IR 05000346/1980010
| ML19320B649 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 05/23/1980 |
| From: | Jackiw I, Swanson E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19320B639 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-346-80-10, NUDOCS 8007140558 | |
| Download: ML19320B649 (5) | |
Text
_
{v]
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No.
50-346/80-10 Docket No.
50-346 License No. NPF-3 Licensee: Toledo Edison Company Edison Plaza 300 Madison Toledo, OH 43652 Facility Name: Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Inspection At: Davis-Besse Site, Oak Harbor, OH Inspection Conducted:, April 15-17, 29, 30 and May 1, 6-8, 12-14, 1980 E 3$ 1d Inspector:
R on
.O
,
Approved By:
. Ja iw, Acting Chief,
[M'O
.
NucleySupportSection2 Inspection Summary Inspection on April 15-17, 29, 30, May 1, 6-8, 12-14, 1980 (Report No. 50-346/80-10)
Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection of preparation for a refueling outage, pre-fuel handling activities, fuel handling activities, maintenance during a refueling outage, review of previous inspection findings, review of procedure for PG-PL Woodward Governors, and followup on a licensee identified event. The inspection involved 88 inspector hours onsite by two NRC inspectors and included inspection effort con-ducted during off-shift hours.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
_
80071405S3
.,
--
.
.
DETAILS
,
1.
Persons Contacted
- T. Murray, Station Superintendent
- B.
Beyer, Assistant Station Sunerintendent
- C. Daft, Quality Assurance Manager P. Carr, Maintenance Engineer S. Quennoz, Technical Engineer D. Brown, Head Maintenance Support Engineer J. Lingenfelter, Nuclear and Performance Engineer J. Hartigan, Maintence Support Engineer R. Wymer, Maintenance Foreman
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Noncompliance (50-346/79-30-01): Failure to establish a limited access list for the station central files and the Allowable Operating Transient Cycles Log was not ma'.ntained current. The inspector verified that Major Modification M-3697 has been written and establishes an Authorized Access List. The inspector also verified that AD1839.01 has been modified to require that the A0TC documentation is kept up-to-date.
(Closed) Noncompliance (50-346/79-30-02): Plant drawings not being kept up-to-date. The inspector verified that controlled copies of M001-M051 drawings have been replaced with a new up-to-date set of drawings. The inspector also verified that the drawingroom clerk has now been instructed on the applicable requirements of AD1848.05.
3.
Preparation for Refueling The inspector verified that approved procedures are available for new fuel receipt and inspection, and fuel transfer and core verifica-tion. It was noted that no inspection procedures exist for recycled (irradiated) fuel and that the licensee did not intend to inspect any of the recycled fuel. The inspector also verified that new fuel was received and inspected in accordance with the licensee's procedures. One assembly was rejected, reworked by B&W and subsequently inspected and found satisfactory.
a.
Documents Reviewed
.
The~ inspector reviewed the following licensee procedures:
SP 1503.02, Rev. 4; New Fuel Receipt, Inspection and Storage of B&W Mark B2 Fuel Assembly-2-
.....
.
.
.-....
.
.
PP 1501.01, Rev. 3; Fuel Loading and Refueling Limits and
.
Precautions PP 1502.04, Rev. 5; Fuel / Control Component Handling Operations PP 1506.01, Rev. 1; Fuel and Component Handling b.
Discussion On May 13, 1980 it was discovered during inspection of specimen hold down fixtures that a hold down spring on assembly Z3 :.n location C-3 was broken. Review of core verification video-tapes taken subsequent to core head and plenum removal showed that it was broken prior to any core alterations.
It is unfor-tunate that no inspection of irradiated fuel was performed to detect this and possibly other types of anomalies prior to completion of refueling operations, yet it is to the credit of the plant staff to have been alert enough to discover this prior to resuming operation.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Refueling Activities The inspector verified that prior to the handling of fuel in the core, all surveillance testing required by the technical specifi-cations and licensee's procedures had been completed; verified that during the outage the periodic testing of refueling related equip-ment was performed as required by technical specifications; observed two shifts of the fuel handling operations (removal and insertion)
and verified the activities were performed in accordance with the technical specifications and approved procedures; verified that containment integrity was maintained as required by technical speci-fications; verified that good housekeeping was maintained on the refueling area; and verified that staffing during refueling was in accordance with technical specifications and approved procedures.
