ML20236H895
| ML20236H895 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 07/29/1987 |
| From: | Kane W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Hukill H GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236H899 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8708050383 | |
| Download: ML20236H895 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000289/1987008
Text
_ - -- - -
- - -
_
-.
- --
'JUL 291987
.
L
i
,
i
Docket / License No. 50-289/DRP-50
- GPU Nuclear l Corporation
ATTN: Mr. H. D. Hukill.
Vice President anc Jirector, TMI-1
'P. O. Box 480
g
Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057
1
!
Gentlemen:
l
Subject:
Inspection Report No. 50-289/87-08
j
During the period May.13 and June 8-16, 1987,. Mr. R. Conte of my staff con-
ducted a special safety inspection related to the Performance Appraisal Team
(PAT) Report No. 50-289/86-14 (termed PAT II): and related Region I follow-up
-)
inspection reports as noted herein at your facility and at your corporate
office. We documented the results of this inspection in the enclosed report.
. At the conclusion of the inspection, Mr. R. Conte summarized the inspection
findings for Mr. P. Clark, you, and other. members of your staff.
In this inspection, NRC Region I revievred the PAT II findings to:
(1) deter-
mine which findings are violations of regulatory requirements; and, (2) itemize
other findings requiring additional licensee and NRC staff follow-up. As a
- result, this inspection necessarily focused on the negative aspects of the PAT
II inspection.
The-PAT!s positive observations, which were substantial, were
not revisited in this inspe:: tion.
This Region I review identified an apparent violation of NRC requirements
on the failure to properly document technical and safety reviews.
You are
required to respond to this letter; and, in so doing, you should follow the
instructions in Appendix A of this letter.
1
The subject violation deals with the adequacy of implementation of technical
and safety (T&S) review requirements primarily in.the procedure / procedure
change area. The new process implemented after September 1, 1986, has'not
1
yet alleviated this problem. We appreciate GPU Nuclear's interest in improv-
ing T&S review, but we are concerned that a relatively consistent level of
safety review performance has not been achieved. A primary indicator of
that performance is the adequacy of safety review documentation.
The root
causes_of this problem appear to be:
(1) improper implementation of related
administrative controls, apparently due, in part, to weak training; (2) poor
internal guidance on what are procedures described in the safety analysis
report (SAR) or other licensing basis documentation; and, (3) a new T&S
process which introduces terminology inconsistent with the general guide-
lines in technical specification section 6.
_
87000503838h289
ADOCK O
,
a
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
IR TMIl 87-08 - 0001.0.0
11/29/80
f
l0I\\\\
- --
._-
_.
__ _
- - - - - - - - - -
-
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - -
-
- -
-
---
- - - - -
--
'
YUL 29 E87
.
GPU Nuclear Corporation
2
Accordingly, in addition to following Appendix A, your response to this letter
should also focus on your views on the root cause of this problem, along with
,
what additional management controls or further action you plan to enhance
performance in this area.
In this regard, we encourage you to clarify and to
improve your reviewer's understanding of what are to be considered " procedures
described in the SAR."
As described in paragraph 5.? of the enclosed report,
we encourage you to take a broad interpretation of this term.
In cases where
such interpretation leads to performance of safety review of relatively minor
changes, we recognize that a rather short attendant evaluation may be entirely
approprate.
This letter also acknowledges our receipt and review of your letters, dated
March 5 and April 2, 1987, in response to the PAT report and our Inspection
Report No. 50-289/86-17, respectively.
In this regard, we are:
(1) rescind-
ing one example of the failure to properly implement procedures dealing with
Engineered Safeguards Actuation System (ESAS) testing (the other examples of
the violation are not rescinded); and, (2) considering that the failure to
carry out an alarm response procedure remains a violation of requirements.
Thank you for your cooperation in these matters.
Sincerely,
-
.3>1
murI 7
lh u
hrWilliamF.Kane, Director
Division of Reactor Projects
Enclosures:
1.
Appendix A, Notice of Violation
2.
NRC Region I Inspection Report No. 50-289/87-08
cc w/ enc 1:
G. Broughton, Operations and Maintenance Director, TMI-1
C. W. Smyth, TMI-1 Licensing Manager
R. J. McGoey, Manager, PWR Licensing
E. L. Blake, Jr.
TMI-1 OTSG Hearing Service List
Public Document Room (PDR)
Local Public Document Room (LPOR)
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
NRC Resident Inspector
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
IR TMIl 87-08 - 0002.0.0
11/29/80
_____--_-_-_a
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
GPU Nuclear Corporation
3
bec w/encls:
Region 1 Docket Room (with concurrences)
J. Goldberg, OELD:HQ
Management Assistant, DRMA (w/o encis)
S. Collins, DRP Chief
R. Blough, DRP
W. Travers, NRR
K. Abraham, RI
R. Conte, SRI - TMI-I
D. Johnson, RI
TMI-1
W. Bateman, SRI - OC
i
i
i
l
E
~
A
,
% RI:DRP
RI:DRS
RI:DRP)k
RI:DRP
R.
P
RI:DRP
i
RConte/mjd
PEapen
k ungc
ABlough
S
ns /
WKane
7/21/87
7/jp/87
/8
7/2Y/87
7/FV87
7fS/87
n h cbc. gs
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
IR TMIl 87-08 - 0003.0.0
re
xde 7 b 7. bd;,d
k['kgj
07/15/87
i
/
gc.- ~ rr - ~1Lcs
a .,&
y-kka-72y'lry
%
q
7/as/87
}
f u M ca q l 2lgy 4
- - - - - - -
-