ML20246J596

From kanterella
Revision as of 20:23, 12 February 2021 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Safety Insp Rept 50-219/89-16 on 890702-29 & Notice of Violation.Attention Required to Ensure Engineering Evaluations of Potential Safety Problems Performed
ML20246J596
Person / Time
Site: Oyster Creek
Issue date: 08/24/1989
From: Wenzinger E
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To: Fitzpatrick E
GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP.
Shared Package
ML20246J601 List:
References
NUDOCS 8909050215
Download: ML20246J596 (2)


See also: IR 05000219/1989016

Text

- - _-

. .w

>

& y

.

"Y

AUG 2 41939

Docket'No. 50-219

License No. 50-DPR-16

'GPU Nuclear Corporation

ATTN: Mr.. Eugene.E. Fitzpatrick

Vice. President and Director

.

' ' .

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station

P.O. Box.388

Forked River, New Jersey 08731

Gentlemen: =

Subject: ~ Inspection Report No. 50-219/89-16 ,

This letter refers'

S. Chaudhary, to the routine safety inspection conducted by M. Banerjee.

E. Collins, H.. Gregg and D. Lew, for the period July 2,1989

through July 29, 1989, at the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station. The

inspection, consisting of docu.nent reviews, personnel interviews, and

observations of activities, is documented in the enclosed inspection report.

.The findings were discussed with you and members of your staff after the

inspection.

Paragraph 4.0 of the enclosed report discusses an event where your

identification and correction of deficient conditions were inadequate. In this

. event, the evaluation of high canal water temperature on plant operations was

.not formally reviewed or approved, and a written safety evaluation was not

performed to evaluate the changes in containment response as presented in the

Safety Analysis Report (FSAR-Update).

the basis for the containment response curves in the FSAR-Update.A Additionally,contributing

corporate procedures do not address the evaluation of changes in assumptions

used in th analysis which form the licensing basis of the plant. These

factors resulted in the plant being operated in an unanalyzed condition. Your

attentionare

problems is required

performed. to ensure engineering evaluations of potential safety

Two events discussed in this report are not in full compliance with NRC

requirements.

Appendix A. These are set forth in the Notices of Violation enclosed as

The violations have been categorized by severity level in

accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC

Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (Enforcement Policy). You are

required to respond to this letter following the instructic,ns in Appendix A.

. In your response to Violation A of Appendix A, include your proposed corrective

actions to ensure that changes in the analysis which form the licensing basis

for your plant are identifiec and adequately evaluated.

[PI

I I

0FFICIAL RECORD COPY

IR OC 89-16 8/11/89 - 0001.0.0

08/24/89

6909050215

DR 999924 -

ADOCK 05000219

PDC

-- _ - - _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - -

, . . _ _ _ _ --

- _ _ - _ _ _ -

.

  • .

.

, .,

~'

GPU Nuclear Corporation 2 SVG 2 41989

Your cooperation with us in these matters is appreciated.

Sincerely,

E. Wenzinger,' Chief

Projects Branch No. 4

Division of Reactor Projects

Cnclosures:

1. Appendix A, Notice of Violation

2. NRC Region I Report No. 50-219/89-16

cc w/encis:

,

'

M. Laggart, BWR Licensino Manager

Public Document' Room (PDR)

local Public Document Room (LPDR)

Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)

NRC Resident Inspector

State of New Jersey

bec w/ enc 15:

Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)

Management Assistant, DRMA (w/o enc 1)

Section Chief, DRP

A. Dromerick, Project Manager, NRR

J. Dyer., EDO

/

b

)pott A 49

\

f RI:DRP 1

hp'V fid

-) CCowgill/pj ringer

8/1%/89 8 '99

0FFICIAL RECORD COPY IR OC 89-16 8/11/89 - 0001.1.0

,

08/17/89

,

\

. _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _____-