IR 05000219/1997001
| ML20140G416 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 06/06/1997 |
| From: | Eselgroth P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Roche M GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| References | |
| 50-219-97-01, 50-219-97-1, NUDOCS 9706160218 | |
| Download: ML20140G416 (2) | |
Text
SUBJECT:
NRC INTEGRATED INSPECTION REPORT 50-219/97-01 AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Dear Dear Mr. Roche:
l This letter refers to your April 24,1997 correspondence, in response to our March 21,
1997 letter.
.Thank you for informing us of the corrective and preventive actions documented in your
letter. These actions will be examined during a future inspection of your licensed program.
Your cooperation with us is appreciated.
Sincerely, Original Signed By:
Peter W. Eselgroth, Chief Projects Branch 7 Division of Reactor Projects Docket No.
50-219 cc: w/o cy of Licensee's Response Letter G. Busch, Manager, Site Licensing, Oyster Creek M. Laggart, Manager, Corporate Licensing cc: w/cy of License 9's Response Letter State of New Jersey i
l
[I g;0I j
l
'
Ellia* *mm.a.ls.
---
l 9706160218 970606 I
i PDR ADOCK 05000219 C
PDR s.
. _.
__.. _ _.. _ _.
_ _ _ _
..
_..
_..
.
__.. __ - _ _ _ _. _. _ _ _ _. _ _ _
m
._.
_
.
.
I
i Distribution w/cv of Licensee Response Letter Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
!
PUBLIC l
NRC Resident inspector l
D. Screnci, PAO l
P. Eselgroth, DRP
'
D. Haverkamp, DRP J. Nick, DRP C. O'Daniell, DRP W. Dean, OEDO
'
P. Milano, NRR/PD l-3 R. Eaton, NRR/PD 1-3 R. Correia, NRR
,
F. Talbot, NRR
'
DOCDESK Inspection Program Branch, NRR (IPAS)
J
!
l
,
-
\\
l DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\ BRANCH 7\\REPLYLTR\\OC97-01.rpy Ta receive a copy of this oocument, indicate in the bos: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure
"E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure
"N" = No copy OFFICE Rl/DJ)P.
l
/
/
l l
p l
NAME PE g b
,
l DATE 4/6/97
/ /97
"
!
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
i (
_ _ _...
. _. _
. _
._ _ -_. _ _
.-
_m m
_.m-__.-
_ _._ _._ _ __ _, _- __.... _...
~,.. _ _..
_
+
e
.
e b
I
'j GPU Nuclear, Inc.
A U.S. Route #9 South
NUCLEAR Post Off ce Box 388 j
Forked Rwer, NJ 037310388
[
Tel 609-9714000
!
l April 24, 1997
6730-97-2127
'
l l
I l
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
!
Attentioni Document Control Desk.=
Washington, DC. 20555
-
l
Dear Sir:
l Subject:
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Docket No. 50-219 IR 97-001: Reply to Notice of Violation In accordance with 10CFR 2.201, the enclosed provides GPU Nuclear's response to the violation identified in the' subject inspection report.
If you should have any questions, or require further information, please contact Brenda DeMerchant; Oyster Creek Regulatory AfTairs Engineer, at 609-971-4642.
Very truly yours,
-
.
h Michael Vice President and Director Oyster Creek MBR/BDE/gl
Attachment cc:
Administrator, Region I
NRC Project Manager j
NRC Sr. Resident Inspector i
M
---..
-y.ar
- =.
.y c-r.
,
y
-
'
.
l
.
Attachment Response to Notice of Violation Violation:
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, " Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings," states, in part, that activities afTecting quality shall be prescribed by procedures of a type appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished in accordance with those procedures. Procedures shall include appropriate quantitative or qualitative acceptance criteria for determining that important
activities have been satisfactorily accomplished.
Contrary to the above, Procedure 108, " Lockout /fagout Procedure," Revision 4, did not include appropriate quantitative or qualitative criteria for determining that important activities have been satisfactorily accomplished. This resulted in preparing an incorrect tagging order on January 24,1997, and the subsequent tagging of a valve in an incorrect position. A spill of approximately 250 gallons of control rod drive system water in the reactor building occurred on January 25,1997, due to the incorrect tagging.
This is a severity Level IV violation (Supplement 1).
Response:
GPU Nuclear concurs with the violation in that equipment control requirements were not followed when preparing the switching order for the hydraulic control units (HCU's) in question.
However, contrary to the stated violation, this activity is controlled by Procedure 108,
" Equipment Control," rather than Procedure 108.7, " Lockout /Tagout Procedure " as cited.
Reason for the Violation:
The primary cause of this incident was personnel error in that the Control Room Operator (CRO)
did not specify adequate isolation boundaries in the switching order he prepared. A contributing cause to this event was an inadequate procedure. Although independent verification is implied in the procedure it is not clearly stated. There was no requirement to have a second party review the isolation boundaries when the CRO who prepared the switching order made changes to the requested boundaries.
Corrective Steps that Have Been Taken and the Results Achieved:
Immediately following the incide.it, the discharge was isolated, the spill was cleaned up and the switching order was revised to provide the appropriate isolation boundaries.
Procedure 108 was revised to specifically require independent verification of all switching orders.
-
-_-
..
-._..
-
.
-..
.. - -.
.._ __
. _ -
-
._
l<
,
.
,
"
t.
i
, -.
l Attachment 1 6730-97-2127 Page 2
>
,
Corrective Steps That Will Be Taken to Avoid Further Violations:
l Station Management will implement changes to improve the quality of switching order l
preparation and verification by establishing a standard interval for the submittal of switching order requests in advance of prescheduled work.
,
This is expected to be implemented byJune 30,1997.
.
l
-
In addition, consideration will be given to assigning a dedicated crew oflicensed personnel to
'
prepare and verify switching orders.
Date When Full Comoliance Will Be Achieved:
Full compliance was achieved on Febniary 14,1997, when the revision to Procedure 108 became effective. Additional corrective measures are in progress as stated above.
!
!
,
i
,
l l
l l
9 f
a