ML20003H248
| ML20003H248 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 03/24/1981 |
| From: | Baker K, Connaughton K, Reyes L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20003H245 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-346-81-05, NUDOCS 8105050404 | |
| Download: ML20003H248 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000346/1981005
Text
_
_
!
-e
O
-
V
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-346/81-05
Docket No. 50-346
License No. NPF-3
Licensee: Toledo Edison Company
Edison Plaza, 300 Madison Avenue
Toledo, OH 43652
Facility Name: Davis-Besse 1
Inspection At: Davis-Besse Site, Oak Harbor, OH
Inspection Conducted: March 9-13, 1981
M C ..,
%
Inspectors:
K. A. Conna ghton
2 / : <. ! . -
_ W
Approved By:
Baker
V
'
/
'(
,
Inspection Summary
Inspection on March 9-13, 1981 (Report No. 50-346/81-05)
Areas Inspected:
Surveillance procedures, surveillance activities; Inser-
vice test procedures and activities for pumps and valves. The inspection
involved.a total of 59 inspector-hours by the NRC inspector; 24 inspector-
hours inoffice, and 35 inspector-hours onsite including zero inspector-hours
offshifts.
Results: Of the three areas inspected, two apparent items of noncompliance
were identified; failure of certain inservice pump test instrumentation to
meet range and/or accuracy requirements (Paragraph 2c); failure to measure
pump inlet pressure before pump startup and establish reference values for
inlet pressure for inservice testing of containment spray pumps.
(Para-
i
graph 2c).
,
.
.
-
.
--
.
. -
.-
.
i
DETAILS
1.
Personnel Contacted
- T. Murray, Station Superintendent
- D. A. Huffman, Administrative Coordinator
- T. R. Powers, Lead I & C Engineer
- E. Caba, Senior Assistant Engineer
J. Stotz, Senior Assistant Engineer
- J. Pyrne, Quality Assurance Engineer
B. Sarsour, Assistant Engineer
D. Briden, Chemistry and Health Physicist
The inspector also contacted several other licensee emplcyees,
including plant engineering and administrative personn.-l.
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
2.
Surveillance
a.
Procedures
The inspector reviewed several surveillance test procedures used
to satisfy Technical Specification surveillance requirements to
ascertain whether or not these procedures received proper review
and approval; that these procedures contained adequate preparation
or prerequisites; included acceptance criteria consistent with
Technical Specification requirements, and provided for system
restoration following testing.
In addition, the inspector applied
NUREG/CR 1368, " Development of a Checklist for Evaluating Mainten-
ance, Test, and Calibration Procedures Used in Nuclear Power
Plants" to all procedures except ST 5062.01. Comments were pro-
vided to the licensee during the exit interview. The following
procedures were examined:
ST 5083.01
ST 5011.02
ST 5041.02
ST 5062.01
ST 5051.10
No items of noncompliance were identified.
b.
Completed Surveillances
Completed surveillances were examined to determine that they were
performed at the required periodicity; that results were properly
reviewed; that action was taken, as required by Technical Specifi-
cations when acceptance criteria were not met; and that other
-2-
-
4
(
deficiencies were identified and corrected.
The review included
samples of the following completed surveillances performed over
a nine month period, from June 1980 through February 1981:
ST 5011.01
ST 5099.01
ST 5031.14
ST 5043.01
3
ST 5043.02
ST 5051.06
ST 5065.01
ST 5065.02
ST 5074.01
ST 5083.01
No items of noncompliance were identified.
c.
Inservice / Operability Testing Program - Pumps
The inspector reviewed the licensee's inservice testing program
for pumps to verify compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(g) and Technical Specification 4.0.5.
Pump test records
indicated that pumps were being tested at the required frequency,
using properly approved procedures, and in accordance with the
test methods of ASME Section XI, Article IWP-3000. The testing
of the containment spray pumps did not include the. measurement
of pump inlet pressure before pump startup, nor were reference
values established for pump in12t pressure as required by para-
graphs IWP 3100 and IWP 3110, respectively. The inspector noted
that the omission of these two elements from pump testing was a
result of deficiencies in the test procedure used for the testing
of containment spray pumps only. This is an item of noncompliance
identified in Appendix A (50-346/81-05-01).
The inspector reviewed calibration records of several instruments
used in pump testing to verify compliance with the requirements
of ASME Section XI, Article IWP 4000, paragraphs 4110 and 4111
which are reproduced here.
"IWP-4100 INSTRUMENTS
IWP-4110 QUALITY
All instruments shall have nominal errors within limits shown in
Table WP-4110-1.
Station instruments meeting these requirements
shall be acceptable.
-3-
-
-
,
,
,
o
t
TABLE IWP-4110-1
NOMINAL MAXIMUM INSTRUMENT ERRORS
Pressure
1 2% of full scale
Differential pressure
1 2% of full scale
Flowrate
1 2% of full scale
Speed
i 2% of full scale
Temperature
1 5% of full scale
Vibration amplitude
1 5% of full scale
IWP-4111 Range
>
The full scale range of each instrument shall be not greater than
four. times the reference value. "
The inspector identified the following instruments that apparently do
not meet the requirements of paragraph IWP-4110 and/or IWP-4111:
Instrument Pump /
Reference
Accuracy
Range
I.D.
Parameter
Value (psig)
(% full scale)
(psig)
PI 1437
CCW1-1/Pi
13.5
1 1.5
0-100*
PI 1439
CCW1-2/Pi
17.0
1 1.5
0-100*
PI 1438
CCW1-3/Pi
15.5
i 1.5
0-100*
PI 1507
DH1-1/Pi
28.0
1 1.5
0-300*
PI 1538
DH1-2/Pi
34.0
1 1.5
0-300*
PI 1519A
HPIl-1/Pi
32.5
3.0*
0-60
PI HPSB
HPIl-1/Pd
1600
1 3.0*
0-2000
PI HPSA
HPIl-2/Pd
1602
3.0*
0-2000
PI 503
AFP1-1/Pi
19.0
3.0*
0-100*
PI 507
AFP 1-2/Pi
23.0
3.0*
0-100*
Pi = inlet pressure
Pd = discharge pressure
- Denotes instrument characteristic not meeting requirements
The inspector emphasized that his findings were based on a limited
review of inservice pump test instrumentation and that the licensee
1
should determine whether or not other instruments are being used that
do not meet these requirements.
This is an item of noncompliance identified in Appendix A (50-346/81-05-02).
d.
Inservice / Operability Testing Program - Valves
The inspector reviewed the licensee's valve testing program to
verify compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(g) and
T.S. 4.0.5.
Examination of the licensee's approved ISI valve
test program, status summaries and several test procedures
revealed that the licensee has performed tests at the required
frequencies against appropriate acceptance criteria.
-4-
.
-
_
_
_
_ - _ _ _ _ _
_ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
o
.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
Exit Interview
The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph
1) at the conclusion of the inspection on March 13, 1981. The inspectors
summarized the purpose, scope and findings of the inspection.
.
-5-
-
- -
-
-
.