IR 05000272/1985014

Insp Repts 50-272/85-14 & 50-311/85-16 on 850624-28.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Qa Program,Annual Review & Licensee Action on Previous Insp Findings

ML18092A719
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	08/08/1985
From:	Eapen P, Oliveira W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML18092A718	List: IR 05000272/1985014 ML18092A717
References
50-272-85-14, 50-311-85-16, NUDOCS 8508200324
Download: ML18092A719 (8)

Text

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report No /85-14 50-311/85-16 Docket No License No DPR-70 DPR-75 Licensee:

Public Service Electric & Gas Company P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Facility Name:

Salem Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 & 2 Inspection At:

Hancocks Bridge and Salem, New Jersey Inspection Conducted:

June 24-28, 1985 Inspectors:

Approved by:

Kang, Observer, Energy Bureau

<?/rt/~r-(. date Inspection Summary:

Routine unannounced inspection on June 24-28, 198 (Report Nos. 50-272/85-14 and 50-311/85-16).

The inspection involved 92 hours0.00106 days <br />0.0256 hours <br />1.521164e-4 weeks <br />3.5006e-5 months <br /> by one region based NRC inspector and one observer from the Korean Atomic Energy Bureau Areas Inspected:

Quality assurance program, annual review; and licensee action on previous inspection finding Results:

No violations were identified; one violation and one unresolved item were closed.

---

===::;

8500200324 850913 ~

PDR ADOCK 0500027""

G

,,

PDR

~-

r-- *

DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted R. Brandt,

• E. Browder, D. Caron, T. Deguiseppi, J. Gallagher, N. Gerrity, C. Hughes, J. Jackson,

• C. Johnson, L. Lake, J. Lark, B. Leap,

• J. Leech, H. Lowe,

• L. Miller, M. Morrini, C. Mullen, R. Patwell, J. Pierson, K. Pike, J. Rider, J. Ronefalvey, W. Schultz, R. Shaw, J. Zupko, Jr, Operations Test Group (OTG), Supervisor Station QA (Operations) Supervisor Senior Nuclear Shift Supervisor Security Supervisor Maintenance Manager Senior Nuclear Shift Supervisor (Days)

Storekeeper Technical Engineer General Manager, (GM) Nuclear Quality Assurance (NQA)

Inservice Inspection (ISI) Engineer QA Engineer Senior Engineer Principle Engineer, Nuclear Licensing & Regulation Supervisor of Audits, NQA Assistant GM, Salem Operations Senior Engineer, Plant Engineering Division Operating Test Group (OTG) Senior Engineer Lead Engineer, Nuclear Licensing & Regulation Senior Nuclear Shift Supervisor Senior Reactor Engineer Supervisor LT., YOH Security Force Technical Manager QA Programs and Audits Engineer Reactor Engineer GM, Salem Operations Untied States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• P. K. Eapen, Chief, Quality Assurance Section

• R. W. Borchardt, Resident Inspector

• Denotes those who attended the exit intervie.0 The Licensee 1 s Actions on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Violation (272/84-34-02 and 311/84-34-02):

Failure to obtain approval of on-the-spot changes in accordance with ad-ministrative procedure The subject changes had been appropriately re-viewed as evidenced by the required approval signature The inspectors sampled other on-the-spot changes and found them to have the required approval signature This violation is close (Closed) Unresolved Item (272/84-38-01 and 311/84-37-01):

Q-listed items in the storeroom were not tagged, did not have a storage level identifier and each unique item was not in a separate storage bin.

The inspectors toured the storeroom and found the Q-listed items tagged, identified by storage level and each unique item was in a separate bi This item is close (Closed) Open Item (50-272/82-35-01) pertaining to the review of shielding design calculation and the development of procedures to address design calculatio The inspector reviewed the shielding design calculations for the 11 30 day equipment exposure dose 11 at the 100 1 elevation of the electrical penetration area and noted that the calculations were adequately performed and independently verifie This calculntion is filed under S-C-RSOO-NDC-008 The licensee has developed and issued procedure GM8-EMP-005 to provide control and guidance for design calculatio The inspectors reviewed Rev-is-ion 0 of this procedur The procedure provides specific guidance for the format and contents of design calculatio It specifies the responsibilities of the originato Verifier or checker, and the Managers involved in a design calculation adequatel Provision for revising a design calculation are clearly stated in this procedur Based on the above review, the inspectors concluded that the licensee's actions are adequate and responsive to the NRC's concerns in this regar The item is close.0 Quality Assurance Program Annual Review Requirements/References Public Service Electric and Gas (PSE&G) Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual - GM.

