ML20128H239
| ML20128H239 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 05/10/1985 |
| From: | Fiedler P GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | Kister H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0578, RTR-NUREG-578 NUDOCS 8505300474 | |
| Download: ML20128H239 (3) | |
Text
1 a...
GPU Nuclear Corporation Nuclear
- isn:fr888 Forked River,New Jersey 08731-0388 609 071-4000 Writer's Direct Dial Number:
l May 10, 1985 Mr. Harry B. Kister, Chief Division of Project and Resident Programs U.S. ' Nuclear Regulatory Comission Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406
Dear Mr. Kister:
Subject:
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Docket No. 50-219 Inspection 85-06 This letter is submitted in response to your letter of April 9,1985, regarding the findings of the February 4 - March 3,1985 inspection by Messrs.
W. H. Baunack, W. H. Bateman, and J. Wechselberger of your staff.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.201, the attachment to this letter represents our response to the violations. As discussed with Resident Inspector, W. H.
Bateman of your staff on May 10, 1985, a supplemental response will be provided by May 30, 1985 to address the discrepancies identified relative to Violation B.
If there are any questions regarding the supplied information, please contact Mr. Drew Holland of igy staff at (609)971-4643.
Very truly yours,
^
ete B#edler Vice President and Director Oyster Creek PBF/KB/ dam Attachment (0518A) cc: Dr. Thomas E. Murley, Administrator Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 NRC Resident Inspector Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Forked River, NJ 08731 8505300474 e50510 PDR ADOCK 05000219 G
PDR I
GPU Nuclear Corporation is a subsidiary of the General Public Utikties Corporation g
0 i
g
ATTACHMENT Violation A Technical Specification 6.15 requires, in part, the establishment and implementation of a program to reduce leakage from systems outside containment x
that would or could contain highly radioactive fluids during a serious transient or accident. This program shall include system leak test requirements, to the extent permitted by system design and radiological
. conditions, or each system at a frequency not to exceed refueling cycle interval s.
' Contrary to the above, as of February 4,1985, system internal leakage test requirements for each system specified in paragraph 6.15 have not been established.
This is a Severity Level V violation.
Response to Violation A GPUN concurs that system internal leakage test requirements specified in Technical Specification 6.15 have not been established.
As an immediate corrective action, Plant Engineering assembled records of maintenance and test activities accomplished during the last refueling outage
- that could satisfy the requirements of the leakage reduction program.
It was determined that the completed activities satisfied the intent of the leak reduction program for inter-system leakage.
A revision to Oyster Creek's leakage reduction program is being developed, instituting administrative controls to ensure that the leakage reduction program is fully implemented in accordance with Technical Specifications and NUREG 0578. Leak reduction program procedures will be revised to include tests for inter-system leakage for each required system at a frequency not to exceed refueling cycle intervals. The leakage reduction program and approved procedures will be in place no later than January 1,1986.
O
)
Violation B Technical Specification 6.8.1 requires, in part, that written procedures be established and implemented. Paragraph 1.1 of Appendix A to Station Procedure
.201.1, Rev. 30, Approach to Critical, requires if maintenance has affected a system's operability, a new lineup must be verified.
Contrary to the above, 'as of February 21, 1985, a portion of the Core Spray instrumentation was modified but a valve lineup was not-performed. This resulted in the Operations Department failure to identify four incorrectly ~
positioned local instrument isolation valves.
It also resulted in failure of the Operations Department to identify Station Procedure 308 valve lineup deficiencies.
This is a Severity Level IV violation.
i Response to-Violation B GPUN concurs that a valve lineup was not performed following a modification to Core Spmy instrumentation.
Immediate corrective action was the performance of a partial Core Spray System valve lineup, by the Operations Department, as alrea@ described in paragraph 3.2 of the inspection report.
Followug corrective actions included reviews of Procedure 108, " Equipment Control and Procedure 124, " Plant Modification Control". Upon completion of
.these reviews,-it was determined that the requirements of Procedure 108 did not adequately control system equipment ' alignment following modifications, and that a revision to procedure 124 was necessary.
When approved and implemented, the revised procedure will provide a mechanism in the modification turnover process to require that valve lineups / system checkoffs be performed following completion of the modification and prior to turnover and final acceptance. The procedure change request was submitted on March 2,1985, and is presently in the review process.
In addition to the followup actions identified above, the NRC Inspection Report 85-06 was distributed to all licensed operators as required reading.
' Additional discrepancies associated with the modified Core Spray System instrumentation were identifiod in the inspection report. These items will be addressed in a follow-up to dis reponse.