ML20024A681
| ML20024A681 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 06/06/1983 |
| From: | Jackiw I, Peebles T, Rogers W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024A682 | List: |
| References | |
| TASK-2.B.4, TASK-TM 50-346-83-05, 50-346-83-5, IEB-83-01, IEB-83-04, IEB-83-1, IEB-83-4, NUDOCS 8306220050 | |
| Download: ML20024A681 (11) | |
See also: IR 05000346/1983005
Text
.
-
_
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Report No. 50-346/83-05(DPRP)
-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: Oak Harbor, OH
Inspection Conducted: February 1 through April 29, 1983
'w
$~w
[b/3
Inspectors: T{ A. Pee es
Senior
sident Inspector
Date
W. G
& - 6 ' 83
Resident Inspector
Date
- /5
Approved By:
Jc
w,
f
ects ection 2B
. Inspection Summary
Inspection on February 1, through April 29, 1983 (Report No. 50-346/83-05(DPRP))
Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection by resident inspectors of
previous inspection findings; operational safety; maintenance; surveillance;
LER followup; IE Bulletin followup; plant trips; plant operations; onsite-
review committee; TMI Lessons Learned; and independent inspection. The
inspection involved 424 inspector-hours onsite by two inspectors including 82
inspector-hours onsite during off-shifts.
Results: Of the eleven' areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were
identified in nine areas; two items of noncompliance was identified in two
areas (inadequate procedures - Paragraph 2; and inadequate corrective
action - Paragraph 6).
8306220050 930607
pDR ADOCK 0500034
0
- . .
.
.
..
.
.
.
_ - --. -
.
.
DETAILS
'1.
Persons Contacted During Inspection
T. Murray, Station Superintendent
B. Beyer, Assistant Station Superintendent
S. Quennoz, Assistant Station Superintendent
P. Carr, Maintenance Engineer
J. Werner, Instrument Engineer
~D. Miller, Operations Engineer
W. O'Connor, Assistant Operations Engineer
D._Briden, Chemist and Health Physicist
R. Peters, Licensing
L. Simon, Operations Supervisor
C. Daft, Quality Assurance Director
J. Faris, Administrative Coordinator
The inspectors also interviewed other licensee employees, including
members of the technical, operations, maintenance, I&C, training, health
physics, and security staff.
Persons at Meeting of March ~30, 1983
L. Young, Nuclear Licensing
T. Murray,sStation Superintendent
R. Peters, Nuclear Licensing
-
J. Byrne, Quality Assurance
S. Quennoz, Assistant Station Superintendent
<
S. Batch, Technical Section.
J. Stotz, Technical.Section
L. Richter, Technical Section
-
W. Rogers, Nuclear Regulatory Commission
I. Jackiw, Nuclear Regulatory Commission
l.
J. Streeter, Nuclear Regulatory Commission
t
T. Peebles, Nuclear Regulatory Commission
~ Persons at Meeting of April 19, 1983
.I. Jackiw, Nuclear Regulatory Commission
W. Shafer, Nuclear Regulatory Commission
T. Peebles, Nuclear Regulatory Commission
W. Rogers, Nuclear Regulatory Commission
L. Grime, Nuclear Safety
A. Zarkesh, Nuclear Safety
P. Carr, Maintenance Engineer
R. Peters, Operational Licensing
D. Poage, Quality Assurance
T. Chowdhary, Quality Assurance
J. Helle, Nuclear Facility Enginerring Manager
R. Berger, Bechtel - Project Administrator
J. Fay, Bechtel, Project Engineer
2
- -
-
-
._.
_ - - -,
-- - . - -
--
s
1 -
g
(.
f
t
t /
,
,
'
'
(
~
f,
1
s.
.
T
.
,
M. Calcasuggio, Manager - Engineering Administrator
J. Troknya, Engineering ~ Administrator
- '
'
'
J. Shortt, Nuclear Engineering
'
C.'Mekbel, Nuclear Engineering
.
r
.S. Quennoz, Assistant Station Superintendent
J.-Faris, Administrative Coordinator
_
,
-
'
'
>
,
'
2.
