ML20133C076
| ML20133C076 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Davis Besse |
| Issue date: | 12/08/1980 |
| From: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Heishman R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20132B273 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8510070220 | |
| Download: ML20133C076 (1) | |
Text
.
~.
i g*4%g UNITED STATES M
k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
(
S REcloN H1 Dg 4l 7es noostvatr nono y/
GLEN ELLYN. ILUNot5 6007 December 8, 1980 I
NOTE FOR:
R. F. Heishman, Chief, Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support i
j Branch i
FROM:
James G. Keppler, Director
SUBJECT:
PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL BRANCH INSPECTION OF DAVIS BESSE I
i While I had intended to do this sooner, I wanted to share with you in writing some of my observations in connection with the recent Davis Besse PAB inspection.
1.
The degree of cooperation provided by your Branch in facilitating the PAB inspection was exemplary.
I received many favorable comments in this regard.
I 2.
Discussions of the PAB inspection findings confirm our view that the l
Region III inspection effort at Davis Besse has been both-extensive and productive.
I was particularly pleased that no substantive issues were identified that were unknown to Region III and were not being pursued by Region III.
3.
While the PAB inspection leads me to want to resolve certain matters more vigorously, I believe this PAB inspection reflects favorably on Region III and your Branch -- particularly Bob Warnick, Tom Tambling,
'l Luis Reyes, and Walter Rogers.
i 4.
Mr. Stello enjoyed his visit to Davis Besse and was quite complimentary of Mr. Reyes.
I congratulate you and your staff for another super effort, f
James G. KeppTEr Director 4
f i
g5 h een i
i j
l
-.......... ~,.,.,_. - _ _
g.neto UNITED 57 f ts f,
NUCLE AR REGUL ATORY COMMI55lON
{
.ei S
eiscioN m l
res noosevet t acao S
i cos a, a ttv as. et tinois sou r N
Decemb.r 31 1980 A,.,
\\
-.. > f' t Docket No. 50-346 4
Toledo Edison Company
/
ATTN:
Mr. Richard P. Crouse
.~
'f, Vice President' FE D 101991 -
i Nuclear Z
v.s. samia e marcas Edison Plaza
.M
$,f 300 Madison Avenue s
Toledo, OH 43652 M
C Centlemen:
This refers to the management meeting held on December 5, 1980, at the Toledo Edison Corporate office relative to our evaluation of activities authorized by NRC License No. NPF-3, attended by myself and others of my staff, and by Mr. Johnson, yourself, and t,ther members of the Toledo Edison Company staff.
The subjects discussed during the meeting are included in the Of fice of
]
Inspection and Enforcement Meeting Report and the Perfor=ance Appraisal t
Report which are enclosed with this letter.
It is our view that this meeting was effective in communicating to you j
and your staff the renuits of our evaluation of your performance of licensed activities. Also we hope it provided you with a better under-standing of our appraisal program and objectives.
I 1
In accordance with Section 2.790 of NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10. Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosures will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
i e
i 0 2 2 m m 'M e
Toledo Edison Company December i!,
l' eda e
f No reply to this letter is required; however, should you have any j
questions concerning this matter, we will be pleased to discuss t h e:-
with you.
j Sincerely, 1
1 A
f J
~
James apple
{'
' Director
}
Enclosures:
t 1.
IE Inspection Report No. 50-346/80-33 2.
Performance Evaluation Report 1
d cc w/encle:
4.
Mr. T. D. Pharray, Station
.b Superintendent Central Files Reproduction Unit NRC 20b AE00 Easident Inspector, RIII FDR
}.;
Local FDR O
'I TIC Escold Kohn, Power
'?
Siting Caamission Nalen W. Evans, Stata of Ohio Mr. W. A. Johnese, President and Chief Operating of ficer, c,
'FECO i;
'y
. 'y Jl
?
i l
i d'
ll NRC NUCLEAR REGULAT0hY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION I!!
