IR 05000346/1979007
| ML19269E147 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 04/25/1979 |
| From: | Riden M, Spessard R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19269E141 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-346-79-07, 50-346-79-7, NUDOCS 7906260579 | |
| Download: ML19269E147 (4) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0KKISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
.
REGION III
.
.
Report No. 50-346/79-07 Docket No. 50-346 License No. NPF-3
-
Licensee: Toledo Edison Company Edison Plaza
'
300 Madison Avenue Toledo, OH 43652 Facility Name: Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 Inspection At: Davis-Besse Site, Oak Harbor, Ohio Inspection Condu ted: April 9-12, 1979
.t.
Inspector:
. D. Riden 4 15 1%
'
><
mTC O x&
1!cdd7 7/
Approved By:
R. L. Spes ard, Chief
'
Reactor Projects Section 1 Inspection Summary Inspection on April 9-12, 1979 (Report No. 50-346/7"-07):
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of maintenance activities of safety related systems, administrative approvals, work control procedures, and quality assurance surveillance.
Results:
Of the four areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in three areas; one apparent item of noncompliance (Infraction - Failure to review and approve applicable procedures recommended in Appendix "A" of Regulatory Guide 1.33) was identified in one area.
2131 295 790easo ST 77 97 4>
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
,
.
B.
Beyer, Assistant Station Superintendent
- G.
Wells, Administrative Coordinator
- P.
Carr, Maintenance Engineer R. Brown, Lead Maintenance Support Engineer
- T.
Murray, Station Superintendent
- Denotes licensee representatives attending management interview.
- Contacted by telephone to discuss inspection findings presented at management interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved Item (346/79-05-05): The inspector verified that the licensee had implemented guidance to station personnel and staff on personnel performance prior to March 16, 1979.
In order to enhance professionalism in management, the licensee addressed the subjects of communication problem reports, attitudes, records, routine and non-routine meetings.
There are no further concerns.
3.
Maintenance Activities of Safety Related Systems An inspection was conducted to determine if the licensee's program for maintenance activities on safety related systems and components was conducted in accordance with approved procedures and regulatory requirements.
It was determined from selected documentation concern-ing maintenance that while the components or systems reviewed were removed from service for maintenance that work was accomplished by qualified personnel, limiting conditions for operation were met and reportable occurrences were properly reported.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Administrative Approvals The inspector reviewed maintenance activities to ascertain whether the required administrative approvals were obtained prior to initiat-ing the work.
Provisions are included for fire protection / prevention, cleanliness, housekeeping, and formal release of equipment for main-tenance.
Established hold points are included for functional testing and calibration as necessary prior to returning the component or system to an operating status.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
2131 296-2-
.
.
e
-
5.
Work Control Procedures The inspector examined licensee's procedures and records to verify that maintenance activities at the station are being, performed within administrative controls and approvals, approved procedures, and technical specifications. The licensee classifies maintenance
,,
work control procedures into Maintenance Instructions (MI) and Maintenance Procedures (MP).
MP's are reviewed by the Safety Review Board (SRB) and approved by the Station Superintendent, while MI's are reviewed and approved by only the Maintenance or Instrument and Control (I6C) engineer.
Based upon the inspector's review of the MI and MP logs, mainten-ance instruction M-46, safety / relief valves inspection and repair, should have been reviewed by the SRB and approved by the Station Superintendent as an MP prior to implementation.
Provisions fon this criteria are in Regulatory Guide 1.33, Paragraph 9.c.(5),
repair or replacement of safety valves.
Although the licensee has MP's for removal and replacement of various safety valves, it is the inspector's concern ~that safety 4 valve repair procedures should be properly reviewed and approved prior to implementation.
This finding represents noncompliance
'
with the requirement that applicable procedures recommended in Appendix "A" of Regulatory Goide 1.33 be reviewed by the SRB and approved by the Station Superintendent under Technical Specifica-tions 6.8.1.a. and 6.8.2.
(346/79-07-01)
6.
Quality Assurance Surveillance The inspector examined the licensee's records to assure that required inspections, measurements, tests, welding, heat treatment, and nondestructive examinations are in acc;rdance with applicable codes and standards. Quality assurance ducuments reflected that inspection, testing, and ASME code requirements were required of certain maintenance work selected.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on April 12, 1979.
The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. The licensee representatives made the following remarks in response to certain of the items discussed.by the inspector:
-3-
.
2131 297
.
.
a.
Acknowledged the inspector's statements concerning licensee action on previous inspection findings.
(Paragraph 2)
by the inspecto4)
b.
The licensee acknowledged the statement (Paragraph 5 with respect to the item of noncompliance.
.
O
-4-2131 298