IR 05000346/1975017
| ML19319B501 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 10/10/1975 |
| From: | Knop R, Martin R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19319B452 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-346-75-17, NUDOCS 8001220913 | |
| Download: ML19319B501 (11) | |
Text
_-.
_
. _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _
.-
.
.
'
S
.-
,
,
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Repor of Operations Inspection IE Inspection Report No. 050-346/75-17 Licensee: Toledo Edison Company Edison Plaza
{
300 Madison Avenue
'
Toledo, Ohio 43652
~
'
Davis-Besse Unit 1 License No. CPPR-80 Oak Harbor, Ohio Category:
B Type of Licensee:
-
Type of Inspection:
1 Routine, Announced j
Dates of Inspection:
September 9, 10, 11, and 23, 1975 Principal Inspector:
R. Martin
-
h'd g
/o/9/7I
'
g
,
(Date)
Accompanying Inspector:
R. Knop
/0
September 23, 1975 only (Date)
Other Accompanying Personnel:
None J
of C Reviewed By:
R. Knop, Senior Reactor Inspector
/#/
!
Projects Unit 1 (Date)
.
O 8001ggg
r-
.
. _ -.
...
.
.
..
E
.
%
,.
A
,
.
l v
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
.
Inspection Summary Inspection on September 9-11 and 23, (75-17):
Review of preoperational test program status and station staffing qualifications, review of quality assurance activities relative to preoperational and startup testing. Two items of noncompliance identified.
Enforcement Action The following items of noncompliance were found during the inspection:
A.
Infractions l
Contrary to Criteria 2 and 18 of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 and
-
Toledo Edison Quality Assurance Procedure (QAP) 1030, personnel conducting certain QA activities did not receive the training
necessary for and/or statement of certification authorizing those activities..
This infraction had the potential for causing or contributing to an occurrence with safety significance.
B.
Deficiencies Contra y to Criterion 14 of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 and QAP 2081, Tempori.;y jumper tags which did not conform to administrative procedure AD 1823.0 were installed on cables.
This item is a deficiency.
Licensee Action en Previously Identified Enforcement Items Not within scope of this inspection.
Other Significant Items A.
Systems and Components Reactor Coolant Pump assembly and installation in progress.
Station personnel preparing to place turbine on turning gear.
Fuel handling cranes being assembled.
2-
-
50-346/75-14 indicated that additional information on the qualifications of the staff engineer with core physics responsibilities would be available for review to compare against the requirements of ANSI 18.1.
This review was conducted during the inspection, and this matter is considered resolved.
9.
Inspection Report No. 050-346/75-12 noted the inspector's conclusion that an inadequate review of the significance of the elevated section of suction piping in the decay heat system had been conducted.
Further discussions were conducted with the station staff regarding:
'
a.
Precautionary comments and corrective measures to be inserted in system operating procedures, G-4-ks__J
.
'
.
-
fr ~4
'
/
(,j b.
additional preoperational test details, and, c.
revisions to the levels to which the RCS must be drained during maintenance.
As a consequence of these discussions, the inspector considers this matter resolved.
10.
Inspection Report No. 050-346/75-12 indicated that the inspector would review the revision to the AD 1801 series of procedures which was to include a provision for reverit'ying peroperational test prerequisites whenever a test was delayed more than 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br />. This review was conducted during this inspection and this matter is considered resolved.
11.
Inspection Report No. 050-346/74-06 indicated that the licensee would provide procedural controls to assure that whenever results
-
of a preoperational test do not meet the acceptance criteria for that test, any decision to declare auch results acceptable must undergo an engineering review equivalent to that performed when the original acceptance criteria was 2stablished.
The inspector reviewed revision 4 to AD 1801.00 which calls for appropriate review by TECO Power Enginaering of all preoperational test documentation.
The inspector considers this matter resolved.
fy
-
(v)
Management Interview A.
The following persons attended the management interview at the conclusion of the inspection:
J. Evans, Station Superintendent J. Lenardson, Manager, QA T. Murray, Operations Engineer L. Stalter, Technical Engineer E. Michaud, Test Program Manager (B&W)
B. Beyer, Maintenance Engineer D. Briden, Che'ist and Health Physicist m
J. Orkins, Instrument Engineer L. Grime, Inspection Engineer P. Narducci, QA St6ff Member J. Buck, QA Staff Member J. Lingenfelter, Assistant Engineer
-
W. Green, Assistant to Station Superintendent C. Lietzow, Heavy Maintenance Superintendent
-$-
n
[
i
%.)
