IR 05000346/1985016
| ML20134H431 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 08/16/1985 |
| From: | Norelius C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Williams J TOLEDO EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8508280410 | |
| Download: ML20134H431 (2) | |
Text
h m fl
.
)
F-g T
AUG I 61985 Docket No. 50-346 Toledo Edison Company ATTN: Mr. Joe Williams, Jr.
Senior Vice President Nuclear Edison Flaza 300 Madison Avenue Toledo, OH 43652 Gentlemen:
This refers to the routine safety inspection conducted by Messrs. W. Rogers and D. Kosloff of this office on May 14 through June 10, 1985, of activities at Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station.
It has come to our attention that the report issued as a result of this inspection contains a typographical error incorrectly identifying an Unresolved Item Number as 346/85016-03 on Page 3 of the report. The correct designation should be 346/85009-04. A copy of the corrected page is attached. Please update your records to reflect the corrected unresolved item number.
We appreciate your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
'Orfgfnal signed by N.J. Defee4%e" C. E. Norelius, Director Division of Reactor Projects Enclosure: As stated cc w/ enclosure:
L. Storz, Station Superintendent DMB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS)
Resident Inspector, RIII Harold W. Kohn, Ohio EPA James W. Harris, State of Ohio Robert H. Quillin, Ohio Department of Health RIII RIII RIII RIII PIII RI I vvd Hi
.-
M. M rmick-Barger tling ur ess iw loff Ro s
08/12/85 RIII RIII Ch sotimos N
e ius 8508280410 650816
Lg PDR-ADOCK 05000424 k
O PDR 3Go/
,
-
.
I
.
~
(Closed) Unresolved Ites (346/85016-02): Non-licensed operator found asleep while responsible for monitoring piping as required by facility license.
Item was escalated to an ites of noncompliance (346/85018-03).
(Closed) Unresolved Ites (346/85009-04): Exceeding power limit imposed-by reduced reactor coolant flow. This item was escalated to an ites of
,
noncompliance (346/85018-02).
_
No itees of noncompliance or deviation were identified.
3c Operational Safety Verification The inspector observed control room operations, reviewed applicable logs and conducted discussions with control room operators during the monthe of May and June. The inspector verified the operability of selected emergency systems, reviewed tagout records and verified proper return to service of affected components.
Tours of the auxiliary and turbine buildings 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 observed plant housekeeping / cleanliness conditions and verified beplementation of radiation protection controls. During the month of May, the inspector walked down the accessible portions of the main steam system to verify operability.
These reviews and observations were conducted to verify that facility operations were in conformance with the requirements established under technical specifications,10 CFR, and administrative procedures.
While reviewing the unit log on June 9, 1985, the inspector noted that there was no Appendix R trained electrician on site from approximately
}
1100 on June 8, 1985 until approximately 0130 on June 9, 1985. Dis-cussions with the plant manager revealed that the electrician on duty the evening of June 8 had left the site before his relief had arrived.
l The electrician has been disciplined. This itse is considered closed.
No items of noncompliance or deviation were identified.
4.
Monthly Maintenance Observation Station maintenance activities of safety related systems and components,'
listed below were observed / reviewed to ascertain that they were conducteE in accordance with approved procedures, regulatory guides and industry codes or standards and in conformance with technical specifications.
The following items were considered during this review:
the limiting conditions for operation were set while components or systems were removed from service; approvals were obtained prior to initiating the work; activities were accomplished using approved procedures and were
i I
L