IR 05000272/1979033
| ML18082A454 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 03/04/1980 |
| From: | Keimig R, Norrholm L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18082A450 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-272-79-33-01, 50-272-79-33-1, 50-311-79-38, NUDOCS 8005230576 | |
| Download: ML18082A454 (12) | |
Text
,--- --- *------*- ----*---- -*--*--***------- -- -,-----****----- -*--*---- ~--------*-****---*---*-
--
---. --* -
-~ -*---------,,.--- - --
- ---* *--
--- ----*--
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Report Nos. 50-272/79-33 50-311/79-38 Docket Nos. 50-272 50-311.
License Nos. DPR-70 CPPR-53 Region I Priority:
Licensee:
Pub ffc -Service -El eclr1 c and Gas -Company- *
80 Park Place Newark, New Jersey 07101 Categories:
C, Bl Facility Name:
Salem Nuclear Generating Station - Units 1 and 2 Approved by:
Inspection Summary:
, Reactor Projects O&NS Branch
~date signed date signed *
Inspections on December 16, 1979 - February 2, 1980 (Combined Inspection Report Nos. 50-272/79-33 and 50-311/79-38)
Unit 1 Areas Inspected: Routine inspections of plant operations inc-luding:
tours of the facility; log and record reviews; review of licensee events; IE Bulletins; Immediate Action letter followup; observations in the control room; and followup on previous inspection item The inspection invo_lved 40 inspector-hours by the NRC resident inspecto Unit 2 Areas Inspected: Routine inspections of plant preoperational testing including; tours of the facility; IE Bulletins; preparedness for an operating license; and followup on previous inspection item The inspection involved 12 inspector-hours by the NRC resident inspecto so 05 2s0St(.,
(Q ---*
--~----------------------"***-- -
-- --- -*-------*-**
~----
.,
-**
Inspection Summary:
Results:
No items of noncompliance were identified relative to Unit One deviation was identified relative to Unit 1 (Change made to the facility as described in the FSAR - Paragraph 5).
. '
*--
DETAILS Persons Contacted Public Service Electric and Gas Company R. Griffith, Site QA Engineer S. LaBruna, Maintenance Engineer M. Metcalf, Site QAD A. Meyer, Site QA Engineer E. Meyer, Project QA Engineer H. Midura, Manager - Salem Generating Station F. Schnarr, Station Operating Engineer R. Silverio, Assistant to the Manager J. Stillman, Station QA Engineer J. Z~pko, Chief Engineer The inspector also interviewed other licensee personnel during the course of the inspections including management, clerical, mainten-ance, operations, performance, quality assurance, testing, and con-struction personne.
Status of Previous Inspection Items
{Closed) Unresolved Item (272/79-16-01). Snubber inspection procedur The inspector reviewed Maintenance Procedure MllB, Hydraulic Snubber Inspection, Revision 5, dated 9/26/7 Review of the procedure and data collected in November 1979 confirmed that piston position measurements are being made and recorde The inspector had no further questions on this ite *
(Closed) Unresolved Item (272/79-18-04).Publication of SORC minute Revision 6 to AP-4, dated 12/12/79 states that SORC minutes should be published within two weeks following the meetin The inspector had no further questions on this ite (Closed) Unresolved Item (272/79-22-03). Completion of RP-1 re-qualification within one year as required by AP-2 The inspector confirmed that a valid program is underway to ensure that personnel authorized entry into the controlled access area have met the annual requalification training requirement The inspector had no further question (Closed) Unresolved Item (272/79-28-06).Supplemental response to IE Bulletin 79-1 By correspondence dated 12/27/79 the licensee responded to IE Bulletin 79-17, Revision 1. This response included all available chemistry data as requested in the Bulletin. The inspector had no further questions at this tim **- ----
-- -- ------- ----. ---------=--*-.- -------~---*-*------ -------- ------- -- --- ----- --------*
- **,..
