IR 05000272/1985028
| ML18092A992 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 01/09/1986 |
| From: | Eapen P, Napuda G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18092A991 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-272-85-28, 50-311-85-30, NUDOCS 8601240161 | |
| Download: ML18092A992 (6) | |
Text
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No /85-28 50-311/85-30 Docket No License Nos. DPR-70 DPR-75 Licensee:
Public Service Electric & Gas Company P. 0. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Facility Name:
Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 & 2 Inspection At:
Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey Inspection Conducted:
December 9-13, 1985 Inspectors:
Approved by:
(j?. rs. IZ~
Dr. P. K. Eapen, Chief Quality Assurance Section, OB, DRS I dhe Inspection Summary:
Unannounced inspection conducted December 9-13, 1985 (Combined Inspection Report Nos.50-272/85-28 and 50-311/85-30)
Areas Inspected:
Design Changes/Modifications Program, completed modifica-tions and QA Program Annual Revie The inspection involved 48 onsite inspection hours by one region-based inspecto Results:
No violations were identifie Two unresolved items were note "
- ~*
DETAILS Persons Contacted
- E. Barradale, Manager Project Installation J. Cortez, Lead Engineer G. Kapp, Principle Engineer
- L. Miller, As~istant General Manager Operations J. Osborne, Principle Engineer
- 0. Perkins, Manager Station Quality Assurance J. Zupko, General Manager Operations NRC
- T. Kenny, Senior Resident Inspector Other employees contacted included administrative, engineering, main-tenance, operations, QA/QC and technical personne *attended the December 13, 1985 exit intervie.
Design Changes/Modifications References/Requirements FSAR Section 17.2, Quality Assurance During the Operations Phase, Revision 4 ANSI N18.7-1976, Administrative Controls and Quality Assurance for the Operational Phase of Nuclear Power Plants ANSI N45.2.ll-1974, Quality Assurance Requirement for the Design of Nuclear Power Plants GM8-EMP-009, Operational Design Change Control, Revision 0 2.2 Program Review The licensee recently completed a restructuring of those engineering organization that support plant operation Department procedures and instructions have been completely rewritten and issued with the exception of two that are in final draft form. GM8-EMP-009 was re-viewed and it was determined that the following were established:
A formal method for initiating design changes Measures to control modifications, design reviews and safety evaluations
...........
A method to assure that a change does not constitute an un-reviewed safety question as defined in 10 CFR 50.59 Measures to control changes to previously approved documents, recall obsolete documents; and release and distribute approved documents Measures to assure that the design changes are promptly translatei into drawings and system descriptions Measures to include those temporary changes and tests and ex-periments that were not described in the fSAR into the modifi-cation control program Responsibilities to assure the implementation of the above have been delineated in writin.3 Review of Completed/Installed Modifications The records and documents associated with the design, installation and testing of the following modifications were reviewe All had been completed/installed prior to the Engineering Department reor-ganization and rewriting of procedures discussed in paragraph lEC-1834, Reactor Level System lEC-1874 & 1874A, Revise 8 11 SW emergency supply line to Auxiliary F Revise 4 11 SW Supply Line to Room and Oil Coolers lEC-2148 and 2EC-2149, Revise Component Cooling flow rate to RHR Heat Exchangers The review was to verify that requirements of references 2 and 3 were adhered to, including the following:
10 CFR 50.59 reviews were performed and documented Procedures and drawings requiring revision were updated The documentation associated with the modifications were incor-porated into the plant records syste Design and installation records, including Drawings 205242 A 8761-34 (sheets 3 and 4), were used to verify the as-built configuration of piping and valves associated with the No. 2 Component Cooling Plate Heat Exchanger (Modification lEC-1874 and 1874A).
- Findings The safety evaluations did not fully describe the bases for deter-mining that the modifications did not constitute Unreviewed Safety Questions (USQ).
