ML20132C280
Text
.
- ee Q At -
.v ri
- ::r.e -
t.
A.;;;e, Dire t
S '-
D A',' ! 5 t E S:it MS ! N SPEC T ! c',
8 4
F*-
'teme r an d..:., Sn t eze k t o Kep; c r, da ' -'"
+
j i:
4 it n c t r.! s rn.a t i od i s provided in respense te y%:
m-3:
d
+
,si, in whtih you requested a discussion ct the 10: 1. - 2 :..
t-h a
i
)
f u.
e, ittm 5, ihysical Protectton - It is noted that Pra e fur" j
s;1.'5, htch is to be conJucted on an anteual frequen y, was t -=; '.ted in 'tay and July 19 79, and Janua ry, April, an d Septt tt r,
Iw Prxejure 81135B, which is to be completed ar.*aa'.1),
s>-
,;n1. ted in May 1979, and April, Septemter, and 'sovemb"r, 14 Precedure 811395, shtch is to be completed annually, was a's.
comp!rtej 100~ tn 'tay and July, 1979, and Januarv, A; t t !, and 3
Se; t e-t er 1980.
Procedure 81149B, which 13 also an an:. t; prs-teL.re, was completed during May and July 1979, anj 1:nu t 1%.
s,.
ta D i.. ". t o :.
The reterenced report section indicates that procedures b!!:7B,
't e:'
'F, 611 MB, and 81149B sere to be conducted annually.
It should be h
.t that Enslosure 1 to MC.2515, dated January 1, 1979, stated that these
~,
pr
- ! r e., -ere to be exercised semt-annually.
Consequently, se constder jj t.e repvrt information to be incorrect for the time pertod in questton.
A rev.>..n to Enclosure I to MC 2515, dated October 1, 1980, changed the ag fre.. ncy for all 81100 series procedures to annually:
"To be restored to FA "S" (semt annual) when resources permit."
L).
q' Durt.g, the period May 1979 to November 1980 the report shows that the semi-annual (each six months) frequency was met with two minor excepttons-(.s) Although your report shows that 8113iB was only done in May 1979, and il April, September and November 1980, our records ud a computer printout shas that at was aly completed in Janua y 19SO with one stem of noncam-A pliance cated'* as a result.
The period between May 1979 and January 1980 exteeded the sent-annual requirement by two months; (b) Our records show that 'lle9B was compl'ted in May and July 1979 and January 1980.
Those d,
records also show that the procedure was, gain inspected in April 1980
[
(only 10% completed) with one stem of noncompliarre "cated" a.,
a result.
Due to Ltme constraints and the limited nature /t
.he September 1980 inspection (followup on previous items of re a:
ance) the procedure
.3 was out exercised, although the s tem of notico p
.1-dentified with 811 %E in
]l Aprt! sa. revtesed.
]
h071gogro_:::::a tY
.J. R Sntezek I Item III.A on pages 7 and 8 indicates that between Januar'. 1979 a Se; 1980, a total of 62 stems of noncompliance were ident i f t e<l.
Twenty-thn -
t, hose items were security related.
Additionally, two Immediate Action
'.ct-n very issued and a Management Meeting was held during that same period.
T..
of'the five noted inspections were conducted to followup on Immediate Act:
n 5
Z.etter items.
Ve consider the efforts in this area to be consistent with program and
\\
regulatory objectives.
(
Item 2.
Page 13, IV.B. indicates that the region has a long list of outstanding inspection itens that have existed since 1976.
s Discussion - The number of items on the list is sixteen, made up of low priority matters of minimal safety significance.
Some were related.to g
administrative procedures, some were " reminders" to the inspector and y
as such did not require priority attention, others were followed up but s
not documented as closed.
It should be pointed out that a conscious Tl decision had been made by regional supervision and management at the onset
< 4, '
of the preoperational test program that the Davis-Besse Project Inspector, C
and later the SRI, apply their efforts to priority matters such as assuring W
safe reactor operations; followup of reactor operations; followup of IEB's,
. ji*j IEC's, and LER's; followup of plant trips; and after TMI, followup on the numerous and extensive list of inspection items related to TMI.
g yn Because of this higher priority work, not only was there a delay in starting M
the modular inspection requirements, but also there was a deferral in the j
followup on some of the lower priority work such as the items referred to in your communication. We consider the action consistent with the inspection priorities existing at this facility.
We hope this information will be of assistance to you.
We also recomend 3Q that in the future this type of supportive information will automatically
.g appear in the report with the findings.
hh
)<
c(James G. Keppler Director J
v4
. :.z cc:
H. D. Thornburg u
R. F. Heishman M
C. E. Norelius L. A. Reyes
- {
q Y
&n e
!'l d
.[
q 33h
3 mC!
E4
.= EDISON Lit. n3
';o. NPF -
Scrill No. 1-199 May 8, l31
.tr. James G. Keppler, Director, Region III United States Nuclear Regulatory Cor.,ission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illii.ois 60137
Dear Mr. Keppler:
Attached please find the To t. do Edison Company resr mst t.'
s. 'n.
r"s r.-
sulting from the ins,section conducted by the Pertorm ns.
.\\;... r i t s
! '. s t t o n.
Those concerns were presented in your let ter dated.\\;'ril 17, l' - l.
16 Should you have any questions, ny st af f and I will b.
1.ippy to
'sp"nd.
~
Very truly yours, RPC:CEN: nit enc 1.
cc:
D-R NRC Resident inspector blit ME
. hf c'
(r,' }
C'
\\
t 4 >;o*
essiyGG4R2 810508 l
PDR ADCCK 05000346 n
o ri-l
'5.
, 19,1 I
ti
'I 4
k TOLEDO EDILON COMPMY RESPON:'E TO il t.!
4
!.TCLEAR aEGt LATORY CO.T!ISSION, R!LIO's III 4:
LF.TTER DATED. PRIL !!, 19'I a
N.
h.
a "4
L i
L.
l t-i i
i i
6
- ~ - -
mm, nc- =
,'k
.r
\\
0 UNITED ST Af ts
-A
/.
Niit's E AH REGUL ATORY COMMr% ION
~
A t
RE GION ill
, k'.' c.; /[~f 799 aoost <s t ' 6 040 C t e % e t v s a t t isu ts e.o t i '
f Q,,6 : -
p
' / +
6(@/,
- .r
- !. Iw-
- k,cket N.. So-la J
1 4, 0,,
}
' P/p
.els 2 E. J :
3 n(.~
.r.
A ! : '.
Mr. kl. h ir t
i r. ase g
j Vi. e Pre tJc: ;
- 4 Nu lear
/. -
2' rdt.on Plaza 400 %di s.in wenue Niedo. i ni
. 3 e..'
ientlesen:
r i. t s letter is to s en : f r-t he.chedule arran.ed b.
tssrs.
1.
\\.
t...
u and 1. D. Murrav f or a meet ing. with vou and : e: hers et omr st.-
.t 9:00 a. r. en March 17 1981. at ou r Re.;t ena l i$ f t t e e *, in < ler 1
Illinoi.
l l
The purpoase of this e.eeting is te discuss the r e c.u l a t e r v enforcer nt i
ae t ton.6 relative to ite.* os noncorpliance i d en t i t t a..'
.t t% liavi,-Se sr l
% le.it Pcwer Statlen.
will gladly discus-.any questions vou h.ive cem ernine his setin..
e I
Sincerelv.
(
'l 60 e. !a:nes i.. Kepp1.r Director (i
Mr.
I. Is. Murr.av.
St.4tisn Superintendent 7
Central Files
(
Wepr 'due t f or l'n t t NRf 20h AEOD RestJent inspector. RI!:
PDI-L e c,. '.e;E Ns !i
- It 9.o r
,ohn, ;'.w. r
. r-1ss:
31::n.
4
.se t..
s v.i...
A
_ - - - _ - - - - -