ML20076G827
| ML20076G827 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 05/06/1983 |
| From: | Fiedler P GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | Starostecki R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20076G818 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8306160258 | |
| Download: ML20076G827 (4) | |
Text
.
GPU Nuclear NQQIQf P.O. Bo< 388 Forked River, New Jersey 08731 609-693-6000 Writer's Direct Dial Number:
May 6, 1983 Mr. Richard W. Starostecki, Lirector Division of Project and Resident Programs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406
Dear Mr. Starostecki:
Subject:
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Docket No. 50-219 Inspection 50-219/83-04 Response to Notice of Violation In accordance with CFR 2.201, the attachment to this letter provides our response to the Notice of Violation contained in your letter of April 6,1983.
If you should have any questions, please contact me or Mr. Michael Laggart of my staf f at (609) 971-4643, Very truly yours,
/
[gg.
'eter B. Fiedi lice President 1 d Director Oyster Creek PBF:jal Attachment cc: Regional Administrator Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA' 19406 NRC Resident Inspector Cyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Forked River, NJ 08731 8306160258 830608 PDR ADOCK 05000219 l
PDR GPU Nuclear is a part of the General Pubhc Utilities System
Violation A statest A.
Provisional Operating License DPR-16, section 2.C.(6) requires that the Oyster Creek Physical Security Plan be fully implemented.
The Oyster Creek Physical Security Plan, revision 13, dated October 7,1982, section 3.2.1.2 requires that all hand carried packages entering through the protected area portals be physically scarched or examined by X-ray.
Contrary to the above, on February 24, 1983, a hand carried package was brought through a protected area portal and was not physically searched or examined by X-ray.
This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement III).
Renconse:
We do not concur with the violation as stated above.
The package was not brought through a protected area portal without being searched. The watchman did have the package in his hands and squeezed it.
When the NRC inspector indicated this may have been an inadequate search, the Sergeant on duty immediately made a thorough search of the package prior to it entering the protected area.
In order to insure proper search techniques are conducted in the future, the watchman in question, was reinstructed by his immediate supervisor on proper package search techniques. Additionally, the Supervisor of Security counseled the watchman on the importance of properly searching a package. A Site Protection Force directive was issued on February 25,1983, which requires all hand carried packages, except spillable liquids, to be processed through the x-ray machine.
l l
1 I
l i
Violation B states:
B.
Technical Specification 6.8.1 requires that procedures be implemented that i
seet or exceed the requirements of Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33-1972.
i Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33-1972 requires procedurec for security and visitor control.
Procedure 122, revision 13, dated July 16,1982, " Security Guidelines for Plant Personnel", requires that an individual assigned as a visitor escort ensure that there is continuous surveillance of the escorted person.
Contrary to the above, on February 24, 1983, at about 3:00 p.m., the individual assigned to escort a visitor in the augmented offgas building did not ensure that there was continuous surveillance.of the escorted person.
This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement III).
I Re sponse:
We concur with the violation as stated.
The immediate corrective action was to provide another authorized escort for the visitor.
Each time a person assumes the duties of escort for a visitor he is required to read and acknowledge by signature, that he understands the escort requirements, the escort in question was aware of this requirement. As a result of his infraction he was subjected to diciplinary actions.
In order to emphasize the importance management places on meeting the l
escort requirements, a copy of the violation and response will be distributed to each department on site.
Full compliance was achieved on February 24, 1983.
l
.* e-Violation C states:
C.
10 CFR 50 Appendix B, Criteria II requires that a quality assurance program be established, that systems to be covered by the program be identified, and that the program provide control over activities af fecting the quality of the identified systems.
The GPU Nuclear Operational Quality Assurance Plan, revision 0, September 1,1982, Section 2.6.1 requires that systems important to safety be identified on a Quality Classification List.
The Quality Classification List for Oyster Creek, revision 4, March 15, 1982, lists the Reactor Water Cleanup System as a system important to safety.
The CPU Nuclear Operational Quality Assurance Plan, revision 0, September 1,1982, Section 5.2.2.3 requires that materials and parts important to safety be traceable to appropriate specification requirements.
Contrary to the above, on March 5,1982, Epicor Pre-Mixed Filter Aid, product code EPIFLOC-21-H, a material important to safety, was installed in the reactor water cleanup system with no documentation to provide j
traccability of the material to appropriate specifications.
This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement II).
Re s ponse :
The licensee was questioned by the NRC Resident Inspector as to whether the material met Quality Assurance requiremer.ts. The indivibal involved received verbal confirmation that the material did meet the requirements.
The material was then used, since during this time period water clarity both in the Reactor Cavity and Fuel Pool was a primary concern. Upon further investigation, documentation for the material traceability could not be located. The following actions were immediately taken:
1.
The vendor was contacted and requested to send a letter confirming the identity of the matarial. This confirmation was received March 10, 1983.
I 2.
A change order was submitted to change the status of this filter material from non-QA to QA receipt inspection required.
Full compliance was achieved as of March 10, 1983.
Additionally, in order to prevent recurrence, all other filter aid materials which may potentially be used on QASL Systems have been placed on the Quality Classification List.
4 l
_-.._.. ~,. _....
.__.