ML20236R838
| ML20236R838 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 07/17/1998 |
| From: | Miller H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Roche M GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236R841 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-219-98-99, NUDOCS 9807220310 | |
| Download: ML20236R838 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000219/1998099
Text
_ - _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ -
_ - -
.
._
_---_---_____ - __- _
=,. ,
.e
a
July 17,1998
Mr. Michael B. Roche .
Vice President and Director .
l
~ GPU Nuclear incorporated
. Oyster Creck Nuclear Generating Station
P.O.L Box 388
~ Forked River, New Jersey 08731
. SUBJECT:
OYC IR CREEK SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE
(SALP) REPORT NO. 50-219/98-99
L Dear Mr. Roche: -
This letter forwaros the SALP. report for Oyster Creek for the period December 1,1996
through' June 13,1998 (2nclosure 1). The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
conducted this assessment using the SALP process that the agency implemented on July
19,'1993. In this process, the NRC evaluates the performance of licensees in four
- functionel areas: Operations, Maintenance, Engineering, and Plant Support. The Plant
' Support area comprises radiological and sffluent controls, chemistry, security, emergency
. preparedness, fire protection, and housekeeping.
We noted that oveM! performance at Oyster Creek during the assessment pe:.od was
good. ' improvements were noted in many areas, including a reduction in personnel errors.
. Material condition continued to improve, resulting in a limited number of equipment
challenges; a superior rating was assigned in the Maintenance area. However,
performance in the Engineering ares was mixed, resulting in a lowering of the performance
rating for this area.
Performance in the Operations area was rated Category 2. Operator performance during .
3-
major planned evolutions includng startups and shutdowns, plant events and transients,
and day-to-day activities was excellent. Strong management oversight and commitment to
high stac.dards were evident and resulted in continued improvement in operator
performance. However, there were some performance problems relative to equipment
f
configuration control and implementation of Technical Specifications. Licensed operator
training performance was mixed.
)
' Performance in the Maintenance area was rated Category 1. Overall, performance in
.
maintenance and surveillance areas was excellent, resulting in very good plant material
condition'and t'.wh' equipment availability. ' An aggressive licensee initiative to address .
. personnel performance issues early in the period resulted in a significant reduction in
l.
personnel errors. . Sustained strong performance was observed in work and radiological
!.
controls practices,'and improvements were noted in on-line maintenance and work control.
,
wwa@
.
<b
___
__
____
. - _ _ _ - - - _ _
. - - - .
--
-
-
=
-
.
,
2
As notect above, performance in the Engineering area was mixed and was rated Category
2. Engineering suppon to plant operations and problem resolution was generally good.
Strong use of industry experience was evident. However, weaknesses were identified in
engineering programs and procedures. Aspects of the motor-operated valve program
remained incomplete. Examples were identified where design basis information was not
properly verifiea and incorporated into appropriate documents.
Performance in the Plant Support area was rated Category 2. Overall performance in the
plant support functional area continued to be good. Significant improvements were made
in radiological exposure control and radiological waste handling practices. Problems
occurred, however, in the radiological effluents control program. The plant security
organization contilued to perform well and generally goc'1 performance was noted in the
fire protecticn and emergency preparedness functional areas.
We have scheduled a management meeting with you at 10:00 A.M. on August 4,1998.
The meeting is open to the public. At the meeting, you shou:d be prepared to discuss our
assessment and the initiatives you have ongoing or plan to take to address the weaknesses
detailed in our evaluation.
Enclosure 2 provides the schedule of NRC inspections of your facility planned for the next
year. We willinform you of any changes. The routine reddent inspection effort is not
included in this schedule. We appreciate your coope. ration.
Sincerely,
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:
Hubert J. Miller
Regional Ao.ninistrator
Docket No. 50-219
Enclosures:
1.
Systen.atic Assessment of Licensee Performance No. 50-219/98-99
2.
NRC Inspection Plan
cc w/encis:
G. Busch, Manager, Nuclear Safety & Licensing
M. Laggart, Man 3ger, Licensing & Vendor Audits
State of New Jersey
Chairman Jackson
Commissioner Diaz
Commissioner McGaffigan
Institute for Nuclear Power Operations (INPO)
l
l
l
J
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
_
. , . .
,
3
Distribution w/encls:
Region i Docket Room (with concurrences)
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
PUBLIC
NRC Resident inspector
H. Miller (RA)/W. Axelson, ORA
J.Schoppy,DRP
T. Hipschman, CRP
J. Yorokun, DRS
M. Evans,' DRP
N. Perry, DRP
D. Haverkamp, DRP
C. O'Daniell, DRP
M. Oprendek, DRP
J. Lanning, DRP
J. Wiggins, DRS Director
L. Nicholson, DRS Deputy Director
Distribution w/encls (VIA E-MAIL):
B. McCabe, OEDO
J. Callan, EDO
S. Collins, NRR
B. Boger, NRR
J. Lieberman, OE
C. Thomas, NRR, PDI-3
S. Weiss, NRR
R. Correia, NRR
F. Talbot, NRR
M. Campion, ORA
DOCDESK
Inspection Program Branch, NRR (IPAS)
Distribution via E-mail:
Region i Staff (Refer to SALP Drive)
DOOUMENT NAME: G:\\ BRANCH 7\\OC\\SALP\\SALP.OC
T) receive a copy of this document, indicate in the boa: *C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure
- E" = Copy wit.: attachment / enclosure
'N' =
No copy
/r
DRPE/NRR )J
Rl/D$
ld DRA/Og
HA/ ORA
OFFICE
Rl/DRP
fJ Rl/DRP
LNich6ison
Vpf(jfsbh-
HMiller
NAME
MEvansg CHehl M
CThomasW/tjg
DATE
07/10/98
07/ jg98
07/lQ/98 MY, 07//c/98
07/1698
07/ f98
3
f
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
I
.
.
-_.