IR 05000346/1983016
| ML20207H855 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 08/24/1988 |
| From: | Davis A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Shelton D TOLEDO EDISON CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207H862 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-83-124, GL-81-12, NUDOCS 8808300063 | |
| Download: ML20207H855 (4) | |
Text
-
,
3c6
}-E } f
<
..
,
I
\\
AUG.2 4 1989 i
Docket No. 50-346 License No. NPF-3 EA 83-124 Toledo Edison Company ATTN: Mr. Donald Shelton Vice President Nuclear Edison Plaza 300 Madison Avenue Toledo, OH 43652 Gentlemen:
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-346/83-16)
This refers to a special inspection conducted on July 11-13 and 25-29,1983 and a followup inspection conducted on. September 7-9 and 22,1983 and January 9,1984, at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, of activities authorized by NRC Operating 1.icense No. NPF-3. The inspection was conducted to review steps taken by you to ensure compliance with 10 CFR 50.48 and, in particular, Sections III.G, J, and 0 of Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50, and of your overall fire protection program implementation.
During the inspection, violations of these requirements were identified. A copy of the inspection report was forwarded to you on August 30, 1984.
The.results of the initial inspection were discussed with you and NRR on August 16, 1983 in Bethesda, Maryland.
The results of this inspection and our conclusions were
also discussed on December 1,1983, during an enforcement conference held at the NRC Region III office between Mr. W. A. Johnson and other members of your staf f and Mr. James G. Keppler and other members of the NRC staff.
You provided additional responses to our concerns in letters dated December 16 and 29, 1983.
These letters described two audits that had been performed by consultants to determine the degree of compliance with Appendix R requirements.
However, the audit reports said little about the detailed requirements of Section III.G of Appendix R, and no mention was made of the requirements of Sections III.J., III.L, and 111.0. The root cause of your failure to comply with Section III.G, J, L and 0 appeared to be inadequate control of engineering activities, including:
(1) an inadequate reassessment of plant conditions regarding the applicable Appendix R requirements and (2) lack of supervisory reviews to assure technical adequacy of the reassessments.
This reflected a significant breakdown in the management controls used to ensure
.
CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUE5HD 8800300063 800924 DR ADOCK 050
-
_
.__,, _. _. _ _ _ _ _ _
_
. _ _ _ _. _. _
_ _ - _ _
-
.
Toledo Edison Company
AM N compliance with fire protection requirements.
NRC Generic Letter 81-12, dated February E0, 1981, specifically emphasized the need for management to reassess fire protection features at your facility to ensure compliance with the new NRC requirements in this area.
During the August 16, 1983 meeting between your staff and the NRC staff in Bethesda, Maryland, we stated the seriousness with which we viewed the findings of the July 11-13 and 25-29,1983 inspection. Toledo Edison committed to develop short and long term programs addressing these problems prior to restarting the plant. Mr. Eisenhut's letter, dated August 19, 1983, documented that meeting and the commitments made by Toledo Edison. Your letters to the NRC, dated August 26, 31 and September 13, 1983, submitted your plans for short (prior to plant r2 start) and long-term corrective action as well as your evaluation of our inspection findings. We inspected your short-term corrective actions prior to plant restart. Mr. Eisenhut, in a letter to Toledo Edison, dated September 23, 1983, stated that NRC conclud&d that the actions required to permit plant restart had been satisfactorily completed.
The staff recognizes that a significant amount of time has elapsed since the referenced inspection report was issued.
This is because the NRC has been developing the enforcement guidance for Appendix R based on NRC inspections and comments from the industry regarding the basis upon which compliance with Appendix R would be evaluated.
In the Spring of 1986, the Commission approved the staff's Appendix R interpretations and, with revisions, the enforcement guidance.
The NRC staff did not believe it was appropriate to proceed with escalated enforcement action at Davis-Besse until the interpretations and enforcement guidance were issued and investigation activities completed.
In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1988), the violations in the enclosed Notice have been evaluated in the aggregate as a Severity Level III problem. A civil penalty is considered for a Severity Level III violation or problem. However, af ter consultation with the Commission and the Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations, I have been authorized to issue the enclosed Notice without a civil penalty. A civil penalty is not being proposed because of the perceived lack of clarity regarding the fire protection requirements that existed at the time the inspection was conducted and because of the significant time that has elapsed since the inspection occurred. Given these factors, a civil penalty is not considered warranted.
'
You are mquired to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response.
In your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence.
We recognize that since the inspection was completed you have taken actions to correct the deficiencies and may have described these corrective actions in previous correspondence with the NRC.
For that reason, you may reference previous submittals j
regarding your corrective actions when responding to this letter.
After
-
.
.
%
Toledo Edison Company
AUG 2 41983 reviewing your response to this Notice, including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future inspections, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement actions is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub.
L., No.96-511.
Sincerely, Original cisnod by.
A., Bert Davia A. Bert Davis
.gional Administrator Enclosures:
1.
Inspection Report
No. 50-346/83-16(DE)
cc w/ enclosures:
L. Storz, Plant Manager
Resident Inspector, RIII
l
James W. Harris, State of Ohio
Robert M. Quiliin, Ohio
Department of Health
State of Ohio, Public
Utilities Commission
See Attached Distribution
GC
OE:D
DEDR0
RI: (
S[ts/6BfM
S-ts4b foy
f
Gre(E
,
(
>D
Luehman
a, ler
Lieberman
Ta lor
enman
f
RI,
G4
R6
RIII
RIII
P
s-
er
e
ychultz
P
Davi
g dih
Q)ll'
f fl2Wh
913lriello iln
Y1'
e
i
_.
.
.
_
-
_ _. _. _
(
l-
Toledo Edison Company
AUG 2 41988
o
t.
Distribution
DCD/DCB (RIDS)
Licensing Fee Management Branch
SECY
CA
OGPA
,
J. M. Taylor,~0EORO
- J. Lieberman, OE
L. Chandler, 0GC
'
T. Murley, NRR
RAO:RIII
PAO:RIII
SLO:RIII
,
M. Stahulak, RIII
Enforcement Coordinators,
RI, RII, RIV, and RV
A. Datta, NL/S, RES/EME
C' McCracken, NRR/ECEB
.
A. Krasopoulos, RI/DRS
G. Wiseman, RII/ ORS
A. Singh, RIV/ ORS
C. Ramsey, RV, DRS
.