...,-,,,,---,e--.-,g,,=w,.
_w,,,,vw.,.n,s.--
-
.. _ -.
.
-
-.
..-
.-
l
.
.
.
!
-
.
%
REPORT DETAILS i
..
Persons Contacted
"
'
.
The following persons, in addition to those listed under the Management Interview section of this report, were contacted during this inspection:
Toledo Edison Company a
d W. Mills, Chemical Engineer
'
D. Dean, Office Supervisor
B. Beycr, Maintenance Engineer Results of Inspection
_
1.
Facility Toup
The inspector conducted a tour of the facility and the following observations are considered noteworthy:
a.
The lake water pretreatment system was in operation.
The make-up water treatment system was being put into operation.
The inspectors observed that the state of housekeeping in the water treatment plant had deteriorated substantially since their last
'
visit. The licensee was informed of this observation during the management interview at the conclusion of the inspection.
The i
licensee indicated to the inspectors that one of the difficulties
encountered when attempting to place the make-up system demin-eralizers in service was an inadequate air supply for operation
of the system air operated valves.
Revisions to the water trect-ment plant air system caused a delay in placing the water systems
'
in service.
.
b.
The screen wash pump motors have been returned to the manufacturer for installation of the correct temperature sensing element in
j theirwindings.
c.
The service water pump motors will have to be cleaned because of
,
~
the presence of metal chips in the bearing lubrication systems.
A similar difficulty was encountered with the turbine plant cooling water system pump motors.
d.
Work was in progress to prepare for the cleaning of the condenser.
i
'
i
,
t-6-
'
.
!
.
,
I
_. - -,__,
_
..,..
,
c..,
_. -. _ _,,, _
.-.n-.,,_
-,m.___,____-__
_ _.., _ _ - - _. _ _,
. -. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _,.. _ _ _ _,,. ~ _.
__
.
.
.
\\
s_-
e.
The air blows of the mains for the plant and instrument air systems have been completed.
The blows of the branch lines will be conducted as testing of the systems utilizing those branch lines progresses.
f.
The reactor coolant pump motors have been moved into containment from their storage area.
'
g.
The cooling coils for the containment air coolers have been set
'
in place.
.
I h.
The plant computer hardware and software verification runs are in progress and almost cc pleted.
The verification testing of
inputs of the computer is now underway.
2.
Status of Testing Program
.
The licensee provided the insnectors with a summary of the testing conducted to date, and their projection of the testing to occur over the next two months.
Some of this information is sumr.arized below:
Test procedures have been implemented to some degree.
Tests are completed.
Tests have been partially completed.
[
h
Tests (including partially complete tests) are undergoing
\\s, /
results analysis.
'
Test procedure results are partially approved.
Test is completed and approved.
Of the ten tests involved above, four are preoperational tests (using the licensee's distinction between preoperational and
'
acceptance tests).
These preoperational tests were discussed in OIE Inspection Report 050-346/75-05.
No additional preoperational tests have been conducted since the time of that report.
.
With regard to the testing to be undertaken over the next twc months,
.
there are 12 acceptance tests expected, and three preoperational tests.
The preoperational tests are electrical system tests:
'
'
TP 401.09 Instrument AC Pre-op Test
.
TP 401.08 250/125 VDC System Pre-op Test TP 401.07 480 Volt MCC Pre-op Test Possible dates for these tests are mid to late May, except for TP 401.08 which is indeterminate due to the need to resolve certain battery charger problems.
m-7-i I
__
,
.__ -- _.
-
-.
.
.
.
'
\\
)
Discussions were held with the licensee relative to matters such as cleanliness control, maintenance, and the protection of tested equipment and systems.' With regard to the latter point, the licensee indicated that they had not yet selected a method which would clearly identify circuits (as in electrical panels) of systems which had been preoperationally tested and approved. This clear circuit identification is necessary to prevent inadvertent circuit changes when construction, maintenance, or testing activities are in progress on other circuits in the same panels.
.
3.
Test Procedures and Classification Review The inspectors provided the licensee with a series of comments on:
TP 0201.03.0 " Core Flooding System Functional Test"
~
The licensee noted the comments and indicated that they would be considered during the next revision of the procedure.
The major comments on this procedure relate to the fact that the procedure does not measure the rate at which the tank drains and is not con-sistent with regard to the acceptance criteria for valve leakage rates.
j Report No. 050-346/75-05 su=marized a series of comments relative to the classificat, ions being assigned to certain test procedures.
The following information was given to the licensee during this inspection:
~~/
a.
Based on further review by the inspectors, the inspectors no longer have any questions with respect to the present test
,
'
classifications assigned to the testing of the facility ventilation systens.
b.
The test classifications assigned to the liquid and solid waste disposal system tests will be resolved with the licensee by inspectors from the Radiological and Environmental Protection Branch during one of their inspections of the facility.
c.
The inspectors have insufficient information on the cooling system to be installed on the vesse: service structure.
Resolution of the test classification assigned this system will be deferred until further information is available.
Discussions were held with representatives of the licensee as to the manner in which deviations of test results from the acceptance criteria of a test procedure would be handled.
It was found that in the event such a deviation were to occur, the review of both the test results b)
\\~-
-8-r
. -.,
--
-
. _...,-.-- --. - - -
., -, -
...
..,. -..
-.,,
-
.
....-
- -.
.
.
'.
(O!
\\s /
and the acceptance criteria which could result in judging such test results acceptable would not necessarily include a review by those parties who participated in establishing and reviewing the original test procedure and acceptance criteria.
The licensee was informed that appropriate administrative controls should be developed to ensure that such parties, or parties providing equivalent engineering skills, will participate in any reviews which will result in accepting
'-
test results which deviate from the acceptance criteria in a test procedure.
.
4.
Operations Quality Assurance Activities The inspectors then reviewed the activities of the Operations Quality Assurance staff since the last inspection.
The inspectors were informed that an additional Quality Assurance Engineer had been added to the staff and is currently in training.
It is expected that his training will occupy him for the next few months.
No audits of operations activities have been conducted since the last inspection.
The Operations Quality Assurance staff primarily have been involved with system turnover package review, purchase order review, and plant administrative procedure review.
The inspectors briefly reviewed the nature of the review given administrative procedures by the QA staff and noted several instances of variations
-[s]
in terms used, both by the station operating and QA staffs, to describe
\\s_/
activities which require involvement by QA.
The licensee was informed
'
that it will be necessary for them to clearly identify those activities which constitute safety related activities requiring involvement by QA, and that other related terminology in use at the station will have to be adequately defined to climinate confusion.
,
5.
Administrative Controls The inspectors reviewed drafts of Startup Administrative Procedures No.
1, Revision 2 and No. 7 Revision 0.
Preliminary comments were provided to the licensee for consideration.
Final review of the above procedures will be conducted when they are in the approved form.
The inspectors reviewed draft copies of Administrative Procedure AD 1844.00 on Maintenance and AD 1803.00 on Safety Tagging for preliminary review and comments.
Comments will be provided at a later date.
Iv
_9_
.