IR 05000272/1979008
| ML18079A221 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 03/02/1979 |
| From: | Blumberg N, Conte R, Kister H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18079A217 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-272-79-08, 50-272-79-8, NUDOCS 7905070158 | |
| Download: ML18079A221 (12) | |
Text
Report No. 50-272/79-08 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Docket N..;;5...;;.0.....;-2;:;.;7~2;.._ __ _
License No. DPR-70
..;;..;...'""'--'~---
Priority --------
Category _____ c~----
Licensee:
Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Place Newark, New Jersey 07101 Facility Name:
Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 Inspection at:. Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey Inspection conducted:
February 13-16, 1979 Inspectors: lU. /J. {!;:,Q;.,v~ F
~f°U~*~~r-N. Blumberg, Reactor Inspect Approved by-:
Inspection Summary:
.
date* signed
~hlzr
'date signed Inspection on February 13-16, 1979 (Report No. 50-272/79-08)
_ Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by regiona 1 based inspectors of station procedures for Administrative Control:s; conformance to Technical Specifications; overall technical content and format; temporary and permanent thanges made in accordance with Technttal Specifications; changes in procedures pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59(a) and (b) requirements; check lists and related forms in plant working files for currency with respectto latest changes; control room observations; and, review of axial flux difference surveillance The inspection involved 62 inspec-
- tor-hours on site by two regi ona 1 based NRC inspector *
Results:
Of the eight areas inspected, no items of *noncompliance were identified in seven areas; and one item of noncompliance was found in e area (deficiency - surveillance procedure for determination of axial difference was not performed in accordance with procedural require-s - see Paragraph 4).
Region I Form 12
- (Rev. April 77)
79050701.5&
- DETAILS l~
Persons Contacted A.- Kapple, Quality Assurance SpecialiSt R. ~ombard~ Operations Department Staff Engineer
. *M.. Metcalf, Public Service Quality Assurance Resident
- H. Mi*dura, Manager - Salem* Generating Station
- M. Murphy, Operations Department Staff Engineer J. Nichols, Reactor Engineer
- F. Robertson, Senior Maintenance Supervisor
- J. Stillman, Station Quality Assurance Engineer
- J. M.. Zupko, Chief Engineer, Operations The inspector also talked with and interviewed several other*
Hcensee. employees. during. the i.nspection, including reactor operators and quality assurance personne *denotes those present: at* the exit intervie *.
Administrative Controls for Facility Procedures The inspector performed an audit of the licensee's administrative controls by*.conducting a sampling review of the below listed administrative procedures with respect to the requirements of the Technical Specifications, Section. 6, "Administrative Controls;"
ANSI Nl8.7, "Administrative Controls for Nuclear Power Plants;"
and Regulatory Guide l.33, "Quality Assurance Program Require-ments (Operation):
AP-1, Administrative Procedure Program, Revision 8, Decem-ber 15, 1977 AP-3,. Station Documentation, Revision 8, February 28, 1977 AP-4, Station Operations Review Committee, Revision 5, May 4' 1978
AP-5, Operating Practic~s, Revision 8, August 26; 1977 AP-l l, Station Records, Revision 9,. February 15, 1979 AP-12, Document Control, Revision 3, April 26, 1978 AP-15, Tagging Rules, Revision 0, April 13, 1976 AP-2l; Cleanliness and Housekeeping,.Revision 0, February 25, 197 A-l l (Maintenance Department Manual ), Procedure Wri t,i ng Guidelines, Revision 11, November 24, 197 No items.*of noncompliance were identifie.
Review of Facility Procedures The inspector reviewed facility procedures on a sampling basis to verify the fa 11 owing:
Procedures, plus any changes, were reviewed and approved
. in* accordance with the requirements of the Technical Specifications and the licensee's administrative controls*
The overa 11 procedure format and contents*. were in confor-mance* with the requirements of the Technical Specifications arid ANSI Nl8.7, "Administrative Controls for Nuclear Power Plants'.'
Checklists, where applicable, were compatible with the stepwise instructions in the procedure Temporary changes were made in conformance with Technical Specification requirements and the licensee's administrative controls Note:
Temporary changes for procedures in addition to those Hsted.:in the sample below were also reviewe !