Report No. 50-346/80-33 Docket No. 50-346 License No. NPF-3 Licensee: Toledo Edison Company l
Edison Plaza l
300 Madison Avenue Toledo, OH 43652 l
7 c'
facility Name: Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station i
Meeting At: Toledo Edison Corporate Office, Toledo, OH s
Meeting conducted: December 5,1980 7e NRC Personnel Presenti J. C. Eeppler, Director, Region III h
o R. F. Neishman, Chief, Reactor Operations and Nuclear
\\
J[
l Support, Branch
+.
l R., F. Wernick, Chief Reactor Projects Section 3
- '?
- 'h;;i.h - z '
,F s
',[. ; Lt A. Beyes, Seafor Resident Inspector y f;~" w yp t.~ y' ;;...
cM'g
.' G.'
rs, Resident Inspector S
_ ; % ). -
- q. 1 e
.g Approved ny: Es.;mildass, sler,,
/VAJ/fo i
.;p. N ector 3 C,y/5eclea,0perations'and' 7
- r. Support. Branch
- V]JIh?'fiWC1(O'YOY~
9?
~+d:.iMiL.%iM *an%?
Neetied Sumasry W M d D T /iW:.:!5G~faJ
%y Manaaement Neetles'ff M M i$)' W N Y N
xc?IU ee December 5: 1980 (Report No. 50-346/80-33)
Areas Discussed: " ~ ;-- ;* meettag held at the NRC's request to discuss the regulatory perferesace of the activities at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Staties as caecladed is the BBC's systematic Appraisal of Licensee Performance (SALP) program.,,,
c-Results: A summaties of the licensee performance evaluation was presented.
Areasof coecers were discussed with corporate management. The performance at the Davis-Besse facility was considered to be adequate.
-elesse+dyf
l DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted:
i t
Toledo Edison Company I
l W. A. Johnson, President and Chief Operating officer R. P. Crouse. Vice President, Nuclear L. C. Philips, Vice President, Administrative Services j
M. R. Polk, Director, Industrial Security T. D. leurray, Staties Superiatendent S. R. Beyer, Assistaat Station Superintendent J. H. Short. Director, Nuclear Engineering and Construction 2.
Areas Discussed h
s 1
The background of the SALP program was presented, including the a.
development, the need for evaluation, the method of evaluation, j
and the perpeces of,the SALP program.
j The results of the NBC's'evaluaties of the licensee's performance b.
i were discussed.a A copy of the evaluation is enclosed.
)
i 4
1' 5 ff y ;'51@Q4(EQGt,Lr t
As analysis of Davis-Sesse's anecespliance data for the SALP period c.
(Bevember 1,' 1979 - October 31,'1980) was presented. Comparative data for the years 1975-1979.and for the first sine months of 1980 q
i fee all plaats in Regies;1II were' presented.
3
. % s: M f $i> S {Sc M 14 [ M f.% kB%,.'.~
'l, e d.
As.aslysis of the significance of. the Licensee Evest Reports (EEll's) submitted, fee Davis-Resse during the SALP period was l
g
~ presented..: A camparises.ef the'sigolficance of Davis-Besse's IIR's with these submitted by other RIII operating planta was
,Presentedf,4 ;n~j f ' g y g W, f*:.
- .. e.j.>1he 'liesmoes s pro
- gress/W };k, yd, bis correcting concerns; previousl
, -f%s w M9po y
~
a 7,b f iesotified-Begies:III'1a a series of assagenest meetings
" Niesth Tolede-
!see was discussed. :In addition, the Performance 4 happysissi Sesech laspection wes discussed bri fl 5
e y.
'
- n Gn%%d)$
' );ij M4 s ;4 Hi '. w : :
&& cease _eCongstepfYYMlg 3.
.Of ' ' -
. i' ?.
Durias the,pressataties) W O..' J "r Mf Q W9.f
w (. - '
3 ef the SALP by the IRC the licensee commented
)
i es each of the'ereas is, paragraph 2 and disenssed several matters of coecers as fellems:
a.
1 4
.ig '.. p :
L
+
The licensee has sheerved that plaats with standarised 'fechnical s.
Specificatises (STS) usually submit asey more LER's than plants without the STS. The licensee else esamented about the relation-ship between ossite inspection hours and items of noncompliance.
b.
