ML20057G081
| ML20057G081 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 10/08/1993 |
| From: | J. J. Barton GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| C321-93-2282, NUDOCS 9310200150 | |
| Download: ML20057G081 (4) | |
Text
., -
l a
s h
j GPU Nuclear Corporation 5 U (uclear
- lon
- ;388 j
Forked River, New Jersey 08731-0388 609 971-4000 Wnter's Direct Dial Number:
October 8,1993 C321-93-2.282 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I
Att: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 1
Dear Sir:
i
Subject:
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Docket No. 50-219 Inspection Report 50-219/93-19 l
Response to Notices of Violation i
1 Appendix A of USNRC Inspection Report 50-219/93-19 identified two Notices of I
i Violation. Attachment I to this letter provides the GPU Nucicar responses to those violations.
If any additional information or assistance is' required, ple..se contact Mr. John Rogers of my staff at 609.971.4893.
l
_ f) f f
ohn J. B
.. n Vice Pres ent and Director Oyster Creek l
JJB/JJR Attac'.ments j
Enclosure ec:
Oyster Creek NRC Project Manager Administrator, Region I
~ Senior Resident 921020015o 931oos
{
zOt i
PDR ADOCK 0500 9
{
0 3 C!'
GPU Nuclem Corpo'a on is a subsdery Df Ge% M Pub"c.Ut ' + s Co'po abon
t NITACIIMENT I Violation A:
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Paragraph IV requires, in part, that measures shall be established to assure that applicable regulatory requirements which are necessary l
to assure adequate quality are suitably included or referenced in the documents for procurement of material, equipment, and services.
Contrary to the above, as of August 20,1993, appropriate measures were not established to assure that adequate quality was suitably included in documents for procurement of services, in that a contract, effective February 8,1993, was issued to a vendor whose QA program for meteorological instrument calibration services had not been approved by GPU Nuclear QA.
GPUN Response:
GPUN concurs with the violation as written.
l Reason for the Violation l
This violation was caused by an oversight by the Procurement QA section I
when the contract was issued without the formal review of an external audit of the vendor in the area of calibration. The bid documents submitted by the vendor stated that the calibration activites required by GPUN had already been performed by the vendor at other nuclear utilities and that an audit by another utility was available. However, GPUN did not evaluate the audit from the other utility prior to issuing the contract.
i C5xrective Actions Taken and Results Achieved i
i l
The audit referenced in the vendor's bid document was reviewed by GPUN and accepted. The computer reference to this vendor was changed to i
reflect the satisfactory audit.
l L
A review was conducted of open contracts requiring an approved audit for
[
specific services. No additional deficiencies were identified.
i t
l
l C321-93-2282 Attachment i Page 2 GPUN considers this to be an isolated case, however, refresher training was provided for appropriate personnel specifically addressing this concern.
i i
4 Date when Full Compliance was Achieved Full compliance was achieved on August 20,1993 when the evaluation of the external audit was completed and the computer database updated.
i Violation II:
Technical Specification 6.8 requires that written procedures shall be established, implemented, and maintained that meet or exceed the requirements of the
{
Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Regulatory Guide 1.33, Rev.2. Regulatory Guide 1.33, Rev. 2, Appendix A,Section I requires Administrative Procedures including Procedure and Approval. Procedure 1000-ADM-1218.01, written pursuant to Regulatory Guide 1.33, states in paragraph 4.8.1 that a documented review at least every two years is required for plans or procedure.: identified as within QA scope, which includes procedures for calibration of meteorological monitoring instrumentation.
Contrary to the above, as of August 20,1993, the licensee had no documented biennial review of meteorological instrument calibration procedures.
GPU Response:
i GPU concurs with the violation as written.
j i
i i
Brasan for the Violation.
Prior to 1992, the results of biennial reviews of Environmental Controls Department procedures were documented by a memo from the procedure reviewer to the department manager or the procedure review coordinator.
In 1992, the biennial review process was revised to include the completion of an appropriate form. The reviewer responsible for the biennial review of the meteorological system calibration procedures ackncwledged his responsibility to perform the requisite review, but did not fill out the new form upon completion of his review.
C321-93-2282 Attachment I Page 3 Corrective Actions Taken and Results Achieved; The meteorological system calibration procedures were reviewed and documented on the appropriate form on August 20,1993. The remaining Environmental Monitoring procedures were reviewed to ensure that no other procedures had missed a biennial review. No other concerns were noted.
Corrective Actions to be Taken:
The bienial review of the Environmental Controls Department procedures will be tracked by the computerized system used to ensure timely reviews of the Oyster Creek Station procedures.
Date when Full Compliance will be Achieved; Full compliance was achieved on August 20,1993 when the appropriate documentation was completed.
I 9
4 r
P i
j I
i 1
a
. + -,..,
-,n,
,