Unit 1 Shift Logs and Operating Records The inspector reviewed the following plant procedures to determine the licensee established requirements in this area in preparation for a review of selected logs and record AP-5, Operating Practices, Revision 9, April 23, 1979 AP-6, Operational Incidents, Revision 6, February 22, 1979 AP-13, Control of Lifted Leads and Jumpers, Revision 3, February 22, 1979 Operations Directive Manual AP-15, Tagging Rules, Revision 0, April 13, 1976 The inspector had no questions in this are Shift logs and operating records were reviewed to verify that:
Control room log sheet entries are filled out and initialed; Au.xiliary log sheets are filled out and initialed;
'
. '
Log entries involving abnormal conditions provide suf-ficient detail to communicate equipment status, lockout status, correction and restoration; Log book reviews are being conducted by the staff; Operating orders do not conflict with Technical Specifi-cation requirements;
--
Incident reports detail no violation of Technical Specifi-cation LCO or reporting requirements; Logs and records were maintained in accordance with Technical Specifications and the procedures in above *
5 The review included the following plant shift logs and operating records as indicated and discussions with licensee personnel:
Log No. 1 - Control Room Daily Log, December 15-17, 19, 22-26, 28-31, 1979, January 1, 26, 27, 29, 30, 1980 Log No. 3 - Control Console Reading Sheet, December 15-17, 19, 28-31, 1979, January 1, 26, 27, 29, 30, 1980 Night Order Book - December 11-31, 1979 The inspector had no further questions in this are.
Plant Tour During the course of the inspection, the inspector made obser-vations and conducted multiple tours of:
Control Room (daily)
Site Perimeter Relay Room Guard House Auxiliary Building - elevations 64; 84; 100; 122 Fuel Handling Building Yard Area Rad Waste Building Control Point Turbine Building The following determinations were made:
Monitoring instrumentation. The inspector frequently verified that selected instruments were functional and demonstrated parameters within Technical Specification 1 imit Valve positions. The inspector verified that selected valves were in position or condition required by Tech-nical Specifications for the applicable plant mod Radiation controls. The inspector verified by observa-tion that control point procedures and posting require-ments were being followe.
. *
1 Plant housekeeping conditions. Observations relative to plant housekeeping identified no notable condition Fluid leak No fluid leaks were observed which had not been identified by station personnel with corrective action initiated, as necessar Piping vibratio No excessive piping vibration was noted during the plant tour Control ~oom annunciator Selected lit annunciators were discussed with control room operators to verify that the reasons for them were understood and corrective action, if required, was being take By frequent observation through the inspection, the inspec-tor verified that control room manning requirements of 10 CFR 50.54 (k) and the Technical Specifications were being me In addition, the inspector observed shift turnovers to verify that continuity of system status was maintaine Fire protection. The inspector verified that selected fir~
extinguishers were accessible and inspected on schedule, that fire alarm stations were unobstructed and that car-dox systems were operabl Technical Specifications. Through log review and direct observations during tours, the inspector verified compli-ance with selected Technical Specification Limiting Con-ditions for Operation. The following parameters were sampled frequently: accumulator levels and pressures, RWST level, BIT temperature, AFST level, rod insertion limits, containment pressure and temperature, valve power lockouts, axial flux differenc In addition, the inspector conducted periodic visual channel checks of protective instrumentatio Operations. The plant was initially brought critical following the refueling outage on 12i23/79. Several weeks of startup tests followe During this period, the inspector witnessed plant startups on 12/26/79, 12/31/79 and 1/24/80. The in-spector had no questions relative to operations witnesse Security. During the course of these inspections, observations relative to protected and vital area security were made, including access controls, boundary integrity, search, escort, and badgin No notable conditions were identified.