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Chapter 1.

RG 1.33, Revision 2, Quality Assurance Program Requirements, which endorses ANSI N18.7 - 197.

RG 1.88, Revision 2, Collection, Storage, and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plant Quality Assurance Records, which endorses ANSI N45.2.9 -

197.

Administrative Procedure (AP) - 3, Revision 12, Document Control Progra.

AP-8, Revision 7, Design Change, Test and Experimen.

AP-9, Revision 10, Maintenance Progra.

AP-10, Revision 5, Inspection Order Progra.

SP-11, Revision 7, Record Retention Progra *

1 AP-12, Revision 6, Technical Specification Surveillance Progra.

AP-20, Revision 10, Nonconformance Progra.

AP-28, Revision 2, Defects and Non-Compliance Reporting Program, (10 CFR 21).

1 QA Station Procedure No. Q-015, Surveillance of Station Activities, Revision.

GM9-Quality Assurance Procedure (QAP) 5-1 Revision 1, Monitoring Progra.

QAP-8-1, NQA Quality Assurance Record Control Program, Revision.

QAP-8-2, Document Control, Revision.2 Documents/Activities Reviewed The semi-annual tests of Reactor Trip and Reactor Trip bypass Air Circuit Breaker.

The Surveillance test of the Unit 2 Power Range channel N4.

The test by QA of Security Acces.

Ten randomly selected surveillance records in the Control Roo.

Fifteen randomly selected QC test record.

Zero Power Tests Results (Salem 1). Test packages for Design Change Requests (DCRs) 2EC-11474, 2EC-1638, and 2EC-165.

QA Audit Report Nos. S-83-6, S-84-18, S-84-36 and NM-85-01.

Fifteen randomly selected drawing.

Ten randomly selected vendor manual. 3 Details On February 19, 1985 the Licensee advised the NRC of a management reorganizatio The reorganization under the General Manager, Nuclear QA (NQA) consists of:

(1)

Engineering and Procurement which is responsible for Quality Engineering, QA Procurement Control, and QA Material Complianc *

(2). QA Programs and Audits which is responsible for Reviewing Procedures, QA Program changes, Audits, and Training and Certification of QA/QC personne (3)

Station QA, Salem, which is responsible for Station Surveil-lance, Services Surveillance, and independent inspectio The responsibilities of the former QA Control Engineering Section is being divided between the Engineering and Procurement Division and the QA Program and Audits Divisio The editorial changes to Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), Chapter 17, will be in Revision 4 of the UFSAR scheduled to be issued in July 198 The inspectors reviewed the Test Program, Records Program, and Document Control Program and determined that the licensee is imple-menting a QA program that is in conformance with regulatory require-ments, commitments, and industry standard These reviews are discussed in following paragraphs of this repor.4 Findings 3.4.1 Test Program The inspector observed the semi-annual tests conducted by the Main-tenance Department on Unit 2 Reactor Trip Breakers (RTBs) and Reactor Trip Bypass Air Circuit breaker Testing took several days and was performed in accordance with Maintenance Procedure M3Q QC coverage was required and provided throughout the tes The work request for these tests were processed in accordance with the procedures AP No. 9, Maintenance Program and AP No. 10, Inspection Order Progra The personnel involved in the tests were knowledgeable in the mechanics of performing the test and of the acceptance/rejection criteri Data was taken, recorded and signed off by the appropriate personnel as require The RTB 2A (1-2447268 B) which was being bench tested failed the trip bar force measurements test described in paragraph 9.4.2.C of procedure M3Q The maintenance supervisor immediately notified the Senior Shift Supervisor (SSS).

The SSS proceeded to notify the NRC Resident Inspector and the NRC Regional Office as well as Salem Operations Managemen A deficiency report was written in accordance with AP No. 20, Non-conformance Program, and a disposition was expeditiously implemented by the cognizant senior plant engineer with department head and NQA concurrenc The disposition was to perform 10 additional trip test When the fifth trip test tripped at 950 gms instead of the maximum allowable 885 gms max, management immediately requested NSSS assistance in

---,

• ..

