IR 05000346/2009003
| ML092050661 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 07/24/2009 |
| From: | Jamnes Cameron NRC/RGN-III/DRP/B6 |
| To: | Allen B FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co |
| References | |
| IR-09-003 | |
| Download: ML092050661 (38) | |
Text
uly 24, 2009
SUBJECT:
DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION INTEGRATED INSPECTION REPORT 05000346/2009-003
Dear Mr. Allen:
On June 30, 2009, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an integrated inspection at your Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. The enclosed inspection report documents the results of our inspection, which were discussed on July 14, 2009, with you and other members of your staff.
The inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety and compliance with the Commissions rules and regulations and with the conditions of your license.
The inspectors reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and interviewed personnel. Based on the results of this inspection, no findings of significance were identified.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRCs Rules of Practice, a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be made available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRCs document system (ADAMS), accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
Sincerely,
/RA/
Jamnes L. Cameron, Chief Branch 6 Division of Reactor Projects Docket No. 50-346 License No. NPF-3 Enclosure: Inspection Report 05000346/2009-003 w/Attachment: Supplemental Information DISTRIBUTION:
See next page
Letter to
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
IR 05000346/2009-003; 4/1/09 - 6/30/09; Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station.
This report covers a 3-month period of inspection by resident inspectors. No findings of significance were identified by the inspectors. The NRCs program for overseeing the safe operation of commercial nuclear power reactors is described in NUREG-1649, Reactor Oversight Process, Revision 4, dated December 2006.
NRC-Identified
and Self-Revealed Findings No findings of significance were identified.
Licensee-Identified Violations
No violations of significance were identified.
REPORT DETAILS
Summary of Plant Status
At the beginning of the inspection period, the plant was operating at 100 percent power.
On April 5, 2009, the operators shutdown the plant and placed it in mode 5 to replace pressurizer safety valves. The operators returned the plant to power operation on April 20, 2009. For the remainder of the inspection period the plant remained at 100 percent power, except for a brief period to support routine testing and to exercise control rod drives.
At the end of the inspection period, the plant was operating at approximately 100 percent power.
REACTOR SAFETY
Cornerstones: Initiating Events, Mitigating Systems, and Barrier Integrity
1R01 Adverse Weather Protection
.1 Readiness of Offsite and Alternate AC Power Systems
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors verified that plant features and procedures for operation and continued availability of offsite and alternate alternating current (AC) power systems during adverse weather were appropriate. The inspectors reviewed the licensees procedures affecting these areas and the communications protocols between the transmission system operator (TSO) and the plant to verify that the appropriate information was being exchanged when issues arose that could impact the offsite power system. Examples of aspects considered in the inspectors review included:
- the coordination between the TSO and the plant during off-normal or emergency events;
- the explanations for the events;
- the estimates of when the offsite power system would be returned to a normal state; and
- the notifications from the TSO to the plant when the offsite power system was returned to normal.
The inspectors also verified that plant procedures addressed measures to monitor and maintain availability and reliability of both the offsite AC power system and the onsite alternate AC power system prior to or during adverse weather conditions. Specifically, the inspectors verified that the procedures addressed the following:
- the actions to be taken when notified by the TSO that the post-trip voltage of the offsite power system at the plant would not be acceptable to assure the continued operation of the safety-related loads without transferring to the onsite power supply;
- the compensatory actions identified to be performed if it would not be possible to predict the post-trip voltage at the plant for the current grid conditions;
- a re-assessment of plant risk based on maintenance activities which could affect grid reliability, or the ability of the transmission system to provide offsite power; and
- the communications between the plant and the TSO when changes at the plant could impact the transmission system, or when the capability of the transmission system to provide adequate offsite power was challenged.
Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report. The inspectors also reviewed corrective action program (CAP) items to verify that the licensee was identifying adverse weather issues at an appropriate threshold and entering them into their CAP in accordance with station corrective action procedures.
This inspection constituted one readiness of offsite and alternate AC power systems sample as defined in Inspection Procedure (IP) 71111.01-05.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
1R04 Equipment Alignment
.1 Quarterly Partial System Walkdowns
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors performed partial system walkdowns of the following risk-significant systems:
- auxiliary feedwater train 1 during a scheduled outage of train 2 on April 28, 2009;
- component cooling water train 2 while train 1 ventilation was out of service on May 5, 2009; and
- decay heat and low pressure injection train 1 after train maintenance on June 9 and 10, 2009.
