ML19343B868
| ML19343B868 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 09/08/1980 |
| From: | Crouse R TOLEDO EDISON CO. |
| To: | Davis A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19343B867 | List: |
| References | |
| 1-163, NUDOCS 8102180013 | |
| Download: ML19343B868 (3) | |
Text
=,.
O e
Mlf& TOLEDO September 8, 1980
% EDISON Docket No. 50-346 Rcxtno P. Cnous,E License No. NPF-3 N
84191259 5221 Serial No. 1-163 Mr. A. B. Davis, Chief Fuel Facility and Material Safety Branch U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137
Dear Mr. Davis:
Toledo Edison acknowledges receipt of your August 20, 1980 letter and Enclosure 80-24 (Log 1-410), referencing deviations from Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 commitments to the NRC listed as deficiencies under the heading of Notice of Violation.
A reply to each item of non-compliance is provided below:
Deficiency: Section 2.1.1 of the Appendix B Environmental Technical Specifica-tions requires, inpart, that "The maximum discharge temperature for Station liquid effluents shall not exceed 20 F above ambient lake water temperature."
Contrary to the above, the 200F AT limit was exceeded on January 6, 7, 8, 16, and February 20, 1980.
Response
1.
On January 6, 7 and 8, AT returned to within the 20 F limit when the circulating water system was shifted from bypass to through the cooling tower.
On January 16, the service water discharge was diverted from
(
the forebay to the collection box to reduce the Station dis-l charge AT to within the 200F limit.
l On February 10, dilution pump was verified on, and the AT re-turned to within the 200F limit when cooling tower blowdown was reduced.
[
2.
SP 1104.09, Circulation Water System and Cooling Tower Operau Procedure was modified by M-3660 to provide additional guidelin for controlling discharge temperature differential, i
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY EDISON PLAZA 300 MADISON AVENUE TOLEDO, OHt0 43652 8102180 0 6
C'
(
Docket No. 50-346 License No. NPF-3 Serial No. 1-163 Page 2 t
3.
Major Modification M-3660 was incorporated into Revision 6 of SP 1104.09 on March 7, 1980 and should prevent any recurrence of this condition.
Deficiency: Section 5.4.2 of the Appendix B Environmental Technical Specifica-tions requires, in part, that "A report shall be submitted in the event that a limiting condition for operation is exceeded (as spec-ified in Section 2. " Limiting Conditions for Operation")..." Sec-tion 2.1.1 of the Appendix B Environmental Technical Specifica-tions states "The maximum discharge temperature for station liquid effluents shall not exceed 20oF above ambient lake water temper-ature."
Contrary to the above, although the 20 F AT limit was exceeded on February 20, 1980, (.AT=20.62 F at 0100, AT=22.09 F at 0200, AT=
20.01 F at 0300, and AT=20.54 F at 0800), no report was submitted.
Response
1.
Review of the Stacion's records indicate that the 20 F limit was not exceeded on February 20, 1980, as indicated in Items 1 and 2.
Further review did show however that the 20 F limit was exceeded on February 10, 1980. *his investigation indicated that the discharge temperature was logged by the Reactor Opera-tor as being in excess of the limit and that no Deviation Re-port (D.V.R.) was submitted. Revision 1 to LER NP-09-80-01 was submitted to include the February 10, 1980 occurrence.
2.
As corrective action:
a.
The Operators were reminded of their responsibility for submitting DVR's when conditions are in excess of Tech-l nical Specification limits.
t b.
Personnel involved in the review of the Daily Logs were advised of the occurrence and were reminded of their responsibility for thorough reviews of the logs.
A letter was submitted to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation on June 13, 1980, requesting that the subject Environmental Technical Specification, Section 2.1 of Appen-dix B, be eliminated.
3.
The station is now in full compliance regarding this item.
l I
Deficiency: Section 2.3.3 of the Appendix B Environmental Technical Specifi-cations requires, in part, that "The concentration of sulfate ion shall be determined once per week from a grab sample collect-ed at the beach sampling station during the discharge of the l
neutralizing tank.
If there is no discharge from the neutraliz-ing tank, sampling shall be once per week."
Section 1.0 of the Appendix B Environmental Technical Specifications defines a
_ -. = _.
. _ _ ~ _ _. _.. -. -
4 1
Docket No. 50-346 License No. NPF-3 Serial No. 1-163 l
Page 3 week as "At least once every seven days with a maximum allowabic extension of 25%."
Contrary to the above, no sulfate monitoring was performed between t
February 12, 1979 and February 23, 1979, a period of time longer than seven days plus 25%.
Response
1.
The once per week sample was inadvertently missed when a sample was collected on Monday of one week and on Friday of the follow-ing week.
Individuals responsible for collecting the samples were instructed regarding the definition of weekly as it applies to the Environmental Technical Specifications.
2.
In order to avoid further noncompliance a computerized program was written so that tests scheduled for the week are printed out to show when they are to be performed.
3.
Full compliance for having the computerized schedule operating was in December 1979. A letter was submitted to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation on June 13, 1980, requesting that the subject Environmental Technical Specification, l
Section 2.3 of Appendix B, be eliminated.
Deficiency: Section 3.1.2.a.4 of the Appendix B Environmental Technical Spec-ification requires, in part, the "Ichthyoplankton samples shall be taken once every ten days during the anticipated spawning season, April thorugh August," and " Duplicate sampics surface and bottom shail be collected ir the vicinity of...the Toussaint Reef. Samples i
at the Toussaint Reef shall be collected only during the anticipated spawning season."
J Contrary to the above, no sampling was conducted at the Toussaint Reef between June 1, 1980, and June 30, 1980, a period of time in excess of ten days.
Response
No reply is required as stated in the NRC cover letter for Report No. 80-24.
However, the date reported in the deficiency should have been 1979 rather than 1980.
Very truly yours, Wf
=
TPC/TDM/DWB/ daw f
3 cc: NRC D-B Resident Inspector
. _.. _, _ _. - -. - _ _ _ _ _ _ ~
_