IR 05000272/1978027
| ML18078A563 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 11/17/1978 |
| From: | Baunack W, Kister H, Zimmerman R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18078A560 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-272-78-27, NUDOCS 7901020060 | |
| Download: ML18078A563 (9) | |
Text
..
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No. 50-272/78-27 Docket No. 50-272
"""-"--=-=--=-----
License No.DPR-70
""-'"-~----
Priority ------
Licensee:
Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Place Newark, New Jersey 07101 Facility Name:
Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 Inspection at:
Hancb.cks Bridge, New Jersey Inspection conducted: October 31-November 3, 1978 Inspectors:
Approved by:
~!:v:b =>S-~.
W. H. Baunack, Reactor Inspector
.f! Inspector
~~
H. B. Kister, Chief, Nuclear Support Section No. 2, RO&NS Branch Category ____,C=---------
date signed 11/1717?
dat'e s'i gned Inspection Summary:
Inspection on October 31-November 3, 1978 (Report No. 50-272/78-27)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by regional based inspectors of administrative control of safety-related maintenance and surveillance testing; review of safety related maintenance activities; surveillance testing; inspector witnessing of surveillance test; technician qualifications and facility tour The inspection involved 64 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC regional based inspector Results:
No items of noncompliance were identifie Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
7901.02 ()ObO
- DETAILS 1. * Per~ons:contatted Public.Service Electric and Gas Company
- Mr. C. Burge, Engineer (OPS)
Mr. V. Gadzinski, Maintenance Planning Coordinator
- Mr. S. LaBruna, Maintenance Engineer
- Mr. D. *Lyons, QA Specialist
- Mr. H. Midura, Manager
- Mr. L. Miller, Performance Engineer Mr. R. Seo 11 etti, Safety Supervisor Mr. R. Silverio, Assistant to Manager Mr. T. Spencer, Maintenance Planning Coordinator
- Mr. J. Stillman, Station (QA ) Engineer
- Mr. W. Treston, Resident {QA)
E~gineer Mr~ M. Zimmerman, Instrument Supervisor
- Mr. J. Zupko, Jr., Chief Engineer
.. USNRC
- Mr. L. Norrholm, Resident Reactor Inspector The inspectors also interviewed other licensee employees, including members of the Technical and Engineering staff, QA personnel, and
. general office personne * denotes those present at the exit interive. * Administrative Control of Safety-Related Maintenance and Surveillance Testing The inspectors reviewed the licensee's administrative controls for safety-related maintenance and surveillance testing as detailed in the following documen~s/procedures:
Administrative Procedure No. 9, Work Order System, Revision 3, September 6, 1977; Administrative Procedure No. 25, Control of Station Repair and Maintenance, Revision 0, January 7, 1976; Administrative Procedure No. 11, Station Records, Revision 3, May 2, 1978;
-*
Administrative Procedure No. 19, Procurement, Receiving, Storage, Issue, and Shipping of Spare Parts and Material, Revision 2, August 31, 1978; Administrative Procedure No. 9, Work Order Log;
Maintenance Department Manual A6, Equipment History, Revision 3, October 10, 1978; Maintenance Department Manual A3, Maintenance Department Training, Revision 4, September 1, 1978; Administrative Procedure No~ 10, Inspectibn Order System, Revision 1, February 17, 1976; Administrative Procedure No. 27, Inservice Inspection Administrative Plan, Revision 1, January 19, 1978; and, Fire Fighting and Organization Manual, Revision 0, February 8, 197 The review was conducted to determine if the licensee's procedural requirements in the above areas are consistent with the Technical Specifications, Section 6, Administrative Controls, Regulatory Guide 1.33, Quality Assurance.Program Requirements, and ANSI Nl8.7, Administraive Controls for Nuclear Power Plant The findings from this review as well as the remainder of the inspection are as follows!.*
Work Order Forms specified in Administrative Procedure AP 9 differ from forms actually in use.*
Work Order Forms in use make no provision for tlocumenting retest requirements following the completion of maintenanc Administrative procedural requirements for the retention of completed Work Orders (AP 9) differs from the method of te~ention actually practiced *.