The inspectors selected these systems based on their risk significance relative to the Reactor Safety Cornerstones at the time they were inspected. The inspectors attempted to identify any discrepancies that could impact the function of the system, and therefore, potentially increase risk. The inspectors reviewed applicable operating procedures, system diagrams, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), Technical Specification (TS) requirements, outstanding work orders (WOs), condition reports, and the impact of ongoing work activities on redundant trains of equipment in order to identify conditions that could have rendered the systems incapable of performing their intended functions. The inspectors also walked down accessible portions of the systems to verify system components and support equipment were aligned correctly and operable. The inspectors examined the material condition of the components and observed operating parameters of equipment to verify that there were no obvious deficiencies. The inspectors also verified that the licensee had properly identified and resolved equipment alignment problems that could cause initiating events or impact the capability of mitigating systems or barriers and entered them into the CAP with the appropriate significance characterization. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment.
These activities constituted three partial system walkdown samples as defined in IP 71111.04-05.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
.2 Semi-Annual Complete System Walkdown
a. Inspection Scope
On May 13 through 15, 2009, the inspectors performed a complete system alignment inspection of the containment spray system to verify the functional capability of the system. This system was selected because it was considered both safety-significant and risk-significant in the licensees probabilistic risk assessment. The inspectors walked down the system to review mechanical and electrical equipment line ups, electrical power availability, system pressure and temperature indications, as appropriate, component labeling, component lubrication, component and equipment cooling, hangers and supports, operability of support systems, and to ensure that ancillary equipment or debris did not interfere with equipment operation. A review of a sample of past and outstanding WOs was performed to determine whether any deficiencies significantly affected the system function. In addition, the inspectors reviewed the CAP database to ensure that system equipment alignment problems were being identified and appropriately resolved. Documents reviewed are listed in the
.
These activities constituted one complete system walkdown sample as defined in IP 71111.04-05.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
1R05 Fire Protection
.1 Routine Resident Inspector Tours
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors conducted fire protection walkdowns which were focused on availability, accessibility, and the condition of firefighting equipment in the following risk-significant plant areas:
- No. 1 Electrical Penetration Room (Room 402, Fire Area DG);
- Radwaste Exhaust Equipment and Main Station Exhaust Fan Room (Room 501, Fire Area EE); and
- Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) Rooms (Room 318/319, Fire Area K/J).
The inspectors reviewed areas to assess if the licensee had implemented a fire protection program that adequately controlled combustibles and ignition sources within the plant, effectively maintained fire detection and suppression capability, maintained passive fire protection features in good material condition, and had implemented adequate compensatory measures for out-of-service, degraded or inoperable fire protection equipment, systems, or features in accordance with the licensees fire plan.
The inspectors selected fire areas based on their overall contribution to internal fire risk as documented in the plants Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE)with later additional insights, their potential to impact equipment which could initiate or mitigate a plant transient, or their impact on the plants ability to respond to a security event. Using the documents listed in the Attachment, the inspectors verified that fire hoses and extinguishers were in their designated locations and available for immediate use; that fire detectors and sprinklers were unobstructed, that transient material loading was within the analyzed limits; and fire doors, dampers, and penetration seals appeared to be in satisfactory condition. The inspectors also verified that minor issues identified during the inspection were entered into the licensees CAP. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report.
These activities constituted three quarterly fire protection inspection samples as defined in IP 71111.05-05.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
.2 Annual Fire Protection Drill Observation
a. Inspection Scope
On May 12, 2009, during an emergency preparedness drill, the inspectors observed a fire brigade activation in response to a simulated fire alarm in the emergency diesel generator 2 room. Based on this observation, the inspectors evaluated the readiness of the plant fire brigade to fight fires. The inspectors verified that the licensee staff identified deficiencies, openly discussed them in a self-critical manner at the drill debrief, and took appropriate corrective actions. Specific attributes evaluated were:
- (1) proper wearing of turnout gear and self-contained breathing apparatus;
- (2) proper use and layout of fire hoses;
- (3) employment of appropriate fire fighting techniques;
- (4) sufficient firefighting equipment brought to the scene;
- (5) effectiveness of fire brigade leader communications, command, and control;
- (6) search for victims and propagation of the fire into other plant areas;
- (7) smoke removal operations;
- (8) utilization of pre-planned strategies;
- (9) adherence to the pre-planned drill scenario; and
- (10) drill objectives.
Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report.
These activities constituted one annual fire protection inspection sample as defined in IP 71111.05-05.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
1R06 Flooding - Internal Flooding
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed selected risk important plant design features and licensee procedures intended to protect the plant and its safety-related equipment from internal flooding events. The inspectors reviewed flood analyses and design documents, including the UFSAR, engineering calculations, and abnormal operating procedures to identify licensee commitments. The specific documents reviewed are listed in the to this report. In addition, the inspectors reviewed licensee drawings to identify areas and equipment that may be affected by internal flooding caused by the failure or misalignment of nearby sources of water, such as the fire suppression or the circulating water systems. The inspectors also reviewed the licensees corrective action documents with respect to past flood-related items identified in the CAP to verify the adequacy of the corrective actions. The inspectors performed a walkdown of the following plant areas to assess the adequacy of watertight doors and verify drains and sumps were clear of debris and were operable, and that the licensee complied with its commitments:
- emergency core cooling rooms one, two and the decay heat cooler room.
This inspection constituted one internal flooding sample as defined in IP 71111.06-05.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
1R07 Annual Heat Sink Performance
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors evaluated the licensees execution of biofouling controls for the service water (SW) system and the circulating water system. As part of this inspection, the inspectors performed a walkdown of the chemical injection systems and reviewed the operating procedures for the system. Additionally, the inspectors reviewed the licensees testing of the SW side of the turbine plant cooling water heat exchangers to verify that potential deficiencies did not mask the licensees ability to detect degraded performance, to identify any common cause issues that had the potential to increase risk, and to ensure that the licensee was adequately addressing problems that could result in initiating events that would cause an increase in risk. The inspectors reviewed the licensees observations as compared against acceptance criteria, the correlation of scheduled testing and the frequency of testing, and the impact of instrument inaccuracies on test results. Inspectors also verified that test acceptance criteria considered differences between test conditions, design conditions, and testing conditions. Documents that were reviewed for this inspection are listed in the to this document.
This annual heat sink performance inspection constituted one sample as defined in IP 71111.07-05.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
1R11 Licensed Operator Requalification Program
.1 Resident Inspector Quarterly Review
a. Inspection Scope
On May 28, 2009, the inspectors observed a crew of licensed operators in the plants simulator during licensed operator requalification examinations to verify that operator performance was adequate, evaluators were identifying and documenting crew performance problems, and training was being conducted in accordance with licensee procedures. The inspectors evaluated the following areas:
- licensed operator performance;
- crews clarity and formality of communications;
- ability to take timely actions in the conservative direction;
- prioritization, interpretation, and verification of annunciator alarms;
- correct use and implementation of abnormal and emergency procedures;
- control board manipulations;
- oversight and direction from supervisors; and
- ability to identify and implement appropriate TS actions and Emergency Plan actions and notifications.
The crews performance in these areas was compared to pre-established operator action expectations and successful critical task completion requirements. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report.
This inspection constituted one quarterly licensed operator requalification program sample as defined in IP 71111.11.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
1R12 Maintenance Effectiveness
.1 Routine Quarterly Evaluations
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors evaluated degraded performance issues involving the following risk significant systems:
- steam and feedwater line rupture control system; and
The inspectors reviewed events such as where ineffective equipment maintenance had resulted in valid or invalid automatic actuations of engineered safeguards systems and independently verified the licensee's actions to address system performance or condition problems in terms of the following:
- implementing appropriate work practices;
- identifying and addressing common cause failures;
- scoping of systems in accordance with 10 CFR 50.65(b) of the maintenance rule;
- characterizing system reliability issues for performance;
- charging unavailability for performance;
- trending key parameters for condition monitoring;
- ensuring 10 CFR 50.65(a)(1) or (a)(2) classification or re-classification; and
- verifying appropriate performance criteria for structures, systems, and components (SSCs)/functions classified as (a)(2) or appropriate and adequate goals and corrective actions for systems classified as (a)(1).
The inspectors assessed performance issues with respect to the reliability, availability, and condition monitoring of the system. In addition, the inspectors verified maintenance effectiveness issues were entered into the CAP with the appropriate significance characterization. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report.
