ML20126G391
| ML20126G391 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 06/03/1985 |
| From: | Corbin McNeil Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | Collins S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8506100146 | |
| Download: ML20126G391 (3) | |
Text
)
o OPSEG Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609 3394800 Corbin A. McNeill Jr. Vice President - Nuclear June 3, 1985 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region 1 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 Attention:
Samuel J.
Collins, Chief Projects Branch No. 2 Division of Reactor Projects Gentlemen:
NRC INSPECTION 50-272/85-07 AND 50-311/85-07 SALEM GENERATING STATION UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 Public Service Electric and Gas Company is in receipt of your letter dated May 2, 1985, which transmitted a Notice of Violation concerning a failure to maintain procedures.
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, our response to the Notice of Violation is provided in Attachment 1.
l Sincerely,
/
B506100146 850603 I
PDR ADOCK 050 22 i
Attachment O
C Mr. Donald C.
Fischer Licensing Project Manager Mr. Thomas J.
Kenny Senior Resident Inspector Il The Energy People I6 Of
f-
'l J..
ATTACHMENT 1 10CFR PART 2.201 INFORMATION PUBLIC SERVICE. ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY SALEM GENERATING-STATION RESPONSE TO. NOTICE OF VIOLATION Your letter 3f May 2, 1985, identified a violation of Technical Specification 6.8 which requires that written test procedures be established and maintained.
Contrary to this requirement, test procedure 2 PD 8.1.002, Rod Position Indication Signal, was changed on February 11, 1983, June 2, 1984 and August 24, 1984 such that-it was inconsistent with the Unit No. 2 Technical Specification.
1.
PSE&G DOES NOT DISPUTE THE VIOLATION.
2.
THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE VIOLATION WAS A FAILURE OF RESPONSIBLE
'I&C SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL TO CONSIDER THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS 3.
IMMEDIATE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN a.
A review of the Unit 1 and Unit 2 Technical Specifications was performed in order to establish the proper limiting conditions for performance of the test procedure.
As a result, the Unit 1 and Unit 2 procedures, lIC-8.1.002 and 2IC-8.1.002 respectively, were revised to limit rod withdrawal to one bank at a time and a Keff of not greater than that specified by the Technical Specification.
b.
The. responsible I&C supervisory personnel were counselled.
c.
All I&C supervisory personnel were informed of the violation.
The importance of. verifying the applicability of on-the-spot changes to procedures for each unit due to. differences in the Technical Specifications was emphasized.
4.
LONG TERM CORRECTIVE ACTION The administrative procedure which provides guidance on the initiation of on-the-spot changes is being revised.
This revision is being made to incorporate the recently issued Amendments 62 and 33 to the Unit 1 and Unit 2 Technical Specifications, respectively.
These amendments provide significant changes to, and overall strengthening of, the safety review process.
5.
FULL COMPLIANCE WILL BE ACHIEVED BY NOVEMBER 13, 1985 L
a
n s
~.
.. e- -
3,_
.6.-
ADDITIONAL ~INFORMATION With' regard;to.the. differences between the Unit 1 and Unit.2
-Technical-Specifications, activities.have been initiated to;
' developfa'new single' set of Technical Specifications,-common to;both units.'-The. development of a new common set of
- TechnicalLSpecifications is a major undertaking with
'significant. impact on all phases of operation.
Our objectivefis to achieve a timely revision that-is consistent-1with ~ NRC and ' industry ' positions in this area.
,y r
I l
i E-I~
I' i
i m
-