ML19282B491
| ML19282B491 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 01/28/1979 |
| From: | Little W, Masse R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19282B480 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-346-79-02, 50-346-79-2, NUDOCS 7903150059 | |
| Download: ML19282B491 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000346/1979002
Text
h
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No.
50-346/79-02
Docket No.
50-346
License No.
Licensee: Toledo Edison Canpany
Edison Plaza, 300 Madison Avence
Toledo, Ohio 43652
Facility Name: Davis-Besse 1 Nuclear Generating Plant
Inspection At: Davis-Besse 1 Site, Oak Harbor, Oil
Inspection Conducte-.
January 8-11, 1979
i
s'
.
,
Inspector:
R. E. Masse
.
'^ A /c'.h
h
'
>
,-
. , ~. .,
i .
,
'
Approved By '~i. S. Litt'le, Chief
_j
-'<
Nuclear Support Section 2
Inspection Summary
Inspection on January 8-11, 1979 (Report No. 50-346/79-02)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection in the areas of
training, requalification training and a review of the station fire
protection program. The inspection involved 28 inspector hours onsite
by one NRC inspector.
Results:
Of the three areas inspected, no items of noncomp..iance or
deviations were identified in onc area; one apparent iter of non-
compliance was identified in each of the remaining two areas
(Deficiency - lack of control for required reading lists;
Deficiency - failure to conduct drills at required f requency -
paragraphs 3 and 4d.)
7903150061
e
DETAILS
1.
Perso_ns Contacted
- T.
Murray, Station Superintendent
- W.
Green, Administrative Assistant
M. Derivan, Operations Supervisor
- J.
Hickey, Training Supervisor
- B.
Franta, Training Coordinator
- R. Chesko, Operations Support Engineer (Station Fire Marshall)
W.
Nissen, Reactor Operator (Station Fire Chief)
D. Varwig, Safety Coordinator
D. Snyder, Relief Shift Foreman
- J.
Byrne, QA Engineer
The inspector also interviewed several others during the course of
the inspection including operators, contractors, maintenance and
lab personnel.
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Trainine
The inspector verified that a formal training / retraining program
has been established for new employees, technicians, craft personnel,
tenporary personnel and licensed /nonlicensed personnel. The
inspector verified that the aforementioned progrcm covers areas
including administrative controls, radiological health and safety,
industrial scfety, controlled access and security, emergency plar,
and quality assurance; that the retraining program for technician
and craft personnel includes on-the-job training and formal
technical training; that responsibilities have been assigned to
ensure that training program requirements have been met and that
provisiens have been made for periodic evaluation of the prograr.
The inspector verified that appropriate training was received by
reviewing training records and interviewing selected employees;
and that all female employees who have access to or who frequent
any restricted areas have been provided instructions concerning
prenatal radiation exposure.
No items of roncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
Operator Requalification Training
The inspector verified that a requalification program has been
established and includes preplanned lectures, attendance documentation,
and identification of specific training aids to be used in lieu of
an instructor; that on-the-job training requirements have been
specified to include control manipulations, review of changes in
-2-
a
.
plant design, Technical Specifications, procedures and significant
events.
The " Required Reading List" is the station's mechanism
ror ensuring that operators (and other appropriate staff) are
continuously advised of the aforementioned design changes, procedures
changes, etc.
Issuance of the lists is irregular. Lists are
required to be signed and returned to the Training Department
within 7 days of receipt.
In many cascs, lists are not coming
back within 7 days, in some cases there is no return at all.
Documentation has broken down to the point that even when completed
lists are returned, they are put with stacks of backlog paperwork
and filing and are not capable of being audited. A breakdown in
control exists in this area.
This finding represents apparent
noncompliance with the requirements of AD 1828.06.0 " Required
Reading List:
Preparation, Retention and Audits", and the
requirements of Technical Specification 6.8.1 pertaining to procedure
implementation.
The inspector further verified that records of licensed individuals
are maintained which include completed course and yearly exams,
documentation of manipulations, documentation of required simulations
of emergency and abnormal conditions, results of supervisory
evaluations, and observation of manipulations and simulations
described above, and documentation of accelerated requalification
training.
4.
Fire Protection and Prevention Procram
a.
Work Control Procedures
The inspector verified that work control procedures have been
developed and that they have defined the requirements for
control and authorization of maintenance activities; that the
Operations Department has cognizance of appropriate activities;
that special permits have been established to control welding,
burning, cutting or the use of ignition sources; and that
Davis-Besse work of this type required a "two man" rule, one
worker and one available as a fire watch while assisting.
b.
QA Surveillance and Design Change Controls
The inspector verified that QA procedures have been developed
that require periodic audit of work authorizations for construction,
modification, and maintenance activities to ensure operation's
cognizance; and that administrative and QA verification have
been required if cable penetrations have been installed,
replaced, or modified to confirm that appropriate non-flammable
material is used.
-3-
.
,
.
c.
Facility Inspections by Insurer
The inspector determined that AN1 (formerly NELPIA) perforns
periodic inspections of Davis-Besse Station. The inspector
reviewed the most recent reports available with emphasis on
findings related to vital areas, recommended corrective action,
and actions taken as a result of these findings.
d.
Fire Protection Training Program
The fire protection training program at this point in time
lacks organization and has not been adequately implemented.
This is duc in part to not having one specific person responsibic
for the program, but rather several who have various inputs
resulting in an ineffective program. Part of the overall
training program in the fire protection area includes a
requirement to hold quarterly drills. Contrary to the require-
ment, drills have not been h eld within the past year. This
finding represents apparent noncompliance with the Fire
Hazards Analysis, Table 4-1, Section B5.(b), referencing
the fire training program requirements.
Subject to NER
approval, the FRAR is the current station commitment in the
area of fire protection.
The licensee is currently formalizing
a full time billet in this area. The position should be filled
within a couple months. The licensee feels that a full time
employee will lend organization, direction, and implementation
to the FP training progran.
c.
Plant Tour
Accompanied by a Shift Foreecn, the inspector made a tour of
the facility examining alarms, extinguishing equipment actuating
controls, fire equipment operability, penetration areas
requiring special sealant materials, and general housekeeping
with emphasis on control of fire hazards.
5.
Exit Intervieu
The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on January 11, 1979. The
inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
- 4-