This inspection constituted two quarterly maintenance effectiveness samples as defined in IP 71111.12-05.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
1R13 Maintenance Risk Assessments and Emergent Work Control
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's evaluation and management of plant risk for the maintenance and emergent work activities affecting risk-significant and safety-related equipment listed below to verify that the appropriate risk assessments were performed prior to removing equipment for work:
- orange risk drain of reactor coolant system (RCS), with no RCS loops available for cooling and no adequate vent path for feed and bleed, from filled and vented to greater than or equal to 80 inches above the RCS hot leg centerline for pressurizer safety-relief valve replacement on April 7 and 8, 2009;
- orange risk performance of tap changing activities on the startup transformers on April 7 and 8, 2009;
- reactivity plan review and use during the approach to and subsequent criticality of the reactor core on April 20, 2009;
- failed testing of the main turbine control valves and consequential plant small transient on April 23, 2009, with subsequent restoration of normal alignment and decision to proceed without a successful test; and
- loss of the switchyard J Bus on June 25, 2009, due to a faulted coupling capacitor potential device which caused entry into a 72-hour limiting condition for operation and required addressing damage to other switchyard insulating devices caused by the faulted device These activities were selected based on their potential risk significance relative to the Reactor Safety Cornerstones. As applicable for each activity, the inspectors verified that risk assessments were performed as required by 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) and were accurate and complete. When emergent work was performed, the inspectors verified that the plant risk was promptly reassessed and managed. The inspectors reviewed the scope of maintenance work, discussed the results of the assessment with the licensee's probabilistic risk analyst or shift technical advisor, and verified plant conditions were consistent with the risk assessment. The inspectors also reviewed TS requirements and walked down portions of redundant safety systems, when applicable, to verify risk analysis assumptions were valid and applicable requirements were met.
These maintenance risk assessments and emergent work control activities constituted five samples as defined in IP 71111.13-05.
b. Findings
Introduction:
The inspectors determined that an unresolved item (URI) existed concerning the loss of the 345 KV switchyard J Bus. The J Bus was de-energized upon a catastrophic failure of the J Bus phase B capacitive coupled potential device (CCPD)at 12:49 a.m. on June 25, 2009. The event required the licensee to declare one offsite AC source inoperable and enter TS LCO 3.8.1(a) requiring restoration of one offsite circuit within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.
Description:
During the event, a spread of fire was reported in the switchyard. The licensees fire brigade was able to extinguish the fire within 33 minutes. As a conservative measure, the assistance of Carroll Township was requested, but was not needed to put out any fires. A temporary modification was issued to remove the CCPDs from all three phases of the J Bus until a bus outage could be scheduled to replace the potential devices. At 11:05 p.m. on June 26, the licensee safely restored the J Bus to an energized and operable condition, which was required to meet TS 3.8.1 and exit the 72-hour shutdown requirement.
At the time of the failure, the licensee evaluated the Emergency Action Levels (EALs),but did not make an emergency declaration at that time. However, upon further review the following morning, the licensee determined that the failure of the CCPD met the definition of an explosion as defined in emergency procedure RA-EP-02840, Explosion.
A reportability notification was made to the NRC at 11:44 a.m. on June 26, 2009. The NRC is continuing to inspect this aspect of the event.
The switchyard maintenance strategy template requires a critical potential device to be replaced after 25 years. After two non-catastrophic failures of CCPDs, occurring in December 2007, and January 2008, the licensee identified that these components were installed beyond the 25-year life expectancy. At that time, a walkdown of the switchyard revealed eight CCPDs that were beyond 25 years and needing replacement.
Replacement was scheduled to begin in the fall of 2009 and spring of 2010. The CCPD that caused the loss of the J Bus had been installed beyond 25 years.
The cause of the catastrophic failure of the CCPD is not known at this time. Condition Report 09-61025 documented the equipment failure. A root cause evaluation was assigned to determine the cause of the failure, to identify equipment, organizational and programmatic factors involved in the failure and to develop actions to prevent recurrence. The root cause evaluation of the event was not available for the inspectors review before the end of the inspection period. Therefore, this issue is considered an unresolved item (URI 05000346/2009003-01) pending completion of the inspectors review.
