ML20236H895

Forwards Safety Insp Rept 50-289/87-08 on 870513 & 0608-16 & Notice of Violation.Ltr Also Ack Receipt of 870305 & 0402 Ltrs in Response to Performance Appraisal Team Rept & Insp Rept 50-289/86-17,respectively

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: ML20236H895 ML20236H911 ML20236H928
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

PDR

ADOCK O

PDR

,

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

G. Edison, PM, 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

- - - - - - -

-