I
- The following, procedures were reviewed:
General Plant Operating Procedures
- ---
Or I-3.5, Minimum Load To !:lot Standby~ :Revision-4,. August 14, 1978
-
-
- --
Or I-3.6, Hot Standby To Cold Shutdown, Revision 5, August 14, 1978 System Operating Procedures _
OI rI-3.3.1, Establishing Charqing, Letdown, and Seal Injection Flow--,.,Revistdr.F4*~:, June 9,- -l979',
OI Ir-5.3.. l, Fill and Vent of The Containment Spray System, Revision 3, February 2, 1979 or !1!-1.3.l, Turbine Generator Operation, Revision 2. June 9, 1977 OL III-2.3.1, Main, Reheat, Turbine Bypass Steam Warmup, Revision 2, June 14, 1977 QI rrr-9.3.1, Placing Feed and Condensate Systems In Service, Revision 4, December 6, 1978 01 rrr-9.3.2, Feed Pump~Operation, Revision 3, November 24, 1978 OI rrI-9.3.3, Filling and Venting the Steam Generators, Revision 3, November 24, 1978 OI III-17.3.2, Control Room Vent Operation, Revision 4,
-September 29, 1978
- --* OL IV-l.3UA, 500 KV Bus - Normal Operation No._ l Main
__.-fGerierator--si~*~hronfze~, Rev1Si9n i, sept_ember_ 1 s, _1977
- ~*r*~"';...
--.*-~--~---
~
.... --
- reviewed for technical adequacy
- OI IV-7.3.1, Flux Mapping System Normal Operation, Revision 3, October 15, 1977
- ..-
OI III-10.3.1, Auxiliary Feedwater System Operation, Revision 4, November 15, 1978 Emergency Procedures
- --
EI I-4.4, Loss of Coolant, Revision 7, December 6, 1978
~...
EI r*-4. 8, Rod Contra 1 Sys terns* Malfunction,. Revision 4.,
October 18, 1978
- --- -EI 4.12, Loss of Feedwater, Revision 1, April 24, 1978 EI 4.16, Radiation InCident, Revision 4, December 6, 1978 EI 4.23, Loss of Containment Integrity, April 25, 1978 Alarm Procedures
~
...
.
.
.
.
.
I
,
.
.
.
- ..-,- '.G--l9-~_
- C-Oqtair.iment, Spray0Actuati10Q,,_Revision._.0; __ March _25,,
_'* 1976
-
--- --
-
- -
-
- - -
- --
C-11, Containment Pressure High 1 /3, Revision O, March 25, 1976
.
- --
C~3, Containment Pressure High - High, Revision 0, March 25, 1976
- --
C-48, Letdown Heat Exchanger Hf Outlet Temperature, Revision 0, March 25, 1976
- --
C-8, Seal Water Injection l High D/P, Revision O~
March 25, 1976
- --
C-16, Seal Water Injection 2 High D/P, Revision 0, March 25, 1976
- --
K-2, 500 KV B.S. 5-6 Breaker (lOX) Ground/Fa~_l, Revision 0, April 3, 1976
- reviewed for technical adequacy
K-38, 500 KV Line (llX) Receiver Remote Trip, Revision *
o,--April 3, 1976 K-14, 500 KV Eine:*(llX) Regulattng Relay Power Failure, Revision 0, Apr.il 3, 1976 Maintenance Procedures
- .::::c MGC'*,General Instructfons for Pumps Disassembly, Seal Replacement and Re.-assembly, Revision 4, October 4, 1978
- --* Ml6B, Spray Nozzle Inspection, Revision 4, January 23, 197 *--
MlOD, In-Core Flux Thimble Cleaning and Lubrication, Revision 1. October 4, 1978
- -:'.'.':*:. M3N,. 500 KV Gas Circuit Breaker Timing, Revision 3, January
. 22' 1979 The following observations wer.e: made in the area of records of changes. to faci 1 i ty procedures. (TS 6. 10. 1.f*).
AP-11, Station Records, Revision 9, February 15, 1979, addresses the retentt6m of only Station Plant Manual Procedures (SPM).