1R15 Operability Evaluations
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed the following issues:
- CR 09-57730 and CR 09-57560 which documented software problems associated with the incore monitoring system encountered during plant startup;
- CR 09-54757 which documented the non-functionality of the low speed stop in the speed circuitry of hydraulic function of the governor for EDG 2; and
- CR 09-56190 which documented inaccuracies in the displayed nuclear power wide range and source range on the gammetrics nuclear power train 2 (instrument NI5875).
The inspectors selected these potential operability issues based on the risk-significance of the associated components and systems. The inspectors evaluated the technical adequacy of the evaluations to ensure that TS operability was properly justified and the subject component or system remained available such that no unrecognized increase in risk occurred. The inspectors compared the operability and design criteria in the appropriate sections of the TS and Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) to the licensees evaluations, to determine whether the components or systems were operable.
Where compensatory measures were required to maintain operability, the inspectors determined whether the measures in place would function as intended and were properly controlled. The inspectors determined, where appropriate, compliance with bounding limitations associated with the evaluations. Additionally, the inspectors also reviewed a sampling of corrective action documents to verify that the licensee was identifying and correcting any deficiencies associated with operability evaluations.
Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report.
This operability inspection constituted three samples as defined in IP 71111.15-05
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
1R18 Plant Modifications Permanent Plant Modifications
a. Inspection Scope
The following engineering design package was reviewed and selected aspects were discussed with engineering personnel:
- ECP 09-0394, Replace Pressure Transmitter DB-PT2374A.
This document and related documentation were reviewed for adequacy of the associated 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluation screening, consideration of design parameters, implementation of the modification, post-modification testing, and relevant procedures, design, and licensing documents were properly updated. The inspectors observed ongoing and completed work activities to verify that installation was consistent with the design control documents. The modification installed a current -design main turbine first-state pressure sensor and transmitter and modified power supply for the transmitter. Documents reviewed in the course of this inspection are listed in the to this document.
This inspection constituted one permanent plant modification sample as defined in IP 71111.18-05.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
1R19 Post-Maintenance Testing
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed the following post-maintenance activities to verify that procedures and test activities were adequate to ensure system operability and functional capability:
- decay heat train 2 pump and valve test on April 3, 2009, after replacement of the pump casing vent valve and preventive maintenance on the discharge valve actuator;
- main steam isolation valve MS100 air drop test and stroke time testing on April 18, 2009, after disassembly and rebuild of the valve when determined necessary because of the inability to stroke the valve open;
- makeup pump 2 surveillance test on May 27, 2009, after lubrication preventive maintenance tasks, modifications to oil pump breaker circuits, and replacement of a cooling water valve for pump lubricating oil;
- EDG 2 monthly test on May 29, 2009, after replacement of the air start pressure regulator valve; and
- safety features actuation system output module L311 on June 3 and 4, 2009, after replacement of the module due to the installed module not releasing the block signal to decay heat pump 1 and associated components during system sequencer testing.
These activities were selected based upon the SSCs ability to impact risk. The inspectors evaluated these activities for the following (as applicable): the effect of testing on the plant had been adequately addressed; testing was adequate for the maintenance performed; acceptance criteria were clear and demonstrated operational readiness; test instrumentation was appropriate; tests were performed as written in accordance with properly reviewed and approved procedures; equipment was returned to its operational status following testing (temporary modifications or jumpers required for test performance were properly removed after test completion), and test documentation was properly evaluated. The inspectors evaluated the activities against TS, the UFSAR, 10 CFR Part 50 requirements, licensee procedures, and various NRC generic communications to ensure that the test results adequately ensured that the equipment met the licensing basis and design requirements. In addition, the inspectors reviewed corrective action documents associated with post-maintenance tests to determine whether the licensee was identifying problems and entering them in the CAP and that the problems were being corrected commensurate with their importance to safety.
Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report.
This inspection constituted five post-maintenance testing samples as defined in IP 71111.19-05.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
1R20 Outage Activities - Other Outage Activities
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors evaluated outage activities for a scheduled mid-cycle outage that began on April 5, 2009, and continued through April 21, 2009. The inspectors reviewed activities to ensure that the licensee considered risk in developing, planning, and implementing the outage schedule.
The inspectors observed or reviewed the reactor shutdown and cooldown, outage equipment configuration and risk management, electrical lineups, selected clearances, control and monitoring of decay heat removal, control of containment activities, startup and heatup activities, approach to criticality, and identification and resolution of problems associated with the outage. Additionally, the inspectors observed or reviewed all or select portions of the major work activities which included the planned replacement of the reactor coolant safety valves and emergent work involved with repair of main steam stop valve MS100.
