IR 05000346/1976001
| ML19317F636 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 02/13/1976 |
| From: | Feierabend C, Knop R, Martin R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19317F628 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-346-76-01, 50-346-76-1, NUDOCS 8001220921 | |
| Download: ML19317F636 (9) | |
Text
.. _
._ __
_
_ _.
-
_ _ _. _
_
_
' 91
- .O
-
O-V UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-
0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND. ENFORCEMENT
'
REGION III
}
Report Of Operations Inspection i
t
'
IE~ Inspection Report No. 050-346/76-01 Licensee:
Toledo Edison Company
.
Edison Plaza 300 Madison Avenue
Toledo, Ohio 43652 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License No. CPPR-80 Oak Harbor, Ohio Category:
B Type of Licensee.:
Type of Inspection:
Routine, Announced Dates of Inspection:
January 27 and 28, 1976
,
/'
}
r ?, a p
'
00f f(1i l
,/..$ -
Principal Inspector:
R. D. Martin 8//4/ /6
/ (D' ate)
.
$L' '$u,, p f... e
.,,
'
Accompanying Inspector:
C. Feierabend-
~/. ' N. t (Date)
!
Other Accompanying Personnel:
None v
/[( ' 'Fl e~'
'
~ j*,g/y~,
Reviewed By:
R. C. Knop, Section Lead r r
'
{
Projects Unit 1 (Date)
j h
j 80 0.1220 h
.
-'
---ev-
-
--,.y-ws,
_,,,
7._,
%,,___g
,,
,,,p
,.,n
,,,,_,._,4,,n
.,,,,.,_.._,,-,,,,,_,_,,,,9
_9,
__,,,9,
,,y,
,,,,,
yp,
--.,m,.
-
.
-
.
-
-.
.
L
-
!
m
,
,
.
I-
\\
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (
)
.
,
%/
1
-
Inspection Summary i
.
Inspection on January 27-28, (76-01) : Review-of preoperational test program and preoperational test procedure development; review of
,
I selected test and administrative procedures; review of activities of staff of Manager of Quality Assurance relative to preoperational testing.
Enforcement Action No items of noncompliance with NRC requirements were identffied during
,
j this inspection.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Items
'
Inspeerion Report No. 050-346/75-22 (pages 2 and 11)
The above report indicated that the follow-up action on a previous item of noncompliance regarding the issuance of approved Witness / Hold Point instructions to QC personnel was incomplete.
During this inspec-
,
i tion, the inspector reviewed an approved copy (Revision 0) to QCI 3100
'
"Use of QC Witness / Hold Points." This matter is considered resolved.
Other Significant Findings g
A.
Systems and Components
~
>
None identified during this inspection.
,
B.
Facility Items (Plans and Procedures)
i None identified during this inspection.
C.
Managerial Items i
None identified during this inspection.
D.
Noncompliance Identified and Corrected by Licensee I
None ideatified during this inspection.
.
!
'
E.
Deviations i
None identified during this inspection.
,
+
t
. \\
e e
- b
.
.
[
v g-',
,,s,-
,...,.
m y
.%,...--
_
.,m,.
,
,,_--g,--
., - -.
,-m--
..,,-
.iw..,-
- _ - - _ --- - _-__- - _________
%
\\
F.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items
,
.
Inspection Report No. 050-346/75-06 (page 6)
During the above inspection, the licensee indicated that he would provide a glossary of safety related terms or some other suitable mechanism to assure a uniform understanding among his staff of terms such as " safety related", " nuclear safety related", ASME(QA)", etc.
During this current inspection, the inspector reviewed such a' glossary which, it is under-stood, will be published as a modification to the QA Manual.
This item is considered resolved.
Management Interview
.
A.
The following persons attended the management interview at the conclusion of the inspection.
Toledo Edison Company J. Evans, Station Superintendent J. Lenardson, Manager of Quality Assurance L. Stalter, Technical Engineer D. Briden, Chemist and Health Physicist C)g
'
J. Orkins, Instrument Engineer B. Beyer, Maintenance Engineer L. Grime, Inspection Engineer J. Lingenfelter, Senior Assistant Engineer W. Green, Assistant to Station Superintendent K. Cantrell, Operations Quality Assurance Engineer J. Buck, Field QA Engineer Babcock and Wilcox Company C. Michaud, Test Program Manager B.
Matters discussed and comments were as follows:
1.
The inspectors informed the licensee that comments on various Test and Administrative Procedures were provided to members of his staff.
2.
The inspectors summarized their review of QA/QC personnel
.
activities.
3.
The inspectors indicated they had received a briefing on the status of tha preoperational test program.
4.
The inspectors summarized their discussions with staff members qN of the licensee regarding the controls to be exercised over
\\,)
the preoperational testing of safety related motor operated valves.
s-3-e c - -
--
.
_ _ _ - - - _ _
s
.
d
\\
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:
Toledo Edison Company T. Murray, Operations Engineer R. Jadschew, Assistant Engineer P. Narducci, Quality Control Engineer C. Greer, Field QA Specialist G. Lammon, Supervising Operator D. Dibert, Assistant Engineer Bechtel Start-up T. Reddaway, Project Start-up Engineer Results of Inspection 1.
Test Procedure Review a.
The inspector informed the licensee that he had reviewed the following approved procedures and that no significant defi-
'
ciencies were noted during the reviews:
TP 120.01 Fuel Handling System Preoperational and
-
Functional Test.
TP 120.02 -
Fuel Handling System Dry Handling and Indexing Test.
TP 120.05
-
Reactor Vessel Head and Internals Handling Test.
TP 180.01 -
Station Fire Protection System Preoperational i
Test.
TP 190.02 -
Contact Data Logger Input Verification-Radiation Inputs.
TP 202.03 Make-up and Purification System Preoperational
-
Test.
,
TP 401.11- -
Instrument System Grounding Preoperational Test.
TP 800.14 -
Turbine / Reactor Trip Test.
{v}
.
-4-
-
a w,
,,
~
--
,
,---,,, _, - -
,,,,n--wewe,
-
..
.
- ___
-
.
-
.
/'~'
TP 2400.41' - Nuclear Instrumentation and Reactor Protection (w)g System Initial Testing Sequence and Scope, TP 800.05 Reactivity Coefficients at Power.
-
b.
The inspector rovided the licensee with comments on the following test procedures which will require revision or other corrective actions:
(1)
TP 130.01.0 - Reactor Service Crane This procedure does not conform to the abstract description in the FSAR (page 14-18a) in that the number of cable wraps remaining on the drum after the crane hook reaches its lower limit is not verified.
(2) TP 200.01.0 - Reactor Internals Vent Valve Removal, Replacement, Exercise, and Inspection Test
,
The inspector noted an apparent conflict between page 4-20c and Question 4.4.3 of the FSAR regarding vent valve opening prae ="rc differentials.
The lack of specific design data on the valves made it impossible for the inspector to verify conformance of the test proce-dure acceptance criteria to FSAR commitments.
The licensee
~s indicated that he would accumulate additional information
)
for the inspector to review at a later date.
(3) TP 203.07 - Low Pressure Injection System SFAS Test The inspector noted that the system response time acceptance criteria established in this procedure does not adequately address the FSAR description of this system.
The FSAR notes a
full flow will be established in twenty-five seconds, but this includes diesel starting times and sequence delays.
The licensee indicated that the issue of system response time measurements is under review, and will tu handled in a special manner.
This procedure is to be revised once the licensee finalizes the method of system response time measurements.
(4) TP 203.08 - BWST Preoperational Test The licensee indicated his intent to revise this proce-dure to include the following verifications:
-5-
-p
!
l
\\
/
%../
O y
g
-
y y
-
-
- =
w
_._ _. _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _.
_ _ - - _ _
_
't
.
~(a)- Operation of valves-DH9A and DH9B on low BWST i
V)
level.
.
(b) Operation of the pressure switch in BWST heater discharge as described in Section 3.6.2.7.2.6 of the FSAR.
(5) TP 600.03 - Boron Concentration Control Test The licensee indicated that he will provide a revision of his procedure to address the following areas:
cific instructions to the operating-i (a) Sufficiently 5-
staff to perr.n.
a determination of when " equilibrium conditions" h.: e been established.
(b) Adequate controls to assure that any changes to the equations of SP 1103.04 " Boron Concentration Control" are appropriately reviewed for correctness.
(6) TP 800.28 - Pseudo Control Rod Ejection Test The licensee.adicate'd that he will establish guidelines which will require an analysis of the pseudo ejected rod worth if the measured wortT is a substantial fraction of the worth described in the FSAR (0.65% A k/k).
This " substantial fraction" will be determined by the licensee and reviewed by the inspector during a subsequent inspection.
(7)
TP 2400.27 - BWST Level to SFAS Preoperational Calibration The licensee indicated that approval of this procedure by the Manager of Quality Assurance or his designee would be obtained prior to implementing the procedure.
(8) TP 2400.40.0 - SFAS Initial Testing Sequence and Scope The licensee agreed to review Attachment No. 2 to this proce-dure because a comparison between Attachraent No. 2 and Tables 7-5A to 7-5F of the FSAR does not indicate where-SA signals No. 232F and 232G.(HV5078'and HV5079)
are verified.
c.