The licensee's Master Refueling Schedule required 240 fuel moves to be performed during the cycle 2 refueling outage, this included replacing 44 fuel assemblies.
On May 6, 1980, the inspector observed fuel transfer activities in the spent fuel pool area. The inspector also viewed portions of the videotape of core verification.
-
No item of noncompliance or deviation were identified.
-3-
~'
.-
.
.
.
..
.
e 5.
Maintenance During Refueling The inspector verified that maintenance activities conducted during the refueling outage were being conducted by qualified personnel in accordance with approved procedures. He verified that the proce-dures written to control work activities contain administrative approvals for removing a system from service and returning it to service, provisions for inspection and signoff by licensee person-nel, provisions for testing following maintenance, provisions for insuring proper fire protection precautions are utilized, provisions for review of materials certification, provisions for assuring that LCO of Technical Specifications are satisfied, provisions assuring that system lineups are conducted prior to return to service, adequ-ate jumper controls and provisions for reporting design or construc-tion related deficiencies identified during maintenance.
The inspector reviewed maintenance Work Order (MWO) 80-1587 for repair of the Reactor Coolant Pump 1-1; Maintenance Procedure (MP)
1401.17, Rev. 7; Radiation Exposure Permit (REP) for RCP Maintenan(
- 129; and the associated Welding, Cutting, Burning Permit for the work.
As required by REP M-129 a Health Physics man was present for pull-ing the seal and surveyed the area.
It was noted by the inspector observing this portion of the work that an airborne survey was not taken as required by the REP. Previous discussion's with supervi-sors indicated that the air sample would not be necessary and it was apparently understood that one need not be taken. The REP was subsequently revised to reflect the necessary measures.
The inspector reviewed NWO 79-3688 covering inspection and rework of Make-Up Pump 1-2, procedures utilized and the associated items detailed above.
In addition, LER 79-47 was followed up to determine the adequacy of actions taken part of which were to inspect pump 1-2.
It was considered possible that there may exist a generic problem with these Bingham pumps. Therefore, an evaluation by the vendor of pump 1-1 concluded that failure was attributed to foreign debris and not set screw failure as was also suggested.
Inspection of pump 1-2 revealed that apparently foreign debris had caused a burr to form on the bushing around the wear ring, and verified that the set screw was intact as installed. The licensee attempted to locate the source of debris but has not been successful.
6.
Licensee Event No. 79-47 The licensee reported this event by letter dated April 25, 1979.
_
Based on the discussions in Paragraph 5 the corrective actions of the licensee appear to be adequate.
.
-4-
.
>.
.
7.
PG-PL Woodward Governors PG-PL Woodward Governors equipped with acceleration control devices have been installed by Terry Corporation on turbines that are used to drive auxiliary feedwater pumps at some PWRs. A letter dated June 29, 1977, was sent by Terry Corporation to Duke Power Company stating that the turbine may trip on overspeed if it is restarted within 30 minutes after shutdown. This results from the time requir-ed for hydraulic fluid to drain from the governor's speed setting cylinder.
In their letter, Terry Corporation provided an attached page for the turbine instruction manual which describes a procedure for avoiding overspeed trip on restart, i.e., the speed setting knob should be turned to minimum and then returned to the proper setting.
This action bleeds the speed setting cylinder and allows the acceler-ation control device to return to the standby condition.
In addition, Terry Corporation enclosed labels providing this same information for attachment to the governors. Terry Corporation has also sent a letter to Davis-Besse who also has turbines equipped with similar PG-PL governors.
The inspactor reviewed this area to ascertain that the licensee has established procedures that will assure turbine restart within 30 minutes without experiencing an erroneous overspeed trip.
The inspector found that procedure ST5071.01 provides instruction for bleeding the speed control cylinder after the equipment is shutdown. The inspector also found that the following " caution" was attached to the control room boar /. governor speed control:
"T0 INSURE CORRECT START UP CONTROL YHIS GOVERNOR REQUIRES MANUAL RESET AFTER OPERATION. SEE TURBINE INSTRUCTION MANUAL, SECTION 6 FOR DETAILS.
FROCEDURE: AFTER TURBINE IS SHUT DOWN, MOMENTARILY EXERCISE MANUAL SPEED CHANGER TO MINIMUM SPEED SETTING. SPEED CHANGER MUST THEN BE RESET TO DESIRED SPEED SETTING."
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on May 14, 1980.
The resident inspectors were also in attendance. The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
-
r
.
-5-
....
_.,
_.