This inspection constituted one other outage sample as defined in IP 71111.20-05.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
1R22 Surveillance Testing Surveillance Testing
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed the test results for the following activities to determine whether risk-significant systems and equipment were capable of performing their intended safety function and to verify testing was conducted in accordance with applicable procedural and TS requirements:
- DB-PF-3008, Containment Local Leakage Rate Tests, on the containment purge outlet lines on April 8, 2009 (containment isolation valve);
- reactor under-vessel inspection and DB-OP-03013, Containment Daily Inspection and Containment Closeout Inspection, on April 9, 2009 (routine);
- DB-SC-3077, EDG 2 184 Day Test, on April 30, 2009 (routine); and
The inspectors observed in-plant activities and reviewed procedures and associated records to determine the following:
- did preconditioning occur;
- were the effects of the testing adequately addressed by control room personnel or engineers prior to the commencement of the testing;
- were acceptance criteria clearly stated, demonstrated operational readiness, and consistent with the system design basis;
- plant equipment calibration was correct, accurate, and properly documented;
- as-left setpoints were within required ranges; and the calibration frequency were in accordance with TSs, the USAR, procedures, and applicable commitments;
- measuring and test equipment calibration was current;
- test equipment was used within the required range and accuracy; applicable prerequisites described in the test procedures were satisfied;
- test frequencies met TS requirements to demonstrate operability and reliability; tests were performed in accordance with the test procedures and other applicable procedures; jumpers and lifted leads were controlled and restored where used;
- test data and results were accurate, complete, within limits, and valid;
- test equipment was removed after testing;
- where applicable for safety-related instrument control surveillance tests, reference setting data were accurately incorporated in the test procedure;
- where applicable, actual conditions encountering high resistance electrical contacts were such that the intended safety function could still be accomplished;
- equipment was returned to a position or status required to support the performance of its safety functions; and
- all problems identified during the testing were appropriately documented and dispositioned in the CAP.
Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report.
This inspection constituted two routine surveillance testing samples, one RCS leak detection inspection sample, and one containment isolation valve sample as defined in IP 71111.22, Sections -02 and -05.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
CORNERSTONE: Emergency Preparedness
1EP6 Drill Evaluation - Emergency Preparedness Drill Observation
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors evaluated the conduct of a routine licensee emergency drill on April 14, 2009, to identify any weaknesses and deficiencies in classification, notification, and protective action recommendation development activities. The inspectors observed emergency response operations in the Control Room Simulator, Technical Support Center, and Emergency Operations Facility to determine whether the event classification, notifications, and protective action recommendations were performed in accordance with procedures. The inspectors also attended the licensee drill critique to compare any inspector-observed weakness with those identified by the licensee staff in order to evaluate the critique and to verify whether the licensee staff was properly identifying weaknesses and entering them into the CAP. As part of the inspection, the inspectors reviewed the drill package and other documents listed in the Attachment to this report.
This emergency preparedness drill inspection constituted one sample as defined in IP 71114.06-05.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
OTHER ACTIVITIES
4OA1 Performance Indicator Verification
.1 Unplanned Scrams with Complications
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors sampled licensee submittals for the Unplanned Scrams with Complications PI for the period starting in the second quarter of 2008 through the first quarter of 2009. To determine the accuracy of the PI data reported during those periods, PI definitions and guidance contained in the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)
Document 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision 5, were used. The inspectors reviewed the licensees operator narrative logs, issue reports, event reports and NRC Integrated Inspection Reports for the period starting in the second quarter of 2008 through the first quarter of 2009 to validate the accuracy of the submittals. The inspectors also reviewed the licensees issue report database to determine if any problems had been identified with the PI data collected or transmitted for this indicator, and none were identified. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report.
This inspection constituted one unplanned scrams with complications sample as defined in IP 71151-05.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
.2 Unplanned Transients per 7000 Critical Hours
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors sampled licensee submittals for the Unplanned Transients per 7000 Critical Hours PI for the period starting in the second quarter of 2008 through the first quarter of 2009. To determine the accuracy of the PI data reported during those periods, PI definitions and guidance contained in the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Document 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision 5, were used. The inspectors reviewed the licensees operator narrative logs, issue reports, maintenance rule records, event reports and NRC Integrated Inspection Reports for the period starting in the second quarter of 2008 through the first quarter of 2009 to validate the accuracy of the submittals. The inspectors also reviewed the licensees issue report database to determine if any problems had been identified with the PI data collected or transmitted for this indicator, and none were identified.
Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report.
This inspection constituted one unplanned transients per 7000 critical hours sample as defined in IP 71151-05.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
4OA2 Identification and Resolution of Problems
Cornerstones: Initiating Events, Mitigating Systems, Barrier Integrity, Emergency Preparedness, Public Radiation Safety, Occupational Radiation Safety, and Physical Protection
.1 Routine Review of Items Entered Into the Corrective Action Program
a. Inspection Scope
As part of the various baseline IPs discussed in previous sections of this report, the inspectors routinely reviewed issues during baseline inspection activities and plant status reviews to verify that they were being entered into the licensees CAP at an appropriate threshold, that adequate attention was being given to timely corrective actions, and that adverse trends were identified and addressed. Attributes reviewed included: the complete and accurate identification of the problem; that timeliness was commensurate with the safety significance; that evaluation and disposition of performance issues, generic implications, common causes, contributing factors, root causes, extent of condition reviews, and previous occurrences reviews were proper and adequate; and that the classification, prioritization, focus, and timeliness of corrective actions were commensurate with safety and sufficient to prevent recurrence of the issue.
Minor issues entered into the licensees CAP as a result of the inspectors observations are included in the attached List of Documents Reviewed.
These routine reviews for the identification and resolution of problems did not constitute any additional inspection samples. Instead, by procedure they were considered an integral part of the inspections performed during the quarter and documented in Section 1 of this report.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
.2 Daily Corrective Action Program Reviews
a. Inspection Scope
In order to assist with the identification of repetitive equipment failures and specific human performance issues for follow-up, the inspectors performed a daily screening of items entered into the licensees CAP. This review was accomplished through inspection of the stations daily condition report packages.
These daily reviews were performed by procedure as part of the inspectors daily plant status monitoring activities and, as such, did not constitute any separate inspection samples.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
.3 Semi-Annual Trend Review
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors performed a review of the licensees CAP and associated documents to identify trends that could indicate the existence of a more significant safety issue. The inspectors review was focused on repetitive equipment issues, but also considered the results of daily inspector CAP item screening discussed in Section 4OA2.2 above, licensee trending efforts, and licensee human performance results. The inspectors review nominally considered the six month period of October 1, 2008, through March 31, 2009, although some examples expanded beyond those dates where the scope of the trend warranted.
The review also included issues documented outside the normal CAP in major equipment problem lists, repetitive and/or rework maintenance lists, departmental problem/challenges lists, system health reports, quality assurance audit/surveillance reports, self assessment reports, and Maintenance Rule assessments. The inspectors compared and contrasted their results with the results contained in the licensees CAP trending reports. Corrective actions associated with a sample of the issues identified in the licensees trending reports were reviewed for adequacy.
This review constituted a single semi-annual trend inspection sample as defined in IP 71152-05.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
.4 Annual Sample: Review of Operator Workarounds
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors evaluated the licensees implementation of their process used to identify, document, track, and resolve operational challenges. Inspection activities included, but were not limited to, a review of the cumulative effects of the operator workarounds (OWAs) on system availability and the potential for improper operation of the system, for potential impacts on multiple systems, and on the ability of operators to respond to plant transients or accidents.
The inspectors performed a review of the cumulative effects of OWAs. The documents listed in the Attachment were reviewed to accomplish the objectives of the IP. The inspectors reviewed both current and historical operational challenge records to determine whether the licensee was identifying operator challenges at an appropriate threshold, had entered them into their CAP and proposed or implemented appropriate and timely corrective actions which addressed each issue. Reviews were conducted to determine if any operator challenge could increase the possibility of an Initiating Event, if the challenge was contrary to training, required a change from long-standing operational practices, or created the potential for inappropriate compensatory actions. Additionally, all temporary modifications were reviewed to identify any potential effect on the functionality of Mitigating Systems, impaired access to equipment, or required equipment uses for which the equipment was not designed. Daily plant and equipment status logs, degraded instrument logs, and operator aids or tools being used to compensate for material deficiencies were also assessed to identify any potential sources of unidentified OWAs.