Previous of TP 0310.01(Rev. 2) - SFAS Prooperatio;al Test The inspector reviewed the above approved procedure with a
'
representative of the' licensee.
The licensee demonstrated to-6-k-
.
W4 y
,--w,.,-
,
e,-,+
#,--
-.wyrv
-., -.
__
._
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
%
+
the inspector that the test as written will adequately verify
/}
the operability of the ' logic of the SFAS by utilizing a simulated input signal in one channel and installed " test" (
,y circuits in the logic.
As a further verification during the preoperational test phase, the licensee agreed to consider an additional preoperational test which would redemonstrate the SEAS logic operability utilizing multiple simulated inputs.
(Subsequent to this inspection, the licensee was informed by
. phone on February 2, 1976, that this additional reverification procedure would not be required as a routine surveillance test of the system. The licensee's proposed surveillance test method would be satisfactory to demonstrate compliance of the SFAS with the proposed Technical Specifications).
2.
Administrative Procedure Review The inspector provided the licensee with comments on the following proccdures:
Surveillance and Periodic Test Program AD 1838.00
--
.
AD 1838.01 -- Surveillance and Periodic Test Scheduling AD 1845.00 - Changes, Tests and Experiments The licensee indicated that these procedures were being revised and
'
.that the inspectors comments would be considered.
3.
Preoperational Testing of Motor Operated Valves The inspector discussed the licensee's plans for the preopera-tional testing of motor operated valves with cognizant personnel.
The licensee had not yet tested any safety related valves but had initiated a program to obtain performance data and to verify correctness of torque switch settings.
Licensee personnel indicated that any change in torque switch settings from that recommended by the design documentation would be handled as a nonconformance, and would be evaluated in accordance with procedures for making a set point change.
4.
Administrative Controls The inspector discussed plant procedure matters with the licensee to confirm that the :ontent and scope of the plant procedures system will be adequate to control safety related operations within regu-latory requirements. The licensee noted the inspector's concern that appropriate instructions will exist with respect to operator authority to initiate plant shutdown as well as precautions regard-ing resumption of operation following power reductions and related matters..The licensee indicated that he will select an appropriate G-7-
.
w'.
- .
.....E.
i
.
,
N, means for making the operating staff aware of these matters, g
j The inspector will review these actionc at a later date.
With regard to'the periodic review of procedures, as called for in the proposed Technical Specification, the licensee indicated that a separate Administrative Procedure is under development which will address this matter.
The licensee also indicated that he will initiate action in the near future to reconvene the Company Nuclear Review Board so that they
'
will exercise their responsibilities as outlined in Section 14.1.1.j of the FSAR.
The licensee was informed that any manufacturer instructions or procedures that are used as the basis for establishing the opera-bility of safety related systems or components will have to receive the same review and approval as procedures developed by the licensee.
5.
Preoperational Activities of QA/QC Personnel a.
Personnel Certification:
Inspection Report No. 050-346/75-22 (page 11), noted that a correction to the certification of a QC staff member was required.
During this inspection, the inspector verified the existence of this corrected certification.
s
)
s_
/
b.
Quality Control Instructions (QCI's)
During this inspection, the inspector briefly reviewed the following approved QCI's:
QCI No.
Title Rev.
3010 Stop Work
3020 Qualification and Certification
3021 QC Follow-up Action System
3022 Documentation of Verbal Information
3050 QCI Preoperation and Maintenance
3060 Documentation of Reviews
3061 Control of QCI's
3062 Correspondence Control
3100 Use of QC Witness / Hold Points
3101 General AC Surveillance
3110 QC Verification of Preoperational Testing
3111 QC Verification of Station Surveil-lance and Periodic Testing
.
'q / -
-8-
.,
J k,
_
_______ _ __
- - - - - _
' '
')
'
.
3150 Contrcl of Noncomformance Report
.
3160 Correcttve Action Request
3170 Filing, Storage and Maintenance of QC Records
-
~
No cignificant deficiencies were noted during the review of these instructions.
c.
QA Audit Activities The inepector reviewed Audit No. 384 conducted during November 10-14, 1975, on the Operations, Power Engineering and Purchasing groups.
No significant deficiencies were noted for the conduct of this audit.
The inspector noted the licensee continues to have some difficulty in obtaining Audit Findings Report Replies within the required response time, but the inspector noted an improvement in this area with appropriate follow-up action being taken by the QA staff.
6.
Test Program The in,'ector received a briefing on the status of the test program and the testing activities for safety related systems anticipated during February, 1976.
7.
Facility Tour The inspectors conducted a tour of the facility to observe testing
)
and flushing activities, and the utilization of the safety tagging Ns,,
and jumper /lif ted wire control procedures.
No significant deficiencies were noted.
-9-
-tp)
s-_-
.
/
?