During the discussion of the confirmatory order relative to l
staffing, the licensee discussed possible IRC overreaction to what they believed was a TEC0 labor relatisse matter.
Gru ern was expressed over t he taunt.c r of,.i m t r e c.
times ior, tf.e m.iny ShC requests for.sitson su f.
.s s 19 i
Plan items, IE Bulletins, Nhk requests, arid nes r e p l e '..
They indic.sted the NRC should establisti pr i..r i t ies a r. '
a.r.
realtstic response times.
d.
The Itcensee indicated the SALP failed to give credit i ir s of the taprovements and changes that have been accomplished it great expense to the licensee especially fire protectior, s ti 2-cations.
Region III did not inspect fire protection during t i..
SALP period.
The licensee indicated their desire to meet with Region ill 4
c.
personnel periodically to discuss Davis-Besse perf ormence.
Jhe licensee indicated that SALP reviews on a six month perio.1 do not allow sufficient time to accomplish long term improve-ments between appraisals.
4
.i 1
I h
I i
i a
L i
i k
i
'i l
y
.Nr PrFi ex. ' t EVA;rA:ItN FI':".
I'.
LICENSEE PERF0Fy.ASCE EVALUATION (OPERATIONS)
Fccility:
Davis-Besse Unit 1 Licensee: Toledo Edison Company Unit Identification:
Docket No.
License No./Date of Issuance 50-346 NPF-3/ April 22, 1977 Raactor Inforzation:
j i
NSSS Rabcock & Wilcox Mki 2772 Appraisal Period: November 1,1979 to October 31, 1980 Appraisal Completion Date: November 12, 1980 Review Soard Members:
R. F. Beishman, Chief, Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch R. F. Warnick, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 3 J. F. Donahue, Chief Physical Security Section T. J. Madeda. Security Imepector M. J. Osetaan, Radiation Specialist M. F. Phillipe, Radiation Specialist W. L. Fisher, Chief, Fuel Facilities Projects and Radiatien Support Sectton T. N. Tashlias, Project laspector W. G. Rogers, Resident Inspector L. A. Reyes, Seeler Resident laspector C. J. Paperia11o. Chief, Environmental and Special Projects Section W. L. Ansloos, Smergsasy Flamming Analyst, NRR G.Fiore111, Chief, Reester Cosotruction and Engineering Support Branch J. A. Eind, Chief, Safeguards Branch cEither attended review board meeting on November 12, 1980 or provided written or verbal input to the evaluation, i.
4 l
l, - - - - _,
Id
[, 3,_,i.,
N.:- e r c.d M : u r e of Nen co r ! 1.n.c e I t..
Noncempliance category:
Violations 1
Infracticns 18 Deficiencies 21 Areas of noncompliance:
Points Operations 56 Rad. Prot., Environ, Mon.,
Eme rg, Plan., Confir. Mcas.
128 Security 138 Construction 0
Total Points 322 h
o Inspection reports covered by this review (Report Nue'ers):
n 50-346/79-29 through 50-346/79-34 50-346/80-01 through 50-346/80-28 Evaluation of noncompliance items:
Operations - During the SALP period,19 inspections were performed in this area.
Four infractions and eight deficiencies were identified.
None of the items involved an insediate hazard to the public.
One infraction involved the use of an outdated copy of a procedure by a control roca operator.
One infraction involved exceeding the time allowed to change and verify a reactor j
protective system setpoint when changing from four to three reactor coolant pumps.
One infraction involved the failure of the Corporate Nuclear Review Board to review all Technical Specification violations.
The fourth infraction involved out-of-date plant drawings.
The last three infractions were identified in 1979.
The items of noncompliance in the operations area do not represent a major regulatory concern, however, the Region han been concerned about other aspects of licensee performance in the operations area.
These matters were identified prior to the SALP appraisal period. The licensee identified a corrective action program to resolve these concerns.
NRC concerns and the licensee's corrective actions were discussed l
in meetings with the licensee on April 18, 1979, May ll, 'ulv 1 and September 19, 1979, February 29, 1980 (see the follevinc l
j paragraph), and June 4, 1980.