Action on Previous Inspection Findinas
-
(Closed) Unresolved Item (346/83-01-05): During the January inspection,
the inspector found several inadequate procedures due to an excessive
. number of. attached temporary modifications. The inspector also found
,
-that.the administrative procedures an'd Quality. Assurance Manual did not
include adequate controls to prevent procedures from becoming inadequate.
It has since been found that the previously addressed procedures were
not isolated instances but were exarples of. procedures which have become
difficult to use and understand. This is due to priorities not having
been established for timely incorporation of temporary modifications.
,.
This is considered an item of noncompliance (346/83-05-01).
3.
' Operational Safety Verificatica
Theinspectorobservedcontrolroomoperatkoas,reviewedapplicablelogs
and conducted discussions with control room operators during the months
of February, March and April. The inspector verified the operability of
selected emergency systems, reviewed tagout records.and verified proper
return to service of affected components. Tours of auxiliary building
!
reactor building and turbine building were conducted to observe plant .
,.
equipment conditions, including potential fire hazards, fluid leaks, and
excessive vibrations and to verify that maintenance requests had been
.
initiated for equipment in need of maintenance. The inspector by
observation and direct interview verified that the physical security
plan was being implemented in accordance with the station security plan.
The inspector noted two apparent discrepancies (Paragraph 15).
~
The inspector observed plant housekeeping / cleanliness conditions and
verified implementation of radiation protection controls. During the
month'of February,-. March and April, the inspector walked down the
accessible-portions of the service water, high pressure injection and
decay heat syste.as'to verify operability. The inspector also witnessed
portions of the radioactive waste system controls associated with
'
radwaste shipments and barreling.
'
These reviews and observations were conducted to verify that facility
~ operations were in conformance with the requirements established under
l technical specifications, 10 CFR, and administrative procedures.
,
4.
Monthly Maintenance Observation
,
,
- Station maintenance activities of safety related systems'and components
,
listed below were observed / reviewed to ascertain that they were conducted
in accordance with approved procedures, regulatory guides and industry
codes or standards and in conformance with technical specifications.
3
[
-
,
_. _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _
_ _____ - -___
-_____ _________- - _
_ _ _ _ _ .
.
.
The.following items were considered during this review: the limiting
conditions for' operation were met while components or systems were
removed from service; approvals were obtained prior to initiating the
work; activities were accomplished using approved procedures and were
inspected as applicable; functional testing and/or calibrations were
performed prior to returning components or systems to service; quality
control records were maintained; activities were~ accomplished by
qualified personnel; parts and materials used were properly certified;
radiological controls were implemented; and, fire prevention controls
were implemented.
Work requests were reviewed to determine status of outstanding jobs
and to assure that priority is assigned to safety related equipment
maintenance'which may affect system performance.
The following maintenance activities were observed / reviewed:
Diesel Generator Electronic Governor
Rad Waste Fan Rework
Turbine-Trip Solenoid Replacement
Steam Generator Level Transmitter Replacement
Security Systems
Following completion of maintenance on the Emergency Diesel Generator
,
and SFRCS Power Supply Replacement, the inspector verified that these
systems had been returned to service properly.
j
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.5.
Monthly-Surveillance Observation -
!
The inspector observed technical specifications required surveillance
testing.on. the Moderator Temperature Coefficient, Service Water Pumps
and Auxiliary Feedwater System and verified that testing was performed
in accordance with adequate procedures, that test instrumentation was
'
calibrated, that limiting conditions for operation were met, that
removal and restoration of the affected components were accomplished,
that' test.results conformed with technical specifications and procedure
. requirements and were reviewed by personnel other than the individual
directing the test, and that any deficiencies identified during the
<
testing were properly reviewed and resolved by appropriate management
personnel.
The inspector also witnessed portions of the following test activities:
HPI Pump Runs, CS Pump Runs, DH Pump Runs, RPS Logic, miscellaneous
-valve verification, and EVS Operation.
No items ~of noncompliance or deviations ~were identified.
6.
Licensee Event Reports Followup
Through direct [ observations, discussions with licensee personnel, and
~
- review'of records, the following event report was reviewed to determine
4
i
.-
-
..
-
- - . .
,
- . - -
. . _ , _ , . - . _ - -
. - .
. . - - . -
.
. -
_ - _ .
. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
.-
.
.
.
that reportability requirements were fulfilled, immediate corrective
action was accomplished, and corrective action to prevent recurrence had
~
been accomplished in accordance with technical specifications.
Action
LER Number
Subject
-(OPEN)
81-70
Failure of CRDN Trip Breaker
The inspector's review of the LER identified the following problems:
(a) No followup LER was issued to give the cause of the breaker failure.
(b) The replacement breaker did not have a UV coil and the UV coil from
the failed breaker was used.
(c) The testing which was done on the replacement breaker did'not include-
time response testing or reference to a maintenance procedure.
(d) The NWO to troubleshoot the failed breaker was written one week
after the failure and troubleshooting did not take place until 7/82
and could not be comprehensive as the breaker was not "as found" due
to use of the UV coil in the other breaker.
(e) The GE maintenance advice to change the UV coil setpoint was
received 5/79 and a procedure written 6/79, but the first time the
procedure.or the GE advice was implemented was 7/82.
Failure to take prompt corrective action is considered an item of non-
. compliance (346/85-05-02).
-
~
As a result of discussions with the licensee, they agreed to submit an
updated LER.
On March 9, 1983, an Enforcement Conference was held with the licensee to
discuss recent concerns identified by the NRC in the area of maintenance
controls including inadequate and untimely corrective actions taken re-
garding equipment malfunctions. Following this meeting the licensee
~
initiated steps to implement a comprehensive corrective action program to
L
address these concerns,
During this inspection the-inspector identified the above example of
i.
untimely corrective action taken with regard to LER No. 81-70. This
,
event occurred prior to the Enforcement Conference. However, in order
to resolve the continuing NRC concerns regarding taking adequate and
prompt corrective actions when equipment malfunctions are identified,
the licensee is being requested to provide the following information:
i.
How will-future updates from the equipment manufacturer be
'
expeditiously incorporated in your maintenance program?
11. . How will appropriate maintenance procedures be referenced on the NWO?
iii. How will. troubleshooting be expedited?
- 5
,
,
_
- _ _
. _ _ - .
, ~ .
._
_ . . _ _ _ . _ . _ . . . _ , . . _
._
.
-
- ~ _
. -
---
.
.
iv.
How will the Station Review Board procedures be changed to assure
adequate troubleshooting and appropriate corrective actions are
expeditious and thorough?
v.
How will the LER procedures be changed to assure'that followup LER
' revisions are generated?
7.
IE Bulletin Followup-
,
'For the IE Bulletins listed below the inspector verified that the
Bulletin was received by licensee management and reviewed for its
applicability to the facility.
If the Bulletin was applicable the
,
inspector verified that the. written response was within the time period
stated in the Bulletin, that the written response included the informa-
tion required to be reported, that the written response included
adequate corrective action commitments based on information presented
in the Bulletin and the licensee's response, that the licensee manage-
ment' forwarded copies of the written response to the appropriate onsite
management representatives,.that information discussed in the licensee's
written response was accurate, and that corrective action taken by the
licensee was as described in the written response.
,
(OPEN) 83-04 Failure of the undervoltage trip function of reactor trip
breakers,
i
The inspector reviewed the licensee's response with the following
results:
(a) The trip breakers were tested satisfactorily on March 14, 1983.
This test did not include time response.
(b). The maintenance program is currently in conformance with the latest
, manufacturer's recommendations. The last maintenance was performed
in July of 1982 to these procedures. Time response testing was
,
i
satisfactory.
(c) .All licensed operators-completed the required reading of the
l
bulletin.
(d) .The additional breaker malfunctions were all with the output relay
and did not affect breaker operation.
!
(e) The.RPS breaker and UV device are treated as safety related.
j
Outstanding questions are addressed in Paragraph 6.
The RPS breakers are currently in conformance with bulletin requirements
as-stated'above.
6
,
-
_
_ - - -
-
. _ _ _
~ . . - . , _ - . . _ . _ .-
_
_ . _ , _
.
_ _ _
__.
-
- - -
..
-_
.
.
(Closed) 83-01 Failure of Reactor Trips Breakers (Westinghouse DB-50) to
Open an Automatic Trip Signal.