SPM procedures cover Refueling P~ocedures, General Plant Operating Procedures, System Operating Procedures, Emergency/Alarm Procedures and, Surveillance (Operations Department) Procedures. Other types of procedures are listed in Regulatory Guides 1~33 - 1972 and TS 6.8~1 such as administrative and maintenance procedures, liowev.er';,.these, are not ad.dressed oy.the.:.li censee:"s~ coritrots*.. fat retentfon of record The licensee has recently established a system for the input of procedure:. revisions into the Mi crofi 1 m Fil Based on a review of a recent index for this file, it appeared that only SPM Operating Instruction Revisions were being kep One maintenance procedure was listed on the inde *reviewed for technical adequacy
- *
T The 1 i censee representative stated that SORc-.~revi ewed
- .procedures and revisions, thereto, are filed with the SORG Meeting Minute On a sampling basis it was iden-tified. that two administrative procedures could not be traced to a SORG meeting and one revision to an operating instruction was not attached to the SORG Meeting Minutes File, however, it was listed in the file as being reviewe The subject procedures were AP-15, Tagging Rules, Revision 0, April 13, 1976; AP-21, Cleanliness and Housekeeping, Revision 0, February 25, 1978; and, OI I-3.6, Hot. Stand-by to Cold Shutdown, Revision The licensee representative stated that an attempt wilt be made to locate the associated documentation addressed abov Further, the licensee representative stated that, as a result of* Office of Inspection and Enforcement Inspection No. 50-311/
79-03 (Unit 2 Item 311/79-03-13), formal department procedures are being established in the record retention area.
The inspector stated this area is unresolved pending NRC:RI review of the established departmemt controls associated with changes to facility procedures (272/79-08-01).
It was observed that the following procedures were not SORC reviewed, although all are within the scope of categories
- listed in the Regulatory Guide 1.33:
OI III-1.3.l, Turbine Generator* Operation; OI III-2.3. l, Main, Reheat, Turbi.ne Bypass Steam Warmup; OI III~9.3.l, Placing Feed and Condensate
- Systems In Service; QI III-9.3.2, Feed Pump Operation; OI III-9.3.3, Filling and 'Lenting the Steam Generators;*and*
OI iV-Ln3J.\\, 500 KV Bus Normal Operations No. l Main *
Generator Synchronize This area had previously been identified in Office of Inspec-tion and Enforcement Inspection Report No. 50-311 /79-08. (Unit 2 Item 311/79-08-04).
The licensee representative stated that Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.33 will be reviewed in detail to ensure that facility procedures within the scope of RG-1.33 are SORC reviewed.
..
The inspector stated that the above item is apparently one example of other items noted on specific Unit 2 procedures that have applicability to specific Unit 1 procedure The licensee representative stated that. Unit 2 preliminary items will be reviewed for applicability to Unit 1 and that appropriate corrective action will be taken for Unit 1 procedure This. area will be reviewed on a subsequent inspectio *. * *Axial* Fllnc Difference Survei 11 ance Regui rements Procedures which -implement the Technical Specification (TS)
Surveillance Requirements* (TS 4.2.1) associated with Axial Flux Difference Limiting Conditions for Operation (TS 3.2.1)
were reviewed to.verify the following:
Procedures required by TS are available and covered by properly approved procedures; Procedure format and content are adequate and provide for satisfactory testing as required by TS; Test results are in conformance with procedural acceptance criteria and TS; Frequency of data acquisition is in accordance with TS; Updated Target Flux Values are being used by the plant operator The selected procedures and associated applicable data (indicated by date of performance.) are 1 i sted be 1 o Operating Procedure IV-6.3.2, Operation of the Axial Flux Deviation System, Revision 3, April 7,.197 Surveillance Procedure SP(O) 4.2.1.1, Power Distribution-Axial Flux Difference, Unit 1, Revision 2, March 10, 1978; Data:
Check-off sheet 4. 1, Axial Flux Difference (AFD) Data, 15 acquisitions between August 29, 1978 and January 9, 1979; Check-off sheet 4.2, AFD Alann Inoperable, 4 acquisitions between September 2, 1978 and January 9, 1979; Check-off sheet 4.3, Axial Flux Deviation Log, 18 acquisitions between September 3, 1978 and January 9, 197.
.,..
' I
.