Project Directive No. 9, used in the prep~ration of-Work Orders, which identified safety related components, was noted to be in need of revision.
A method of purchasing safety related spare parts exists (Direct Charge) whereby the safety related spare part issuance and storage requirements of AP l 9 can be bypassed. _. * *
A work order for which an incident report was written did not have the related block checked on the completed work orde No material traceability was included on one completed work order. Material was stated as having been obtained from Unit 2 using a 11 101 Form."
The use of a 11101 Form 11 is not described in facility administrative procedure No post maintenance check-out was specified on one completed work orde AP 12 states 11The collection, return, or destruction of station records shall be under the control of the TDR as per the Document Room Procedures."
No Document Room Procedures were stated to have been issue Approved Maintenance Department Procedure AP 6 refers to a work order form that has not yet been issue There is no administrative procedure governing the format and content of surveillance procedures, consequently, a number of fire protection system surveillance procedures were issued which did not meet requirement During the conduct of the review, the licensee provided the inspectors with a copy of a recent Quality Assurance Audit (QAD Audit Nos. S-78-14) which had been performed in August 1978, and had identified similar problems with the quality and effectiveness of the Station Administrative Controls. It was further noted that recent Station Quality Assurance Audits also indicated similar problems have existed. The inspectors also reviewed the stations response to the audit findings which essentially conmitted them to a review and rewrite of the station and departmental administrative procedures along with the necessary personnel indoctrination regarding conformance to ~dministrative control *
The inspectors discussed the identified administrative deficiencies with the station management and due to the apparent magnitude of the items, it was requested that the problem be re... reviewed to assure that all the necessary steps are being taken to bring the facility into full compliance expeditiously. It was further requested that NRC:RI be provided with the results of the re-review and the corrective-actions to be taken along with a timetable for completion. This item is considered unresolved pending receipt, evaluation, and sub-sequ~nt inspection of the lit~nsee's corrective actions~ (272/78-27-01) Review of Safety Related Maintenance Activities. The inspector reviewed safety related maintenance conducted by the licensee on a sampling basis to verify that:
Technical Specification Requirements were met while equipment was out of service, and a Licensee Event Report was submitted for maintenance associated with a reportable occurrence; Required administrative approvals were obtained to per-form the work; An approved procedure wa.s used where appropriate; Required inspections were performed; and, Records to substantiate quality of work and parts used were available (this includes documentation associated with procurement, inspections and test results). The following maintenance activities were reviewed to verify the above:
OD 10485, Repair Fan Coil Unit Motor Cooler; OD 10503, Air Lock Leakage Out of Specification; OD 10476, 12 Boric Acid Transfer Pump; OD 10726, 12-SJ-45 Failed Stroke Time; MD 2977, l-CC-17 Valve Operator;
'
..
