ML20141B019

Forwards RAI Re Initial Review of 10CFR50.54(a)(3) Request for Changes to Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station,Unit 1, Updated Sar,Section 17.2 Submitted on 970425

ML20141B019
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	06/19/1997
From:	Hansen A NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Jeffery Wood CENTERIOR ENERGY, TOLEDO EDISON CO.
References
TAC-M98623, NUDOCS 9706230242
Download: ML20141B019 (4)

Text

l 1

June 19, 1997 Mr. John K. Wood I Vice President - Nuclear, Davis-Besse Centerior Service Company c/o Toledo Edison Company Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 5501 North State Route 2 Oak Harbor, OH 43449-9760

SUBJECT:

DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 - REQUEST FOR l ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, PROPOSED CHANGE TO QUALITY ASSURANCE l PROGRAM (TAC NO. M98623)

Dear Mr. Wood:

The NRC staff has completed its initial review of your 10 CFR 50.54(a)(3) i request for changes to the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, Updated i Safety Analysis Report, Section 17.2, " Quality Assurance During the Operating Phase," contained in your letter dated April 25, 1997. Based on the staff's preliminary review of this submittal, several issues have been identified which require clarification in order for the staff to complete its evaluation.

Details are provided in the enclosure.

Please contact me at 301-415-1390 if you have any questions related to this request.

Sincerely, Original signed by:

Allen G. Hansen, Project Manager Project Directorate III-3 Division of Reactor Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-346 DISTRIBUTION:

Docket File OGC \

Enclosure:

Request for Additional PUBLIC ACRS \

Information PD3-3 R/F JRoe EAdensam (EGA1) SBlack cc w/ encl: See next page GMarcus GGrant, RIII ()f() }

e 3OON DOCUMENT NAME: G:\DAVISBES\DB98623.RAI 0FFICE LA:PD3-3 _l E PM:PD3-3 _ l E NAME C3oyle (14 6 AHanser/f@/J l DATE 8 //61/97 f g //49V l OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 9706230242 970619 PDR ADOCK 05000346 P PDR

l .

June 19, 1997 Mr. John K. Wood l

Vice President - Nuclear, Davis-Besse Centerior Service Company c/o Toledo Edison Company Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 5501 North State Route 2 Oak Harbor, OH 43449-9760

SUBJECT:

DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 - REQUEST FOR l ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, PROPOSED CHANGE T0 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM (TAC NO. M98623)

Dear Mr. Wood:

The NRC staff has completed its initial review of your 10 CFR 50.54(a)(3) request for changes to the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, Updated Safet,y Analysis Report, Section 17.2, " Quality Assurance During the Operating Phase," contained in your letter dated April 25, 1997. Based on the staff's l preliminary review of this submittal, several issues have been identified l which require clarification in order for the staff to complete its evaluation.

Details are provided in the enclosure.

, Please contact me at 301-415-1390 if you have any questions related to this '

l request.

l Sincerely, I Original signed by:

Allen G. Hansen, Project Manager Project Directorate III-3 .

Division of f* actor Projects III/IV Office of huclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-346 DISTRIBUTION:

Docket File OGC l

Enclosure:

Request for Additional PUBLIC ACRS Information PD3-3 R/F JRoe EAdensam (EGA1) SBlack cc w/ encl: See next page GMarcus GGrant, RIII i

DOCUMENT NAME: G:\DAVISBES\DB98623.RAI 0FFICE LA:PD3-3 l E PM:PD3-3 _ j E NAME C 30yle (14 6 AHanservil// )

l DATE 6 //6//97 f f //99V j OFFICIAL RECOR) COPY l

l 1

John K. Wood Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Toledo Edison Company Unit I cc:

Mary E. O'Reilly Robert E. Owen, Chief Centerior Energy Corporation Bureau of Radiological Health 300 Madison Avenue Service Toledo, Ohio 43652 Ohio Department of Health i P. O. Box 118  !

James L. Freels Columbus, Ohio 43266-0118 Manager - Regulatory Affairs Toledo Edison Company James R. Williams Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Chief of Staff 5501 North State - Route 2 Ohio Emergency Management Agency Oak Harbor, Ohio 43449-9760 2855 West Dublin Granville Road Columbus, Ohio 43235-2206 Gerald Charnoff, Esq.

I Shaw, Pittman, Potts Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Esq.

l and Trowbridge Andrew G. Berg, Esq. 1 l

2300 N Street, N.W. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer Washington, D.C. 20037 & Feld, L.L.P.

1333 New Hampshire Ave., NW, Ste. 400 l Regional Administrator Washington, D.C. 20036 l U.S. NRC, Region III l 801 Warrenville Road Ohio Environmental Protection Agency  !

Lisle, Illinois .60523-4351 DERR--Compliance Unit 1 ATTN: Zack A. Clayton l Robert B. Borsum P. O. Box 1049 i Babcock & Wilcox Columbus, Ohio 43266-0149

, Nuclear Power Generation Division l 1700 Rockville Pike, Suite 525 State of Ohio l Rockville, Maryland 20852 Public Utilities Commission

! 180 East Broad Street i l Resident Inspector Columbus, Ohio 43266-0573 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 5503 North State Route 2 Attorney General Oak Harbor, Ohio 43449 Department of Attorney 30 East Broad Street I James H. Lash, Plant Manager Columbus, Ohio 43216 l

Toledo Edison Company Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station President, Board of County 5501 North State Route 2 Commissioner of Ottawa County Oak Harbor, Ohio 43449-9760 Port Clinton, Ohio 43252 Donna Owens, Director Ohio Department of Commerce i Division of Industrial Compliance Bureau of Operations and Maintenance 6606 Tussing Road l P.O. Box 4009 Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068-9009 l

l l

~ .

l RE0 VEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING PROPOSED CHANGE TO OVALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM DESCRIPTION DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT 1  !

1 l

l 1. Please provide a list of audit findings documented during the last i l 2 years and identify from this list each finding that would continue to

be treated as an " audit finding" (that is, a Category 1 or 2 Potential r

Condition Adverse to Quality (PCAQR]) and each that would be treated as  !

j a Category 3 or 4 PCAQR under the proposed process.

l

2. Please explain how audit findings that are not classified as

"significant conditions adverse to quality" would be uniceely j identified, tracked, and trended under the proposed process.

3. Would audit findings that are identified as "significant conditions adverse to quality" be tracked or trended differently than other PCAQRs  ;

classified as Category 1 or 27

4. Under the provisions of the proposed audit finding system, please describe how you would determine the need for a follow-up audit of deficient findings as required by Criteria XVI and XVIII of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50.

l

5. The proposed approach would establish a new threshold for the identification and reporting of audit findings (that is, significant ,

conditions adverse to quality), and audit issues that did not satisfy j this new threshold would be processed separately in accordance with your PCAQR program. Given that one of the primary objectives of the QA audit process is to independently identify programmatic weaknesses and deficiencies for management attention, please describe how the proposed process would evaluate audit issues which are no longer identified as

" audit findings."

t l

l 4

4

,