I
.
..
.
'
S
-
,
,
.
D
'
)
B.
Matters discussed and comments were as follows:
.
1.
The inspector indicated that he had received a status report from the Test Program Manager on the status of the preoperational test program and the present expected schedule for significant milestones in that program.
2.
The inspector reviewed his tour of selected areas of the facility.
During that tour it was noted that a temporary jumper tag was installed which was not in conformance with AD 1823.
The licensee was informed that this was contrary to criteria 14 of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 and QAP 2081 and is an item of noncompliance.
3.'
The inspector indicated he had revieven the status of selected test procedures and no significant deficiencies were noted.
_
4.
The inspector summarized his review of the surveillance records on the safety related equipment (primarily batteries) which have been turned over to operations and no deficiencies were noted.
5.
The inspector summ:-ized the status of selected portions of previously unresolved 16:=s.
6.
The inspector indicated that selected activities by the QA staff
/)
were reviewed which included audits conducted by them and their kV participation in preoperational testing.
Two examples of one item of noncompliance were noted.
Contrary to Criteria 2.and 18 of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, and QAP 1030, personnel conducting certain QA activities did not receive the training and/or statement of certification authorizing them to perform certain QA related tasks:
a.
The individual signing off the witness point in TP 401.08 had no training in his duties nor was he certified as being qualified to perform such duties.
b.
The personnel conducting audit No. 368 and No. 371 are not certified as authorized auditors.
7.
The inspector indicated that certain activities were found to be deviations from e mmitments made to the commission.
Contrary to the implementation schedule shown in Table 17.5 of the FSAR:
-6-
.
O
.
O b
_
.
.
-.-
.-
.-.
. -. -
- _.. _ -
. _ _.
-.
.
_ _ _.
-_
__
-
,
-
.-
.
,
s
,
.
i-
!.
l a.
QAP 2151 on NCR's is not being implemented because it was issued and approved without exhibits A and B in. existence.
'
.This failure to follow QAP 2151 is further documented by the Audit (No. 369) conducted by QA on the operations staff.
b.
The implementation of the 5000 series of QAP's is not in accord with that schedule.
..
$
e-G
$
7-
-
.
h
!
_ -.
j
-
.
'
s
.,
,
,
p k_,)
REPORT DETAILS
.
Persons Contacted The following persons, in addition to those listed under the Management Interview section of this report, were contacted during this inspection:
R. Adney, Shift Foreman S. Hall, Shift Foreman L. Simon, Shift Foreman R. Jadgchew, Assistant Engineer R. Parker, QA Staff Member
.
R. Franklin, Training Coordinator D. Dean, Office Supervisor Results of Inspection
-
1.
Status of Test Program The inspector received a status report on the preoperational test program.
Since the last operations inspection, portions of one preoperational test (TP 401.08) were conducted.
The inspector reviewed the test documentation against the AD 1801 series of g
administrative procedures and n'o deficiencies were noted with (
regard to the conduct of the test.
Certain Quality Assurance cepartment related deficiencies are discussed in section 6.b of this report. The inspector was informed that approximately 17 tests can be expected to occur in the near future depending on the resolution of certain component problems.
Among these are included testing of portions of the fire protegtion system, the service water system, and the instrument AC system.
The inspector was informed that the collated test and construction schedule for the project will be available in the immediate future and that a copy of this schedule would be made available for his information.
2.
Facility Tour The inspector conducted a tour of the facility and the following
-
items are considered noteworthy:
a.
Installation and assembly of reactor coolant pumps and motors is progressing.
-8-D'\\
\\v)
.m
__
___
'
m
.
,
,
,
b.
Fuel handling bridges in containment and in the spent fuel
,
area are being assembled..
.
c.
Checking of the bearings on the turbine were in progress prior to placing the turbine on turning gear.
l d.
Preparations were underway to conduct rhe alkaline soak of the condenser.
,
e.
The circulating water pumps and motors were being checked out and coupled.
l During the tour, the inspector noted a jumper tag in the start up system 17B annunciator cabinet in the control room.