Documentation and filling of required forms was not uniform and the manner in which engineering provided directions for accomplishing the work was minimally acceptabl A licensee QA audit conducted in 1984 identified these and other deficiencies requiring corrective actio The QA Department was conducting an audit of the new engineering organization during this inspectio (See paragraph 3 for details)
Discussions on the above were held with licensee management, who suggested that a recent modification be reviewed since the newly written procedures incorporating enhanced directions and controls were used as a means of implementing corrective action to the 1984 QA audi The package for Modification 2EC-1014, Provide Motor Operators for Component Cooling Water Pumps Discharge Header Valves, was selected for revie The following improvements were noted:
The Safety Evaluation was well written with sufficient detail and bises for conclusion The testing requirements were specifically identifie Material Lists identified locations from where items were to be obtaine Several other recent modification packages that were currently in process were reviewe These recent packages also showed significant improvement in conten This area will be reviewed further to assure that corrective action associated with the two audits identified above is satisfactorily completed and that the new procedures con-tinue to be followe Pending this NRC review, this is an unresolved item (50-272/85-28-01; 50-311/85-30-01).
The summaries of 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluations that are required to be sent to the NRC at least annually did not provide adequate information for preliminary NRC revie This was discussed with engineering management who stated that the better quality safety evaluations now being written in accordance with the enhanced new procedures would result in improved summaries in reports to the NR The summaries sent to Region I for the next several months will be reviewed to assure that they contain sufficient detail for meaning-ful revie Pending this review, this is an unresolved item (50-272/
85-02; 50-311/85-30-02).
No violations were identifie.*~
4. i QA/QC Interfaces r:
..J Two audits of engineering practices, including design changes, were conducted by the QA Department during 1984 and another was in process during this inspectio They were:
S-84-04, Nuclear Support Engineering S-84-30, Design Change Requests (DCRs)
S-NM-85-13, Engineering and Plant Betterment (in process)
The first audit was conducted almost continuously over a month by five auditor The checklists were extensive and well developed so that this audit was a comprehensive review of the QA program and its implementa-tion within the engineering group Among numerous adverse findings were ones similar to those identified during this inspectio Corrective action was followed up, with the results noted in Paragraph The second audit was conducted by four auditors and a technical specialist (i.e. discipline engineer) over twelve day The checklists were well developed; this audit was an in-depth review of this specific (DCRs) are There was corrective action follow-u The current audit of the Engineering Department is by a team of five auditor The checklists indicate that an in-depth and comprehensive review will be conducted of the Engineering Department and its practice Items open from the previous two audits are included in the pla The Station QA group is implementing a surveillance overview of routine day to day plant activitie Ten QA and one QC Engineer spend approx-imately three man years in this effort. Monthly schedules are developed that specify those functional categories to be monitored and the assigned individuals and pertinent checklists/procedures involve Records of completed QA surveillances indicate the following activities/areas were monitore Technical Specification Surveillances such as Charging Pumps, flux mapping, I&C setpoint verifications and functional testing of inter-mediate range channels Maintenance work such as gasket replacement, weld repair, coupling alignment, breaker testing and setting, _small valve replacement, diaphragm replacement, and snubber inspections HP and Chemistry daily activities such* as RWP adherence, posting of radiation areas, and swipes
- Walkdowns of valve lineups and breaker alignments are also done using the P&IDs and or TRIS (Tagging Request Inquiry System) Reports (an automated listing and location of valves and breakers) such as on the RHR, SI, FP, 125 DC Control Power Regular Supply and 125 DC Control Power Emergency Supply System On an average 15 to 25 functional areas are scheduled and surveilled each mont An individual was assigned to do QA surveillances during backshifts on a permanent basis since the past mont A recent study by the Manager of Station QA show that for the past five months 62% to 73% of QA surveil-lance effort was direct observation of ongoing activitie No violations were identifie.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matter about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items or violation Unresolved items are discussed in ~aragraph.
Management Meeting Licensee management was informed of the scope and purpose of the inspec-tion at the entrance interview on December 9, 198 The findings of the inspection were discussed with licensee representatives during the course of the inspection and presented to licensee management at the December 13, 1985 exit interview (see paragraph 1 for attendees).
At no time during the inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspectors.