ML20214L973
| ML20214L973 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 08/27/1986 |
| From: | Corbin McNeil Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | Murley T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| References | |
| NLR-N86115, NUDOCS 8609100479 | |
| Download: ML20214L973 (3) | |
Text
(--
Pubhc Servies Electric and Gas Cornpany Cctbin A. McNeill, Jr.
Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609 339-4800 Vice President -
Nuclear August 27, 1986 NLR-N86115 U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reg ion I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 Attention:
Dr. Thomas E.
Murley, Administrator Office of Inspection and Enforcement Gentlemen:
NRC INSPECTION REPORT #86-30 DOCKET NO. 50-354 HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) is in receipt of your letter dated July 31, 1986, which transmitted a Notice of Violation identifying two violations.
The first violation involved a failure to comply with Technical Specification requirements.
The second violation concerned a failure to comply with the requirements of 10CFR50 Appendix B, Criterion XVI.
Pursuant to the provisions of 10CFR2.201, our response to the Notice of Violation is provided in Attachment 1.
Sincerely,
, d.,
f4
((M Attachment Mr. James M. Taylor, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement Washington, DC 20S55 NRC Resident Inspector P.O.
Box 241 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038
~'
8609100479 860827 PDR ADOCK 05000354--
ss G
PDR ft 1
A
)
ATTACHMENT 1 10 CFR 2.201 INFORMATION PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION ITEM A One of the violations identified in your letter dated July 31, 1986 involved the fai. lure to comply with the requirements of Technical Specification Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.4 and LCO 3.7.4.
As described in the Notice of Violation, entry into Operating Condition 2 was made with the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) System inoperable and reactor steam dome pressure greater than 150 psig.
1.
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY DOES NOT DISPUTE THE VIOLATION.
2.
THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE VIOLATION WAS PERSONNEL ERROR WHEREIN CONTROL ROOM PERSONNEL FAILED TO TRACK, IN THE CONTROL ROOM ACTION STATEMENT LOG, THE STATUS OF INSTRUMENTATION UNDER REPAIR THAT WOULD RENDER THE RCIC SYSTEM INOPERABLE IF REACTOR STEAM DOME PRESSURE WAS INCREASED ABOVE 150 PSIG.
3.
IMMEDIATE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS:
a)
At the time of discovery, the plant was no longer in a condition that required the RCIC system to be operable; therefore, no operational corrective actions were required.
b)
The operations department personnel involved in the incident were counseled to ensure that they make appropriate entries in the control room Action Statement Log for any system degradation that could af fect that system's operability...regardless of the technical specifications operability requirements for the Operational Condition at the time of the degradation.
4.
LONG TERM CORRECTIVE ACTIONS:
a)
This incident will be discussed with all Operating Department personnel.
The discussions will include instruction regarding proper tracking of system operability and use of the Action Statement Log.
b)
Operating Department administrative procedures will be revised to reflect the instructions provided in Immediate Corrective Action 3.b) above.
5.
WE ARE IN FULL COMPLIANCE NOW.
To ensure continued compliance, the above long te rm corrective actions will be completed by September 1, 1986. >
ATTACHMENT 1 (CONT'D)
ITEM B Your letter also identified a second violation concerning failure to comply with PSE&G Quality Assurance Procedure, QAP 7-1, thereby failing to ensure that conditions adverse to quality are promptly identified and corrected as required by 10CFR50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI.
1.
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY DOES NOT DISPUTE THE VIOLATION.
2.
THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE VIOLATION WAS INSUFFICIENT MANAGEMENT ATTENTION TO THE DISPOSITIONING OF QUALITY ACTION REQUESTS.
As acknowledged in our letter dated August 8, 1986 which, in addition to responding to a notice of violation, described our ef forts to improve.the timeliness of our Quality Assurance Corrective Actions, a sizeable backlog of unanswered Quality Action Requests developed due to individual station departments tracking their own responses to QA requests.
This fragmented approach, compounded by the demands of our startup program allowed the extent of the backlog to escape the attention of station management.
3.
IMMEDIATE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AND RESULTS ACHIEVED:
To focus specific, i.ncreased management attention on Quality Action Requests:
a)
Station management now tracks all QA requests on a single data base, and b)
Any overdue QA requests are highlighted to station management on a weekly basis.
The backlog of unanswered Quality Action Requests has been eliminated.
There are currently no overdue requests for which an initial response has not been made.
4.
LONG TERM CORRECTIVE ACTIONS:
The increased management attention achieved by the immediate corrective actions described above will be continued...to ensure timely responses to all Quality Action Requests 5.
WE ARE IN FULL COMPLIANCE NOW. -_.
- _ _