This is a turned-
'.
over system. The tag was dated July 27, 1975, and was not in accordance with AD 1823.0, the administrative procedure controlling jumpers and lif ted wires.
The licensee was informed that this was
'
an item of noncompliance.
Before the conclusion of the inspection the licensee informed the inspector that the improper tag was replaced and the personnel involved, including their supervision, were informed of the necessity of adherence to AD 1823.0.
'
3.
Review of Test Procedures g
The inspector reviewed the Test Procedure Master File to establish e
the, status of 100 selected Test Procedures.
The results were as (s
,
follows:
No. Recomm.
Procedure Type No.
No. Approved by SRB Acceptance Test
6 NA Preoperational
5
Test Discussions with the station staff indicates a number of the unapproved procedures are in the latter states of review and the inspector concluded that test procedure development appears consistent with the rate of turnover of safety related systems.
The inspector reiterated his suggestion that draft copies of test procedures be provided to him at the earliest possible time for review.
He noted an increase i
in the rate of procedure submittal in recent weeks by the station staff.
!
-9-
.s
,
,
.
,,
-
,
,
- - -
-
,
-.., -
.-,,---
c
-
.
. _.
-m
,
,
.
I'm 4.
Surveillance, Activities b}
The inspector reviewed the surveillance activities of the station on the several safety related batteries in the station including records of surveillance tests, test deficiency reports and report processing, and the performance of the tests by station personnel.
No significant deficiencies were noted.
,
5.
Status of Unresolved Items The inspector reviewed that status of a number of previously identified unresolved items.
The details of these have already been summarized in the " Summary of Findings" section of this report.
6.
QA Department Activities
.
,
a.
Audit Activities
'
'
The inspector reviewed Audits 368, 369, 370 and 371, conducted by QA personnel on operations related activities.
A review of these audits and other department records and discussions with representatives of the licensee disclosed the following:
(1)
The personnel conducting audits 368 and 371 do not have in their training records, or elsewhere for review by the g
inspector, evidence of a statement of certification indicating
/
his qualifications to conduct such audits.
This is an item of noncompliance which is contrary to Criteria 2 and 18 of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 and QAP 1030.
(2) Audit 369 treated the subject of Nonconforrance Reporting (NCR's) as required by QAP 2151 and noted that an alternate method of generating NCR's is being utilized because QAr 2151, while approved, is incomplete and therefore cannot be implemented.
This is a deviation from commitments made to the Commission in Table 17-5 of the FSAR.
.
b.
Preoperational Test Surveillance Test Procedure Test Procedure (TP) 401.08 had 2 QA witness points in that portion of the test which was recently completed.
Review of the activities of the QA personnel relative to this test
'
disclosed tht following:
- 10 -
i
'
.
.
_
c
._.
.-
a
C
.
.
.
m
.
c
_
.
[
\\
(1)
The individual who signed off the QA witness points had not (s_ l received training in his duties relative to this test activity and no statement of certification of his qualifications was available for review by the inspector.
This is another example of an item of noncompliance which is contrary to criterion 2 and 18 of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 and QAP 1030.
(2) The licensee agreed to provide his staff with further instruc-tions regarding the use and completion of witness points since, at this facility, a witness point does not require halting the test until the witness point is signed off.
The inspector will review these instructions as they become available.
c.
QAP Development The inspector reviewed the status of QAP development against the commitments made to the Commission in recent revisions to Table
_
17-5 of the FSAR.
His review disclosed the following:
(1) Table 17-5 indicates the following procedures will be implemented prior to release for operational responsibility of salety related structures, components, and systems.
QAP 5010 Equipment Release QAP 5030 Baseline Inspection
['~'
QAP 5050 Surveillance Test (
QAP 5060 Station operations QAP 5130 Maintenance QAP 5160 Personnel Training QAP 5170 Procurement QAP 5180 Material Control QAP 5200 Station Records Management The inspector noted that none of the above procedures have yet been implemented and this failure to implement represents a deviation from the commitment made to the Commission.
(2) Table 17-5 indicated that procedure QAP 5120 " Environmental Radiological. Monitoring" would be implemented one year prior
,
to fuel loading.
The inspector noted that this procedure has j
not been implemented and, since the fuel loading date currently l
projected is understood to be June, 1976, this failure to implement this procedure is another example of the deviation from the commitment made to the Commission.
- 11 -
O s__ /
,
l.
-
.
-)