The inspector verified that the licensee does not use Westinghouse DB-50
type in the Reactor Protection System. The inspector also verified that
the licensee submitted a negative declaration as required by this bulletin.
.
8.
. Plant Trips
t-
Following the plant trips on April 10, 1983, the. inspector ascertained
the status of the reactor and safety systems by observation of control
room indicators.and discussions with licensee personnel concerning plant
parameters, emergency system status and reactor coolant chemistry. The
inspector verified the establishment of proper communications and
reviewed the corrective actions taken by the licensee.
All systems responded as expected, and the plant was returned to
operation on April 10, 1983.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
9.
Review of Plant Operations
During the months of January through' April 1983, the inspector reviewed
the following' activities:
a.
Review and Audits
On April 19 and 26, the inspector sat in on portions of safety
review committee meetings. .The inspector verified that provisions
of technical specifications dealing with membership, review process,
frequency, and qualifications were met. The inspector also verified
1-
that decisions made were reflected in the meeting minutes and that
corrective actions proposed were taken.
i
b.
Training
The inspector atter.ded three of the licensee's operator requalifi-
cation lecture series and verified that lesson plan objectives were
met'and that training was in accordance with the approved operator
requalification program schedule and objectives.
The inspector verified by direct questioning of one new, one
existing, and one temporary employee that administrative controls
and procedures, radiological health and safety, industrial safety,
controlled access and security procedures, emergency plan, and
quality assurance training were provided as required by the
licensee's technical specifications.
c.
Security
The inspector observed _that ten individuals achieved acceptable
scores during the conduct of weapons and physical fitness tests.
7
,
,.
.
-
- .
..
.. .
-. ._
.~ .
.-- - .
- - - . .
.
.
.
.
.. -
-
.
.-
d.
-Emergency Preparedness
The inspector visited the Ottawa County Commission and verified that
the agency is familiar with their role in the emergency plan. On
-April 13-14, 1983, Toledo Edison conducted a full scale emergency
drill agencies participating in the drill were local counties, the
state of Ohio and the NRC. The inspector also observed the emergency
drill and verified that the licensee has a program for correcting
identified discrepencies and that equipment disrupted was returned
'
to its proper location after the drill.
e.
Licensee Action Concerning Identified Problems
The inspector reviewed corrective actions taken by the licensee
pertaining to recurring failures-and resolution of identified
discrepencies involving safety-related components.
This area has several identified problems, to which the licensee
is currently responding as part of the March Enfotcement Conference
and in response to this inspection report.
10.
Onsite Review Committee
The inspector examined the onsite review functions conducted during
the. period March and April 1983, to verify conformance with technical
specifications and other regulatory . requirements. This review included:
changes since the previous inspection in the charter and/or administra-
tive procedure governing review group activities; review group membership
and qualifications; review group meeting frequency and quorum; and,
j
activities ~ reviewed including proposed technical specification changes,
j
noncompliance items and corrective action, proposed facility and
procedure changes and proposed tests and experiments conducted per
j
10-CFR 50.59, and others required by technical specifications,
j
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
11. Meeting With Public Officials
A meeting was held with local public officials on March 9, 1983, in the-
Ottawa County Courthouse, Port Clinton, Ohio. The resident inspectors
i
were introduced and a description of the NRC Inspection and Enforcement
'
Program was given.
NRC personnel in attendance were:
W. B. Henczer, Regional State Liaison Officer
C. E. Norelius, Director, Division of Projects and Resident Programs
L. Reyes, Project Section Chief
I. N. Jackiv, Project Section Chief
W. G. Rogers, Resident Inspector
T.- A. Peebles, Senior Resident Inspector
j
-
8
.
. - .
-_
-.
._
.
_ _ .
.
-
.
_
_ - - _ _ _
- ..
1:2. _ Meetina on 3perability
.A meeting was held at the Davis-Besse site on March 30, 1983, with the
. persons in attendance as noted in Paragraph 1.
The following items were
discussed:
'(a)- SUBJECT: NRC Position on When an Action Statement is Entered as a
. Consequence of Failure to Perform Surveillance Teste
i
Action Statements are entered when the Surveillance Requirements
>
should have been performed rather than at the time it is discovered
that tests were not performed.