.. --_--------=----------------------*--- *-*-------- ------~----- --:---~---. ---- -------- --------------- -- -* ----------
. '
- ..1 I
I
c. The following acceptance criteria were used for the above item Technical Specifications Operations Directives Manual Inspector Judgment The following specific observations were made by the inspector and identified promptly to station management *
Th~ inspectoi r~viewed a calculation of q~adrant power tilt ratio made to conform with surveillance requirement 4. of the Technical Specifications on January 16, 1980. A computational error was made in the calculation for channel N-41, which, when calculated correctly was the limiting channe The correct value was still consistent with the Technical Specification limit. The incorrect calculation had been performed by a member of the reactor engineering staff and reviewed by the Senior Shift Superviso Review of this area by the inspector will continue during subsequent inspection On one occasion the inspector interviewed a control operator and shift supervisor who were providing meal reliefs for regular shift personne The inspector noted that their respective knowledge of Technical Specification action state-ments in effect and an abnormal lineup to the Auxiliary Feedwater Storage Tank was incomplete, indicating a poor turnover for these shor~-term.watch reliefs. The licensee had established procedures for shift relief but had not addressed the case of on-shift short term situations. At the conclusion of this inspection period definitive guidance-1 relative to all watch turnover situations had been *issue *
This area wi-i-r-receive continuing review by the inspecto During a tour of the controlled access ~r~a, the in~pector noted personnel inside a posted contamination area, wearing only shoe covers as protective clothing. The area had a Radiation Exposure Permit in effect which required additional items such as coveralls and gloves. The individuals had signed into the Auxiliary Building under a general inspection Extended REP which required no protective clothing except for areas covered under a specific RE This item wil-, be addressed in Inspection Report 50-272/80-0~.~h1~h:deils entirely with health physic The inspector had no further questions relative to the above i terns at this din *
8 Licensee Events In Office Review of Licensee Event Reports The inspector reviewed LERs submitted to the NRC:RI office to verify that details of the event were clearly reported, in-cluding the accuracy of the description of cause and adequacy of corrective action. The inspector determined whether further information was required from the licensee, whether generic implications were involved, and whether the event warranted
- onsite followu The following LER *was reviewed:
-~. 79-62/03L~Uncontrolled Access to a High Radiation Area b. * Onsite Licensee Event Followup (1) For those LERs selected for onsite followup (denoted by asterisks in detail paragraph 5), the inspector verified the reporting requirements of Technical Specifications and Regulatory Guide 1.16 had been met, that appropriate corrective action had been taken, that the event was reviewed by the licensee as required by AP-4, 6, and 7, and that continued operation of the facility was conducted in accordance with Technical Specification limits. The following finding. relates to the LER-reviewed on site:
79-62/03L The inspector verified that the area in question, as well as other high radiation areas, remained locked when unattended. Frequent checks of these areas identified no recurrence of this situatio (2) In addition to the above, the following events, which occurred during this inspection period were reviewe At 0015 of December-20, 1979, a valve misalignment resulted in # 12 CVCS Holdup Tank being emptied without an adequate vent pat As a result, the vaccuum drawn in the tank par-tially collapsed the tan The inspector verified that no release of liquid or gas had occurred and that tank integrity was maintained. This event was reported as LER 79-76/03 Corrective actfon will include installation of vacuum breakers.
'
j
On January 17, 1980, one drain leak-off from the spent fuel pool liner indicated a 1.9 gallon per hour lea The leak-off system is designed to collect any leakage through liner plate weld Boron and activity concentrations of the leak-off confirmed that it was spent fuel pool wate The in-spector verified that all leakage was directed to a controlled sump such that none was lost to other site area The leak rate remained constant and the precise location had not been determined at the conclusion of the inspection perio Underwater search techniques using NOE and underwater re-pair techniques are being developed by the license On January 28, 1980, a review of design documentation identified that check valve 1DR7, the last valve in the demineralized water supply to the Au~iliary Feedwater Storage Tank(AFST) was not designed to Seismic Category I requirement The Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) de-scribes the Auxiliary Feedwater System as a Seismic I System and includes two valves, 1AF81 and 1AF82, in the demineralized water supply line as depicted in Figure 10.2-4 of the FSA During construction, these two valves were deleted from the design, leaving check valve 1DR7 as the boundar The resulting non-seismic design had the potential for draining the AFST via the* fill line in the event of a seismic conditio On January 30, 1980, valve 1DR7 was prototype-qualified to seismic category I. The AFST had been declared inoperable during this interval and the alternate supply of demineralized water to auxiliary feed-water had been made available as required by Technical Specification 3.7.1.3. This event is reported as LER 80-07/0l The above as-built condition constitutes a deviation from the commitments made in the FSAR and significantly changed the basis for-NRC staff review of plant design (272/79-33-01).
