ML19316A106

Submits Addl Info Re Effectiveness of Mgt Control Sys to Suppl 741219 Response to IE Insp Repts 50-269/74-10, 50-270/74-08 & 50-287/74-11

ML19316A106
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee
Issue date:	01/17/1975
From:	Thies A DUKE POWER CO.
To:	Moseley N NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
Shared Package
ML19316A101	List: ML19316A103 ML19316A106 ML19316A110
References
NUDOCS 7911280630
Download: ML19316A106 (4)

Text

. .

Duuz POWER COMPANY Powra Buru)two 422 SocTu Cricacit SrnenT, Citant.orTr,N. C ancoi

^~ '

• P. O. Dox 2 70 Samson WCC Pet S.C t =f Poocuct<,= ano Teamsmission January 17, 1975 Mr. Norman C. Moseley, Director Directorate of Regulatory Operations U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Region II - Suite 818 230 Peachtree Street, Northwest Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Re: R0 Inspection Report 50-269/74-10 50-270/74-8 50-287/74-11

Dear Mr. Moseley:

Attached herewith is information supplementing our response to R0 Inspection Report Nos. 50-269/74-10, 50-270/74-8, and 50-287/74-11, which was transmitted on December 19, 1974. In our letter of December 19, 1974, general actions taken to improve the effective-ness of our management control systems were ideatified. It should be noted, however, that in addition to those general actions the attachment to our December 19, 1974 letter and the present attach-ment identify specific actions taken with regard to the various items discussed to improve our management control systems. It is felt that the combination of the specific and general actions identified are serving to significantly improve the effectiveness of the management control system for the operation of Oconee Nuclear Station.

Very truly yours,

$ WS A. C. Thies ACT:vr Attachment

.s 7911 280hO ,

• 'W3 ewe-t'- y ,, ,,

., 7 t

b SUPPLEME:;TARY RESPONSES TO AEC/R0 INSPECTION REPORT 50-269/74-10, 50-270/74-8, 50-287/74-11 January 17, 1975

{

i

_ , _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ . _ _ _ . - _ . _ _ , . . _ . _ r. _. . _.___ , ., - _ - . - - - - -. - - - - -

Supplementarv Resnonse to Item I.A.l.ti l.

As identified in our response of December 19, 1974, periodic tests with a frequency of greater than weekly are to be scheduled by means of a computer program prepared for that purpose. Periodic tests which are perfor=ed on a frequency of weekly or less (e.g., each shift, daily, three times per week) are executed on a routine, essentially cont'inuous, basis and are controlled (scheduled) administratively to assure proper performance. This administrative control includes standing orders, j

written procedures, assignment of responsibility to specific individuals, j

and/or other appropriate measures.

2. Supplementary Response to Item I.A.l.c:

(1) As stated in our response of December 19, 1974, it is felt that since the date of the subject incident, i.e., March, 1973, that the control of the preparation, review and approval of procedures has continually improved. This is evidenced by the fact that although PT/0/A/0204/09 apparently was not originally reviewed by the Station Review Committee (SRC), the July, 1974, revision to the procedure did rc:eive SRC review. To assure that documentary evidence is available of SRC review of procedures, minutes of each SRC meeting

are prepared by a designated individual which record the items addressed during that meeting. These minutes are retained in the station Master File. Also, a copy of each procedure reviewed by i the SRC, notated as having received SRC review and including any J comments made by the SRC, is placed in the Master File with the i applicable procedure.

(2) The Technical Services Engineer, who functions as Chairman of the f SRC, periodically reviews station operating records and initiates i

an investigation of those incidents determined to warrant SRC review.

In addition to incidents determined to be reportable as Abnor=al l Occurrences, Unusual Events or violations of Technical Specifications, j

other significant incidents which could af fect station operation

' and safety are investigated and a report prepared. Each such report is reviewed by the SRC with regard to the impact of the incident on station safety and any corrective action (s) which may be necessary.

3. Supplementary Response to Iten I.A.1.d:

A report with regard to the subject incident is being prepared and will

' be reviewed by the Station Review Committee. An Unusual Event Report will be submitted to the Directorate of Regulatory Operations by January 31, 1975. With regard to measures taken to prevent the recurrence of

similar incidents, refer to our response to Item I.A.l.c(2).

5 1

.e--a - =

r - avr+ n- n v,r,

. *3 ,

' 4. Supplementary Response to Item I.A.1.j:

Our response of December 19, 1974, described our in:entions with regard to formally training Level .1 audit personnel. It should be noted, however, that the _present Level 1 audit personnel have been at Oconee for a number of years and have acquired valuable experience by on-the-job training in .

various aspects of nuclear unit operation, including some formal re' actor operations training in the case of one individual. It is recognized though that formal reactor operations training for Level 1 auditors is j both desirable and necessary. The training previously described will i begin on March 10, 1975, and will continue at a rate of approximately 2ti hours per week on alternate weeks until complete. In the interim, i ratil such time as the present personnel receive the formal training previously described, an individual qualified in reactor operations will assist in the performance of Level 1 audits of reactor operations. This

) individual is a member of the Quality Assurance Department and is fully qualified both as a reactor operator and as a quality assurance auditor.

e l

i i

I I l 4

i

._n d