(b)~ SUBJECT: NRC Position on Shutdown Time Allowances When an LCO is
Not Het
It is the NRC position that it is acceptable for a licensee to
' initiate and complete a reduction in operational modes in a shorter
time interval than required by the allowable out-of-service time
specified in an Action Statement and then to add the unused portion
of this allowable out-of-service time to that provided for operation
in a lower operational mode. Furthermore, it is the NRC position
that a stated allowable out-of-service time (frequently 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> or
7 days) should be applicable regardless of the operational mode in
which the'inoperability is discovered. However, the times provided
for achieving a recuction in operational modes (e.g., generally 6
hours from Modes 1 or 2_to Mode 3, and 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> from Mode 3 to Mode 4)
should notlbe-applicable if the inoperability is discovered in a
lower operation mode.
(c) SUBJECT: NRC Position on Relationship Between Surveillance
Requirements for Inservice Inspection and Operability
Requirements.
Satisfactory performance of the Section XI surveillance program is
necessary to demonstrate operability of components. Failure to
conduct Section XI testing renders affected components inoperable
and requires the invocation of applicable action statements.
- (d) The. applicability of Technical Specification 3.03 when an LCO was
exceeded was discussed and the Region will request an interpretation
-from NRR.
(e).'LER 83-07 (Loss of Y1 bus) was discussed and it was determined that
'upon loss of the bus- that the other busses .would be checked for
operability.
(f) LER 83-01 (ECCS Room Coolers) was discussed and the licensee agreed
ito expedite his investigation and to have a report by April 15,
~
~ 1983.-
(The report was sent on April 13).
9
.
.'
(g) Reportability of failed components was discussed and it was agreed
that if the failure was in the " safe" direction and did not cause
entry into the Technical Specification Action Statement that it was
not reportable.
(h) The licensee.was requested to expedite the change to Technical Specification 3.0.3.
The licensee agreed that if required, the
section on 3.0.3 would be separated from the other portions of the
Technical Specification Change Request. -During a subsequent telecon
discussion on May 11, 1983, between N. Jackiw (NRC) and L. Young
(TECo), Mr. Young stated the Technical Specification change is
being expedited. He also stated that he expects to submit the
change to NRR.by July 1, 1983.
13. Meeting for Followup from March Enforcement Conference
A meeting was held at the Davis Besse site on April 19, 1983, with the
personnel in attendance as noted in Paragraph 1.
The licensee presented
the major points of the. corrective actions addressed at the March
Enforcement Conference. The NRC staff requested additional information
which'the licensee stated would be included in the formal response to be
sent by the end.of April.
14. Implementation of TMI Lessons Learned
Item II.B.4. (Closed): Training for Mitigating Core Damage
The Station Superintendent successfully completed the mitigation
of core damage training on March 14-18.
This item is considered closed.
No items of noncompliance or. deviations were identified.
-
15.
Independent Inspection Effort
The inspectors routinely attended meetings with licensee management and
various shift turnovers between shift supervisors and licensed /non-
'
,
'
licensed operators. These meetings and discussions provided a daily
status of plant operating and testing activities as well as discussion
of significant problems or incidents.
On March 21, 1983, high water was experienced in the vicinity of the
plant and the Flood Watch procedures were put into effect. The inspector
reviewed the procedure. No flooding of the site occurred.
'
On' April 12, the inspector found that an opening in the protected barrier
fence did not appear to have adequate compensatory measures. On April 26
.
and 28, the inspector noted improper card reader use at two doors. The
licensee and the region were informed and the region is following up on
.these. items. Additional information regarding these items is discussed in
. Inspection Report No. 346/83-08.
10
_ - -
.
~
,
._
_
.
.
.. -
__ _ , _ . _ - -
- - . . . .
-
-
.
- __
.
e
16. Exit Interview
The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
throughout the months and at the conclusion of the inspection on April 29,
and summarized the scope and findings of the inspection activities. The
licensee acknowledged the noncompliance and other findings.
The licensee was informed that nothing had been initiated to expedite the
technical specification change to Section 3.0.3 which they had committed
_
to do on March 30, 1983.
,
11
.
-
-
.
.
.
. . .
..
.
-
-
-. .
.- -
--