IR 05000346/1978015
| ML19319B740 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 07/24/1978 |
| From: | Little W, Masse R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19319B629 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-346-78-15, NUDOCS 8001270195 | |
| Download: ML19319B740 (5) | |
Text
_
__
.
.
- _ _
- - -. -
.-
-
.
-
_.
_
_ -
--
.-.
_
.
.
.
m
,
i
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0!c!ISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
'
REGION III
Report No. 50-346/78-15 j
Docket No. 50-346 License No. NPF-3 Licensee: Toledo Edison Company Edison Plaza 300 Madison Avenue i
Toledo, Oli 43652 t
Facility Name: Davis-Besse Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 Inspection At:
Davis-Besse Site, Oak Harbor, 011
!
InspectionCondqted: June 20-22, 1978 r.%
-
,
Inspector:
.M D%
"I 'Nb t I
Approved By:
. Li
, Chief
.
Nuclear Support Section 2 i
l l
Inspection Summary Inspection on June 20-22, 1978 (Report No. 50-346/78-15)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of procedures and approved changes to procedures to ensure conformance with regulatory requirements. The inspection involved 29 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results: No items of noncempliance or deviations were identified,
'
S
4 I
i 8001270 [ f f
..
- -
_-
..
-
- __
-
- -
.
-._.
__
,
_ _ _
h
!
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- T.
Murray, Station Superintendent
- W. Green, Administrative Coordinator
- J. Buck, Quality Assurance Engineer J. Troknya, Office Supervisor
- T. Tambling, USNRC, D-B Proj ect Inspector
- Present at exit interview.
2.
Procedures and Temporary Changes to Procedures The inspector verified that review and approval of procedures and temporary changes to procedures were in accordance with the Davis-
,
Besse Technical Specifications.
Included in the review were the following procedures, identified with their class of procedure:
a.
General Plant Operating Procedures PP 1102.01.04 Pre-Startup Checklist n\\s_,/
PP 1102.02.07 Plant Startup PP 1102.10.02 Station Shutdown cod Cooldown PP 1103.08.02 Approach to Criticality b.
Safety-Related System Procedures SP 1104.04.08 Decay Heat and Low Pressure Inj ection Operation SP 1104.21.01 Containment Purge System Operation SP 1104.24.03 Station and Instrument Air System Operation SP 1103.06.03 Reactor Coolant Pump Operation SP 1105.09.02 Control Rod Drive System Operation SP 1107.11.03 Diesel-Generator System Operation SP 1104.11.03 Service Water System Operation c.
Emergency Procedures EP 1202.04.05 Reactor Trip EP 1202.35.05 Fire Procedure d.
Maintenance Procedurgg MP 1401.08.09 70:!rt).:d Drive Handling Procedure MP 1401.23.01 Lic5 ante.fing and Reassembly of Reactor Coolant N::p ieal Assembly b)
L-2-l
__
._
_
. _ _ _ _
_ _. _.. -
\\
v a.
Administrative Procedures AD 1804.00.06 Control of Station Reports AD 1805.00.12 Procedure Preparation and Maintenance AD 1805.01.01 Manual control and Revision AD 1805.02.02 Periadic Review of Station Procedures AD 1823.01.01 Setpoint Control AD 1849.00.01 Measuring and Test Equipment Control and Calibration AD 1839.00.04 Station Operations AD 1838.01.03 Surveillance and Periodic Iest Scheduling AD 1838.02.03 Performance of Surveillance and Periodic Tests f.
Abnormal (Alarm) Condition Procedures AP 3001.32.00 Emergency Diesel Generator No. 1 Trouble AP 3003.39.00 Decay Heat Pump No. 1 Suction Temperature High
'
AP 3003.41.01 High Pressure Injection 1-1 Flow High AP 3004.12.01 Containment Purge Exhaust Filter Differential Pressure i
AP 3005.21.00 Control Rod Drive Sequencing Fault AP 3005.32.01 Control Rod Drive Runback Fault AP 3006.02.01 Reactor Coolant Pump Seal Inlet Flow Low (h AP 3009.19.01 Station Air Header Pressure Low
/
AP 3011.31.00 Service Water High Leakage from Containment s_,
Air Cooler No. 1 g.
Surveillance Procedures ST 5031.01.02 Safety Features Actuation System (SFAS)
Monthly Test ST 5051.02.03 Decay Heat Removal System Isolation Test The inspector verified that temporary procedures associated with those listed did not conflict with Technical epecifications; that procedure enanges were made to reflect the latest Technical Speci-fication changes; that changes to procedures were made in accordance
>
with 10 CFR 50.59(a) requirements and that records of this type change were maintained as described in 10 CFR 50.59(b); that pro-cedures examined were technically adequate to control safety-related operations within applicable regulatory requirements and perform their intended functions; and that procedures for systems exposed to a freezing environment included provisions for remaining f unctional following such exposure.
Several items required discussion with the licensee and are described as follows:
v)
-3-
.
O The number of temporary changes to procedures is very large a.
and appears somewhat uncontrollable.
The licensee has recently identified this problem and has taken steps to reduce the number and exercise better control in this area.
b.
The inspector noted several temporary procedure change number discrepancies between the controlled set under review and the computer index. This was explained as an internal personnel problem relating to distribution. The employee involved is no longer working in distribution and the licensee is currently seeking a trained employee for this position.
In the interim, the licensee has several employees reviewing controlled copies to ensure currentness, Three temporary changes were not reviewed by the SRB (Station c.
Review Board) and the Station Superintendent within the 14 day period allowed by Technical Specifications.
The licensee had identified this fact on the change routing sheets, and the review was conducted within 16 days. Since there were so few instances and they appeared to be random and nonrecurrent, the inspector did not consider this indicative of a breakdown of the licensee's program. The licensee has agreed to achieve better control in this area.
\\s_s d.
A conflict currently exists between surveillance requirements for leak rate identification and the temporary change to procedure SP 1103.06.03 " Reactor Coolant Pump Operation" involving nonusage of RCP seal standpipe level indication.
The licensee has committed to take this procedure under immediate review and make the necessary revisions to avoid confusion in this area.
Many Davis-Besse temporary procedure changes have as an e.
effective date " Valid until resolution of problem." These are generally related to maintenance problems, for example, a change to block open a valve until maintenance can be performed on the valve operator mechanism. However, there appears to be little followup on these procedure changes.
When the maintenance is complete, there is no mechanism which identifies to the licensee, other than required periodic review, that this change should now be removed.
The licensee has committed to establishing a feedback control from procedure origin to removal of these types of changes.
No' items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
%
/
'
-
-4-
.
_ _ _ _. _ _. _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _.
,
>
P
$
!
! 9
'
i 3.
Exit Interview
,
'
.
$
i
!
The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Para-
!
'
graph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on June 22, 1978.
I The inspector susanarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
i I
i i
l
!
l
l t
<
l I
i i
!
!
l
.
.
O
'
'
I
\\
,
I i
'
f I
I
!
,
!
!
l
,
-5-
)
i f
!
,
--
-..-.--
-
.
-. -
.
-.,