ML19325E763

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards SSFI Team Rept 50-219/89-80 on 890814-0915 & Notices of Violation & Deviation.Insp Identified Lack of Calculations Demonstrating Ability of Containment Spray to Transfer Heat Load in Event of Postulated LOCA
ML19325E763
Person / Time
Site: Oyster Creek
Issue date: 10/26/1989
From: Hodges M
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To: Fitzpatrick E
GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP.
Shared Package
ML19325E764 List:
References
EA-89-207, NUDOCS 8911080426
Download: ML19325E763 (2)


See also: IR 05000219/1989080

Text

,-

'a

R(.

<ea

1"-

,

!?

-

lF~

'

OCi 2 61989

-

k,

!

-Docket No. 50-219

[

EA No.89-207

,

.

GPU Nuclear Corporation

ATTN: Mr. Eugene E. . Fitzpatrick

'

'

.

'Vice President and Director

'

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station

P.'O. Box.388

F

Forked River, New Jersey 08731

[

Gentlemen:

Subject:

NRC Safety System Functional Inspection Team Report No. 50-219/89-80

'This letter forwards the report of the safety system functional inspection

(SSFI) performed by an NRC team from August 14 to September 15, 1989 at the

Oyster Creek Nuclear Station.

The team's findings and preliminary conc Nsions

were summarized for you and members of your staff at the exit meeting held at

the Oyster Creek site on September 1,1989.

!

The SSFI objective was to; assess the operational capability of the containment

'

. spray (CS) and emergency service water (ESW). systems to perform.their' design basis

safety functions.

The team evaluated the adequacy of operational procedures,

test practices, and maintenance policies as they contribute to CS and ESW systems

reliability. The Team also addressed the quality of design control and other

management programs applied to the CS and ESW systems. The team concluded

that the CS and_ESW systems were capable of performing their design basis

safety ~ functions.

However, as' discussed at the exit meeting, the inspection identified the lack

,

of calculations demonstrating the ability of the CS and ESW systems to transfer

the heat load from the containment in the event of a postulated loss of coolant

i

accident with the ESW system flow throttled and with elevated canal tempera-

'

'

'tures. Additional information was provided by your Engineering Department on

this topic during a meeting at Parsippany, New Jersey on September 14, 1989.

This issue is related to Violation A which was issued on August 24, 1989

,-

(Report 50-219/89-16) in reference to conditions originally identified in 1988.

l

We are considering appropriate enforcement action in regard to the lack of

timely follow-up to identified items and the possibility that the plant was

operated in an unanalyzed condition. Therefore, an Enforcement Conference will

be scheduled with you in the near future to discuss these problems, their cause

and significance, your corrective actions to prevent recurrence, and any aggra-

vating or mitigating factors that the NRC should consider prior to determining

the appropriate enforcement action for these findings.

In addition, it appears that other activities were not conducted in full compliance

with NRC requirements, as set forth in the Notices of Violation and Deviation

enclosed herewith as Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively. The violations

u

have been categorized by severity level in accordance with the " General Statement

'

of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,"

10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C

(Enforcement Policy). You are required to respond to this letter and in preparing

your response, you should follow the instructions in Appendices A and B.

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

BP OC TEAM INSPECTION - 0001.0.0

10/26/89

g91

o" 1oso426 891026^"DCM 05000219

Eo1

'I

I

PNU

_

g, m.;

y

~

"~

.

'

OCT 2 6' DB9 '

s .

'

'

.

..

m

GPU Nuclear Corp.-

2

!-

k

'

-The violation and deviation along with unresolved items and weaknesses identified

,

p-

by the inspection team are summarized in the executive summary and Appendix I'

'

'

to the report. Weaknesses are conditions presented for'your review to establish

'what, if.any,' corrective actions are appropriate. We request that your response

i.

to the Notice of Violation and Notice of Deviation also include a discussion of

L W

'your proposed corrective actions and schedules to address the unresolved items

and weaknesses identified in the report,

b,'

Your cooperation with us in this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

,

OrAcind SisucWA,

l

Marvin W. Hodges, Director

F

Division of Reactor Safety

Enclosures:

'

,

1. Appendix A, Notice of Violation

l

2.: Appendix B, Notice of Deviation

[

3. NRC Region I Inspection. Report 50-219/89-80

cc:

M. Laggart, BWR ' Licensing Manager

Public Document Room (PDR)

local Public. Document Room (LPDR)

E

Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)

.NRC Resident Inspector (w/SGI)

State of New Jersey

bec:

Region I' Docket Room (with concurrences)

Management Assistant, DRWs (w/o enc 1)

Section Chief, DRP

f

A.' Dromerick, Project Manager, NRR

c

J.' Dyer, E00

J. Lieberman, OE

.

J. Goldberg, OGC

!

J. Partlow, NRR

'

D. Holody, RI

l

,

,

.

)RI:DRS

\\

RI:DRS

RI:DRP (/

RI:DRS

!

RI:DRS [

gGray

Strosnider

Cowgil

Durr

Hod

,

10/ 6/89

10/7 /89

10/%/89

10/N/89

10/11/89

2

0FFICIAL RECORD COPY

BP OC TEAM INSPECTION - 0002.0.0

10/20/89

,

,

l

!

'I

'

m