'
9*
Reactor Engineering Manual, Part 8, Target Axial Flux Difference Measurement, 9 acquisitions between June 30, 1978 and January 23, 197 During this review the. below listed observations were mad As of February 16, 1979, the target axi a 1 flux. difference value (-L,7'.%,J. being used by the plant operators was measured on September 5, 197 However, Reactor Engineering computed new values on 4 occasions subsequent to that date as of January 23, 1979, and three new values were
- not provided to the plant operators. Tf.lis was also evident from review of data (used to vertfy axial flux difference +. 5% of target value) acquired between October 2, 1978 and-January 9, 197 The latest target value was -2.29% as of January 23, 197 This error (approximately
.6%) is the maximum.error noted for the data-reviewe The inspector verified that, with this error taken into account, actoal flux difference was within the TS limit*
of + 5% of updated target valu Further investigation revealed that SP(O) 4.2. Check-off sheet 4.1, step 3, requires, in part, that the: operator refer to the target value on Data Sheet No. 1, Part. 8 of the Reactor Engineering Manua This
...
data sheet was not available to the operators in the con~.
trol roo It was noted that an informal sheet of paper with the* target va 1 ue, dated September 5, 1978, was posted in the control roo The. cover sheet for SP(O) 4.2.1.1, Power Distribution - Axia Flux Difference, requires that the appropriate section on th~ cover sheet be initialled. to' indicate usage of th~*
surveillance procedure, i.e., for AFD Monitor Alarm*
Operable/Inoperable or Accumulation of* Penalty Minute In 12 of 37 instances no cover *sheet was completed or no indication of usage was marked.
- Two instances were noted where data required by SP(O)
4.2.1.1 were not properly co~pleted. Check-off sheet 4.2, AFD Alarm Inoperable, requires the computation of the deviation between target and actual values along with operator and. shift supervisor signatures for revie On September 6, 1978 this was not done.* The-inspector> calculated values for the deviation,**and 'th'ese*results.:indicate compliance with the TS limit of+ 5%.
Further,. Check-off 4.2 Axial Flux Deviation Log requires the recording of 11Power Range Channels Outside Target Ban On September 3, 1978. pen a 1 ty minutes were accumulated*
for axial flux being outside the target band (+ 5% of target value) yet no power range channels were recorded (listed as 11none 11 ).
The inspector noted that the above items could have affected the test ~esults with respect to compliance with the TS require-ments and stated that collectively these items represent a failure to follow established procedures for implementing Axial Flux TS RequJrement This represents. noncompliance (deficiency level) with TS 6.8.l and SP(O) 4.2. (272/79-08~02).
5-.
Procedure Changes Resulting From License. Am_endments License Amendments (9 through 12), which included.Techni'cal -Specification Changes, were reviewed to verify that applicable procedures were revised, as necessary, to reflect these change Major changes *
were in the area of the Fire protection System and Administrative Control which involve procedure changes common to Units 1 and These areas are being reviewed in detail as noted in the Office of Inspectton and Enforcement Inspection Report No~: 50-311/?9~04 *
and 50-311/79-08 for Unit 2.,
No items of noncompliance were:identified.
- 11 Chan es to Procedures as Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.5. Applicable sections of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)
were reviewed with respect to systems listed in the previous paragraph (Review of Faci 1 i ty Procedures) to identify proce-dures described therein. Records reviewed included the Onsite Safety Committee Meeting Minutes File and assod.ated procedure revision Results of this review indicated that, where applicaole, facility procedures are* consistent with procedures as described in~the FSAR~
No items of noncompliance were identifie Checklists and Related Forms Operati.ons Department Procedures including checklists and related forms in working files were reviewed to see that current revisions and on-the-spot changes were poste No items of noncompliance* were identifie Control Room Observations The inspector toured the control room and 4iscussed operations with several operator During this tour, the inspector. reviewed plant operations by observing control board switchc:.positions, indicators~ and annunciator In addition, the inspector ques-tioned operators as to annunciator status and compared several plant conditions with various Technical Specification Limiting Conditions ofrOperations to verify complianc No items of noncompliance were identifie.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance, or deviations. *An unresolved item identified during this inspection is discussed in Paragraph I
"' -
10. Exit Interview The inspector m~t with licensee representatives (denoted in Para-graph 1) at the conclusjon of the inspection on February 16, 197 arid summarized the purpose, scope, and findings of the inspectio A subsequent telephone discus~ion concerning inspection findings was held between Mr. H. Midura and Mr. R. Conte of this office on
- February 21, 1979.