.L

resolving the proble The RTB problem was corrected and the breaker was successfully tested in accordance with procedure M3Q The resident inspector followed this event to its completio The inspectors also observed a surveillance test of the Unit 2 Power Range Channel N4 The Instrument and Control (I&C) Technician per-formed the tests in accordance with the specific surveillance proce-dure and AP No. 12, Technical Specification Surveillance Progra The technician was knowledgeable of the requirements and accept/

reject criteria in the procedur He recorded the data and was in communications with the Control Room throughout the tes One inspector observed an early morning test of the security access syste It was the first test by Station QA of the newly installed security access syste The QA staff member was accompanied by the PSE&G Security Supervisor and YOH (Contractor) Security Force Super-viso The team followed the QA checklist and the QA member recorded the dat The test was a succes Test packages for DCRs 2EC-1474, 2EC-1638 and 2EC-1658 were discussed with the Operations Test Group (OTG) personne The packages were developed in accordance with AP-8, Design Change, Test and Experi-men The OTG personnel were aware of their responsibilities and the test requirement The test data was complete, reviewed properly, filed and easily retrievabl The inspectors reviewed Zero Power Test Results, developed by the Performance and Reliability Group, for compliance to 10 CFR 50.59 requirement The results were submitted to the Station Operations Review Committee for evaluatio The Committee concluded that the results did not involve any unreviewed safety question The Per-formance and Reliability Group personnel were knowledgeable of the requirements of 10 CFR 50.5 The tests charts and records were properly filed and easily retrievabl No violations were identifie.4.2 Records and Document Control To verify the document control system the inspectors randomly selected documents controlled by the system such as, surveillance and QC test records, and vendor manuals and drawing They did this by visiting the record storage areas for the following departments/

group; Control Room Technical Document Room (TOR)

QA (Operations)

...

Maintenance Instrument and Control (I&C)

Operation Test Group (OTG)

Inservice Inspection (ISI)

Performance and Reliability In these departments/groups current drawings are available on mirco-film for viewing onl When printed copies are required controlled copies are use This system is designed to reduce the use of 11 personal 11 or* uncontrolled copies in the fiel Drawing changes such as the Operational Design Change Notice and 110n-the-Spot 11 changes are contra 11 ed and those reviewed were found complete with the proper concurrences e.g. changes to procedure M3Q No violations were i~entifie.5 QA/QC Interface QA (Operations) has submitted recommendations on methods to improve the Station QA effor dations was to reduce the time spent on paper and spend this time in the fiel to Senior Management One of these recommen-revi ews and management Revision 4 of the comprehensive 1985-1986 Audit Schedule was sub-mitted to the Vice President Nuclear by Nuclear Quality Assurance on April 24, 198 This included a master schedule as well as matrices of subject One inspector reviewed audits of the Test Program, Records, and Doc-ument Control performed from 1983-198 The results of this review were as follows:

Audit No. S-84-6 Area Covered:

Site Maintenance - Inservice Inspection Audit Date:

June 3-21, 1983 Report Issued:

July 27, 1983 Results:

There were no problems or concerns in Inservice Inspection Testing Audit No. S-84-36 Area Covered:

Contingency Plan (Security)

Audit Date:

January 30 - February 2, 1984 Report Issued:

February 6, 1984 Results:

Procedural problems were found and subsequently corrected.

..---

Audit No. S-83-10 Area Covered:

Records, Storage and Preservation (Technical Document Room)

Audit Date:

August 10-26, 1983 Report issued:

October 7, 1983 Results:

No problems were reporte Note:

This special audit covered storage and preservation not content or control of record Audit No. NM-85-012 Area Covered:

Site Maintenance, Nuclear Department Audit Date:

May 20-25, 1985 Report Issued:

June 11, 1985 Results:

1. There was a deficiency caused by the Manager failing to track inspection intervals and initiating work order. There were concerns reported about administrative inconsistencies in implementing AP' Note:

This was a recent audit and responses to the above were still incomplet NQA issues quality action requests (QAR) within 5-7 days of an audi These QARs deal with potential problems or concerns and call upon the department(s) to act and take corrective action while the audit report is being finalize The inspectors found the above audits and corrective.action to be adequat No violations were identifie.0 Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompli-ance, or deviation One unresolved item was closed during this *inspec-tio.0 Exit Meeting The inspectors met with Salem Operation staff on June 28, 1985, to discuss the scope and findings as detailed in this repor The licensee represen-tatives acknowledged the inspection finding At no time during this inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspectors.

-