- The inspector had no further questions relative to the above
~vents at this tim i -
.* i
6. Plant Tour-*unit 2 The inspector conducted periodic tours of all accessible areas in the plant. During these tours, the following specific items were evaluated:
Hot Wor Adequacy of fire prevention/protection measures use Fire Equipmen Operability and evidence of periodic in-spection of fire suppression equipmen Housekeeping. * Minimal accumulations of debris and maintenance df required cleanness levels in systems under or following testin Equipment Preservation. Maintenance of special preservative measures for installed equipment as applicabl Component Taggin Implementation and observance of equip-ment tagging for safety or equipment protectio Maintenanc Corrective maintenance in accordance with established procedure Instrumentation. Adequate protection for installed instru-mentatio Cable Pulling. Adequate measures taken to protect cable from damage while being pulle Communicatio Effectiveness of* public address system in all areas of the sit Equipment Control Effectiveness of jurisdictional con-trols in precluding unauthorized work on systems in test cir which have been teste Log Completeness of logs maintained and resolutidn of identified problem Foreign Material Exclusion. Maintenance of controls to assure systems which have been cleaned and flushed are not re-opened to admit foreign materia Securit Implementation of security provisions. Parti-cular attention to maintenance of the Unit 1 protected area boundar *
Testing. Spot-checks of testing in progress were mad The inspector had no questions relative to observations made during plant tour...
11 Operational Readiness - Unit 2 10 CFR 50.57 states that the issuance of an operating license is, in part, contingent upon a finding that construction of the facility has been substantially completed, in conformity with the construction permit and* the application, as amended, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission; and that the facility will be operated in conformity with the applications as amended, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission.
.*Irr order to provide a basis for this finding, the inspector is conducting a continuing review of licensee readiness to operate the facility. This review includes, but is not limited t-0, the following areas:
Completion of the NRC inspection program to assess con-struction, testing and operational preparednes Status of facility operating procedures and personnel trainin Status of all enforcement items and unresolved matter Status of the preoperational test program and the startup test progra S~atus of construction activitie Review of proposed facility Technical Specification Review of licensee outstanding items, particularly those identified for completion or resolution after core loa Implementation of corrective measures for Unit 2 as a result of items identified in Unit 1 from Reportable Occurrences, inspection findings, and IE Bulletin and Circul~rs. In particular, the inspector noted that only one TMI-related ECN remained to be accomplished; pressurizer heater power suppl Operational safety concerns ar1 sing from the above reviews wi 11 be promptly identified to facility management for resolution prior to the inspector reaching a finding of operational readi-nes No specific safety concerns have been identified to dat :
~
'1 12 IE Bulletin and Circular Followup a. The IE Bulletin*,, discussed below was reviewed to verify that:
Licensee management forwarded copies of the response to the bulletin to appropriate onsite management representative Information discussed in the licensee's reply was supported
.. by faci 1 i ty records or by vi sua 1 examination of the faci 1 i t Corrective action taken was effected as described in the
- repl The licensee's reply was prompt and within the t~me period described in the bulleti The review included discussions with licensee personnel and observation and review of items discussed in the details belo By correspondence dated December 18, 1979, the licensee re-sponded to IE Bulletin 79-28, Possible Malfunction of NAMCO Model EA180 Limit Switches at Elevated Temperatures, for both units 1 and 2.. The 1 icensee stated that none of the 1 imit switches installed fall into the group identified as potential problem The inspector verified by examination 9f installed NAMCO Model EA180 limit switches that the date code.on switches examined preceded the period in question (02-79 to 08-79).
The inspector had no further questions on this ite.
Unresolved Items Areas for which more information is required to determine accept-ability are considered unresolve Unresolved items that were.re-solved are conta'fned in Paragraph 2 of this repor.
Exit Interview At periodic intervals during the course of this inspection meetings were held with senior facility management to discuss inspection scope and finding *---- ---- -
*-------- ---*-*----------- -*----------*---- ----.------
*------*---