ML19261D580
| ML19261D580 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 04/18/1979 |
| From: | Jeffery Grant TOLEDO EDISON CO. |
| To: | Heishman R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19261D578 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7906190555 | |
| Download: ML19261D580 (2) | |
Text
~
TREDO
%ms EDISON April 18, 1979 JAMES S. GAANT v.c. pr....,
e.es, s.,
Docket No. 50-346 License No. NPF-3 Serial No. 1-60 Mr. R.F. Heishman, Chief Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137
Dear Mr. Heishman:
Toledo Edison acknowledges receipt of your March 28, 1979 letter and report enclosure 79-04 referencing apparent deviations from Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1, commitments to the NRC listed as an " Infraction" under the heading " Notice of Violation."
Fo.'. lowing a thorough examination of the items of concern, Toledo Edison herein offers information regarding the item of non-compliance.
Item 1, Infraction: Technical Specification 6.8.1 requires, in part, that procedures recommended in Appendix "A" of Regulatory Guide 1.33, dated November 1972, be implemented.
Reg _ulatory Guide 1.33 addresses procedures for test activities of safety related equipment.
Contrary to the above:
a.
On September 14, 1978, Procedure TP 800.05 Sections 6.6 and 6.7 were not followed in that the pre-requisites for stable power level and Tave were not met.
b.
Following the testing described in TP 800.05 and TP 800.20 on September 14, 1978, Administrative Procedure AD 1801.01, Section 8, was not followed in that when the Test Leader, the Test Program Manager and the Section Head reviewed the test results to determine if the procedure was properly executed, they did not identify and issue deficiency reports regarding following test prerequisites and an inconsistency in measurement of differential boron worth.
2309 041 a 23 1979 THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY EDISON PLAZA 300 MADISON AVENUE TOLEDO. OHIO 43G52 7906190 JTfE57
e Mr. R.F. Heishman, Chief Docket No. 50-346 Serial No. 1-60 April 18, 1979 Page 2
Response
The following actions have been taken to prevent re-currence of problems of this nature:
(1) The imperativeness of procedurel compliance has been stressed to the Test Leader.
Erplicit guidance with respect to satisfaction of pre-requisites has been delivered.
(2) The Test Leader, Test Program Manager and Section Heads have reviewed the Administrative require-ments relating to test results review.
(3) The mechanism for formal procedure modification, test deficiency reporting and documentation and resolution of test discrepancies have been reviewed by the Test Leader, Test Program Manager and Section Head.
Additional action and determinations, based on management review, are:
(1) Time requirements in the prerequisites have been reviewed.
It has been determined that less re-strictive time limits can be used without detriment to the validity of the desired physics parameters.
The prerequisites have been relaxed by a change to the test procedure.
(2) Power Engineering and the Station have reviewed the procedures and the results. No inconsistency in measurement of differential boron worth can be identified. Additionally, the FSAR test abstract is conditional with respect to such a measurement and the test procedure was so written as to not require a differential boron worth determination.
Yours very truly, 2309 042 j,f g 4 James S. Grant Vice President, Energy Supply TDM:CEW/pm