ML20034H164
| ML20034H164 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 03/12/1993 |
| From: | Long R GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| C-93-2047, C000-93-2047, C321-93-2090, NUDOCS 9303160118 | |
| Download: ML20034H164 (2) | |
Text
,-
~
GPU Nuclear Corporation
~ N 3 3s One Upper Pond Road MB Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 201-316-7000 TELEX 136-482 Writers Direct Dial Number.
C321-93-2090 0000-93-2047 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Sirs:
Subject:
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Docket No. 50-219 Inspection Report 92-25 Reply to'a Notice of Violation In accordance with 10 CFR 2.201, the enclosed provides GPU Nuclear's response to the Notice of Violation identified in NRC's Inspection Report 92-25.
Should you have any questions, please contact Patty Arcaro, Administrator FSAR at 201-316-7748.
Very truly yours,
/
~
R. L. Long Vice President and Director Corporate Services cc:
Administrator, Region I Senior NRC Resident Inspector Oyster Creek NRC Project Manager i
~
J60004 i
9303160118 930312 PDR ADOCK 05000219 G
[g!?O/.
GPU Nuclear Corporation is a subsidiary of General Pubhc Utilities' Corporation
-l
'Ir
i
- l 4.
i l:
o
- C321-93-2090 Page 2 l-VIOLATION:
10 CFR 50.71(e) requires-that the Final Safety Analysis-Report (FSAR)-
i shall be updated periodically to assure that the information in the FSAR-l contains the latest material developed.
I i
Contrary to the above, design information related to a 1984 plant 1
modification of torus suction strainers for the core spray and containment spray systems was not included in the FSAR.
This is a severity level V violation (Supplement Vil).
i BESPONSE:
1 GPUN concurs with the violation as stated in that pursuant to 10 'CFR -
50.71(e)(3), the initial revision to the original Facility Description and' i
Safety Analysis Report (FDSAR) did not reflect._the 1984 modification' to the torus suction strainers.
1 The torus suction strainer modification was completed during the time-the first FSAR update was in progress and the change was inadvertently missed by our contractor.
It should be noted _that the original' FDSAR did not contain the current level of detailed design information. The first FSAR-l update included extraneous information from various sources such as the original Burns & Roe OCNGS Facility Description Manual.
The. level-of detail incorporated may have been excessive of what is normally required, j
The update / upgrade process which was identified in ;our December.1990
)
submittal letter, has significantly improved the accuracy of the FSAR._ In addition,. the current _ update process. provides continual improvement ~ inL that a ' general review of each section of the updated FSAR' by ~ cognizant _
j technical personnel is performed.
Reviews are not only.done as a result l
of modifications, but also all content Lis ~ expected to be; reviewed for accuracy.
In this case, unless the torus suction strainer modification i
package was reviewed against the updated FSAR description, or an actual-t walkdown was compared with the updated FSAR description, it is unlikely
[
this error would be discovered in subsequent-update reviews or via other initiatives such as during the preparation: of design basis documents.
This update process is not intended to be _a-verification program for all-design details; however, the process does capture the significant changes-that are implemented since the last update and is in accordance with 10
)
CFR 50.71(e)(2), (4).
We believe the process will also bring continued improvement in FSAR content.
The strainer information contained in Table. 6.3-3 of the-FSAR has been updated to reflect currentLstrainer design and will be included in Update-
-]
8 scheduled for submittal in August.1993.
s 1
l t
I
-