This review constituted one OWA annual inspection sample as defined in IP 71152-05.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
4OA3 Follow-Up of Events and Notices of Enforcement Discretion
.1 Offsite Notifications Made Due to Inadvertent Actuation of Six EPZ Sirens
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed the plants response to the inadvertent actuation of six emergency planning zone sirens in Bay Township on April 30, 2009. The sirens were activated at the Ottawa County Dispatch Console for 3 minutes while maintenance was being performed on the radio system. The licensee notified Lucas County, Ottawa County, and the State of Ohio of the inadvertent actuation. The event was reported to the NRC under 10 CFR 50.72(b)(2)(xi) and is listed as Event Number 45032.
Documents reviewed in this inspection are listed in the Attachment.
This event follow-up review constituted one sample as defined in IP 71153-05.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
.2 Licensee Actions in Response to a Low Voltage on Battery 1N
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed the plants response on May 12, 2009, to battery 1Ns voltage at 128.87 volts DC which was below the technical specification allowable voltage of 130.2 volts DC. Licensee investigation determined that the cause of the low voltage was associated with the battery charger, DBC1N, that was providing float voltage on the battery and that the battery was capable of meeting its performance requirements. The licensees immediate actions included adjusting the battery chargers potentiometer to provide a higher float voltage and then switching the float charge on the battery to another installed battery charger. Documents reviewed as part of this inspection are listed in the Attachment.
This event follow-up review constituted one sample as defined in IP 71153-05.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
.3 Licensee Actions in Response to Increasing Circulating Water Differential Pressure
Across the Low Pressure Condenser
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed the plants actions addressing issues with increasing circulating water differential pressures (d/p) across the low pressure portion of the main condenser.
The licensee determined that the primary cause of the increasing back pressure was an accumulation of cooling tower fill hardware in the low pressure condenser inlet waterboxes. The issue was initially addressed by cleaning of the waterboxes during a planned outage in April 2009, but increases in d/p were observed shortly after the return to power. Licensee actions to address the continuing debris issue included guidance for circulating water screen cleaning and adding screens and reducing the mesh size on the screens. The inspectors reviewed the operational decision making instrument developed by the licensee to provide guidance for elevated circulating water intake screens d/p and the recommendations from a problem-solving team that was responsible for reviewing the issues. The inspectors also reviewed the revised biocide treatment plan for the control of algae growths that complicated the licensees plans for addressing d/p buildup on the circulating water screens.
This event follow-up review constituted one sample as defined in IP 71153-05.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
4OA5 Other Activities
.1 Licensee Activities and Meetings
The inspectors observed select portions of licensee activities and meetings and met with licensee personnel to discuss various topics. The activities that were sampled included:
- post-outage critique on April 22, 2009, for the pressurizer safety valve outage;
- supervisory briefing on May 4, 2009, and June 29, 2009;
- first quarter Fleet Oversight Performance Report on May 8, 2009;
- Corporate Nuclear Review Board plant status presentation on May 20, 2009;
- Corporate Nuclear Review Board debriefs on May 22, 2009;
- monthly performance review meeting on June 19, 2009;
- Corrective Action Review Board meeting on May 4, 2009; and
- Davis-Besse site all hands meeting on April 17, 2009, and June 15, 2009.
4OA6 Management Meetings
.1 Exit Meeting Summary
On July 14, 2009, the inspectors presented the inspection results to Mr. B. Allen and other members of the licensee staff. The licensee acknowledged the issues presented.
The inspectors confirmed that none of the potential report input discussed was considered proprietary.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
KEY POINTS OF CONTACT
Licensee
- B. Allen, Site Vice President
- B. Boles, Director, Site Maintenance
- S. Cope, Senior Nuclear Specialist, Emergency Planning
- V. Kaminskas, Director, Site Operations
- D. Moul, Director, Site Engineering
- C. Price, Director, Site Performance Improvement
- C. Stenbergen, Superintendent Operations Training
- S. Trickett, Superintendent, Radiation Protection
- J. Vetter, Emergency Response Manager
- G. Wolf, Regulatory Compliance Supervisor
- D. Wuokko, Manager, Regulatory Compliance
LIST OF ITEMS
OPENED, CLOSED AND DISCUSSED
Opened
- 05000346/2009003-01 URI Loss of Switchyard J Bus Attachment