MD 2956, l-CC-190 Component Cooling (Motor Replaced);
OD 10578, Containment Air Lock Inner Door Leak; PD 5023, Channel N-41; PD 5021, RMS Channel Check; PD 5002, Service Water Value 15-SW-65; PD 5008, NIS Channel N-44; and, PD 5031, Pressurizer Pressur No unacceptable items were identified other than those noted in Paragraph 2 abov. * *surveilla~ce Testing The inspector reviewed surveillance tests on a sampling basis to verify the followin Tests required by Technical Specifications are available and covered by properly approved procedure Test format and technical content are adequate and provide satisfactory testing of related systems or component Test results of selected tests are in conformance with Technical Specifications and procedure requirements have been reviewed by someone other than the teste*r or i ndi vi dual directing the tes The following surveillance tests were reviewed to verify the items identified abov SP(0)4.6.2. l.(b), Revision 2, January 18, 1978, Containment Systems - Spray Additive Syste Data reviewed for test performed May 30, 197 SP(0)4. 6.. 2. 2. (b), Revision l, January 21, 1978, Containment Systems-Spray Additive Syste Data reviewed for test performed September l, 197 SP(0)4.7.7. l(a), Revision 1, March 14, 1978, Plant Systems -
Auxiliary Building Exhaust Air Filtration Syste Data reviewed for test performed October l, 197 *
SP(0)4.3.2.l. l(a), Revision 2, January 18, 1978, Reactivity Control Systems - Manual Safety. Injectio Data reviewed for test performed May 28, 197 SP(0)4. 5. 2( dl), Revi sfon 3, *January 3, 1978, Emergency Core Cooling - Residual Heat Removal Pressure Interlock Tes Data reviewed for test performed June 5, 197 T.S.4.2.3. l(b), Revision O, May 4, 1978, Power Distribution -
Flux Mapping Procedur Data reviewed for tests performed July 28, August 21, *am;! Septembet 25, 197 T.S.4.8.2.3.2(bl) and T.S.4.8.2.3.2(b2), Procedure Number M3A - Battery Test Discharg Data reviewed for tests of
. lA 125 volt battery performed August 31, September 15, and October 4, 197 Data reviewed for tests of 18 125 volt battery performed September 25 and October 27, 197 T.S.4.3.1.1.3, Revision 0, June 1, 1976, Instrumentation -
1PD-2J3018, Channel Sensor Time Response Test (PT-456).
Pressurizer Pressure Protection - Channel II. Data reviewed for test performed September 27, 197 T.S.4.3. 1. 1.3, Revision 0, June 17, 1976, Instrumentation lPD-2.7018, Channel Time Response Test (PT-456).
Pressurizer Pressure Protection - Channel II. Data reviewed for test performed June 30, 197 No unacceptable it~ms were identified other than those noted in Paragraph 2 abov.
Inspector Witnessing of Surveillance Test The inspector witnessed the below listed surveillance test to verify the followin Surveillance test procedure was available and in us Specia 1 test equi:pment,..if reqtii red by.. procedure, was calibrated and in us *
Test prerequisites were m~ The inspector witnessed the performance of:
SP(0)4.7. 10. 1. l(b), Fire Pump Diesels, Revision 0, March 10, 197 Performed November 1, 197 The inspector noted that initial conditions, including valve lineup-_ werg not contained in the procedure_. The initial 1conditions were stated by the opera-for--to-be contained in Operating Instruction OI-V-3.3. 1, Fire Protection System Operatic~, which is normally reviewed prior to performing the surveillance. A later review of this Operating Instruction noted that required initial conditions necessary to perform the surveillance test were listed. The licensee agreed that reference to OI-V-3.3.l should appear in the initial conditions of the surveillance procedure, and issued an on-the-spot permanent procedure chang The inspector reviewed other surveillance procedures in order to determine if any Operating Instructions may also need to be referenced in the surveillance procedures.. S'ince no other cases were. noted*,
0tt)e inspectnr* cons'i de red the above an isolated case, and had no further question. * * Technician Qua l i fi cations The inspectors discussed and reviewed the qualification records of persons having responsibility for maintenance and surveillance testing of safety related components and equipment to verify that the individual's experience _level and training were in accordance with the guidelines of ANSI N'lB.1-1971, Selection and Training of Nuclear Power Pl ant Personne No unacceptable items were identifie.
Facility Tours On several occasions during the**inspection, tours of the facility were conducted of the Turbine Building, Auxiliary Building, Fuel Handling Building, and portions of the security fenc During the tours, the inspectors discussed plant operations and observed housekeeping, radiation control measures, monitoring instrumentation, and controls for Technical Specification complianc No items of noncompliance were identified.
- Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required
.in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable, an item of non-compliance, or a deviatio An unresolved item discussed during the inspection is discussed in Paragraph 2~ Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Para-graph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on November 3, 197 The purpose, scope, and findings for the inspection were summarized.