1
' l 4.l f y [^
J s t.1;gQgg t -
- r Although satisfactory progress has been observrJ 1: m :
of the identified areas, continued improvement is rewi n >
in the areas of facility change request:4 and r et.
- i equipment problems.
As a direct result of concerns expressed by :neebers of the Davis-Besse operations staff and NRC followup intecviewe.,
a meeting,was held by Region III with plant and corporate management on February 29, 1980, to discuss shift staffing.
training of nonlicensed personnel, the ability to respond to emergency conditions, and the overall depth of the licensee's staff. As a result of the site interviews and the management meeting the licensee's program to upgrade the experience level of nonlicensed members of the shif e operating crews was confirmed by an NRC Order issued on March 5, 1980. The licensee complied with the order.
i During the period of April 7, 1980 through November 1, 1980, the unit was shutdown for refueling, maintenance, and modifications. During the outage the Decay Heat Removal System flow was inadvertantly interrupted a total of ten tiass.
giace license amendment 24 was issued, which allows for the removal of power from the Decay Heat Removal isolation valves, there have been no additional events involving the loss of Decay Heat Removal flow.
A large'aumber of serious regulatory concerns existed with the Davis-Besse operation prior to the SALP period.
i These concerns were such that during that time Davis-Besse's performance la the reactor operations area was clearly below average campered with that of other Region III licensee's.
Progress has been made with respect to most of the areas of concern. However, due to the time it has taken to resolve some of these concerns and the lack of sufficient operating time to observe the results of the licensee's corrective actions, we do not have a meaningful basis to modify the rattag for the period in question.
FFMS
- (Radiation Protection. Environmental Monitoring Emergency Planning, and Confirmatory Measurements) During the SALP period four inspections were performed in these areas.
One violation, two infractions, and four deficiencies were identified in the four inspections.
Cne radiation protection inspection was performed during the refueling outage.
Three items of noncompliance, one violation and two infractions - all associated with a single overexposure event were identified and resulted in a civil peu lty. The Region III special appraisal of the licensees Health Physics Program has not been conducted but is scheduled to be done in January of 1981.
~*
41thout the overexposure the licensees r r-r-
area of Health Physica.ould have been ratei b' average as compared to the performance o f ot t.o
- s.
licensees.
The rating was lowered to "averagi b acknowledgment of the overexposure.
It is cenc!6.A the inspection frequency remain unchanged.
The re the Health physics Appraisal inspection could tedify tr recoceendation, however.
During' the SALP period one inspection was conducted in the arear 'f analytical quality control, environmental sonitorir.g.
and =wergency planning.
Four deficiencies were identified in the area of environmental monitoring.
None of the four involved hazard to the public. The licensee's performance in the area of analytical quality control is rated "averay.e";
in the area of environmental nonitoring the licensee's performance is rated " average" with respect to both nonradiological matters and radiological matters as compared to the performance of other Region III Licensees.
In the area of emergency planning the licensee is ahead of most Region III licensee's in developing a plan and procedures to meet the new 10CTR50, Appendix E requirements.
The licensee is the only one in Region III that has conducted a fully integrated drill and for that reason no comparison can be made with respect to their performance as compared to ot5er Region III licensees.
Safeguards - During the SALF period five inspections, including one investigacion, were performed in this area. Twelve infraccions and eight deficiencies were identified in the five incpections.
In addition, one deficiency was identified by the res :Jent inepectors during an operations inspection.
An Immediate Action Letter was issued because of security concerna identified during the inspection of April 30 -
May 2, 1980. During the two regulatory performance meetings held this year (yebruary 29 and June 4,1980), licensee corporate representatives were told of our concerns with the i
security program. Our concerns included the licensees capability to install and maintain all security related equipment in an operable condition, availability of spare parts for security related equipment, and the morale of the i
site security organization.
Security supervision, both j
corporate and site, must be more effective.
Since the two regulatory meetings, we continue to question the effectiveness of the licensee's corrective action.
This opinion is based on the results of two security inspections (June 5-6 and September 9-12, 1980) and the one operations inspection (August 1980) in which a total of six items of security noncompliance (5 infractions and one deficiency) were identified.
i
..