IR 05000272/1989006
| ML18094A462 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Hope Creek, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 05/12/1989 |
| From: | Chaudhary S, Cheung L, Winters R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18094A461 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-272-89-06, 50-272-89-6, 50-311-89-05, 50-311-89-5, 50-354-89-10, NUDOCS 8906010351 | |
| Download: ML18094A462 (11) | |
Text
Report No Docket No License No Licensee:
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
50-272/89-06
' 50-311/89-05 50-354/89-10 50-272, 50-311, and 50-354 DPR-70, DPR-75, and NPF-57 Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Plaza - 17C Newark, New Jersey Facility Name: Salem Units 1 and 2 and Hope Creek Generating Stations Inspection At: Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey Inspection Dates:
10 - 14, 1989 Inspectors:
R. W. Winters, Reactor DRS, Region I Approved by:
~a..tA~
s:Chaud~fef, Materials & Processes Section, Engineering Branch, DRS, RI *
~//fc!j
/fi?(
~ftzf 89 date
'
Inspection Summary: Routine announced inspection on April 10-14,1989 (Report Nos. 50-272/89-06, 50-311/89-05, and 50-354/89-10)
Areas Inspected: The inspection covered engineering support of Salem Units 1 and 2 and the Hope Creek Generating Station by the corporate Engineering Organizatio Results: No violation.s or deviations were identifie The inspectors also reviewed the corrective actions of previously identified environmentally qualified items at Salem. As a result four items were closed and one unresolved item was identified.
01O"=l""'1
- =:*~f>=i2""=:
- 3906
--*-*,
~::_>r:i_1... or.1272 PDR ADCIC~..
~
Q PDC
. -
- ' -
~-... _.. *-___
- _---..-*-----
....
- DETAILS Persons Contacted Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G)
- M. Bandeira, Manager, Nuclear Engineering Standards
- A. Blum, Program Analysis R. Burricelli, General Manager, Engineering'and Plant Betterment F. Cielo, Manager, Special Projects
- D. Jagt, Manager Hope Creek Projects G. Kapp, Project Manager
- C. Lambert, Manager, Nuclear Engineering* Sciences
- B. Preston, Manager, Licensing and Regulation
- L. Reiter, Manager, Nuclear Engineering Projects
- J. Ronafalvy, Manager, Nuclear Engineering Services E. Rosenfeld, Acting Manager, Nuclear Mechanical Engineering R. Skwarek, Project Manager
- R. Smith, Environmental Qualification Enginee~
T. Spencer, Project Manager
- F. Thomson, Supervisor, Nuclear Licensing
- D. Vito, Senior Licensing Engineer D. Von Dauber, Lead Engineer, Hope Creek Station Quality Assurance J. Zupco, General Manager, Quality Assurance and Nuclear Safety Review United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- K. Gibson, Senior Resident Inspector, Salem
- G. Meyer, Senior Resident Inspector, Hope Creek
- P. Swetland, Chief, Reactor Projects Section, 2B
- Denotes those attending the exit meetin The inspectors also contacted other administrative and technical personnel during the inspectio.0 Objectives The objective of this inspection was to assess the adequacy of the licensee's program for engineering support of plant operations including design and configuration control, interfaces with other internal and external organizations, management support, staffing levels and experience, training, and responses to NRC requirements and request.0 Licensee Commitments The licensee's commitments and documents reviewed are listed in Attachment 1A1 to this report.
4.0 Engineering - Overview Plant Engineering (System Engineering)
Each plant has a system engineering group that is responsible for handling relatively small scale modifications, plant system specific engineering, and supporting the plant maintenance department *
Corporate Engineering (Engineering and Plant Betterment Department)
The Engineering and Plant Betterment Department (E&PB) is responsible for engineering support of plant operations not performed by the System Engineering grou This includes supporting operations such as:
licensing, specialized technical expertise, management for major projects at each plant and for projects common to all plants and the sit The E&PB department is organized into four functional areas under the direction of the General Manager,*E&P These areas are:
Nuclear Engineering Services, Nuclear Licensing and Regulation, Nuclear E~gineering Projects, and Performance Enhancement Administratio These four groups pro:Vi de engineering support to the p 1 ant **
The: licensee strongly supports participation in industry, owners groups, and professional societies. This was evident by the number of people rep'resenting PSE&G on the owners groups, and financial support to INPO.
PSE&G funds employee attendance at selected professional society meetings and seminar Senior management is kept informed of the plant status and_site activities by means of a formal monthly meeting with all department head The General Manager of the E&PB department meets weekly with the four functional managers to review and discuss department activitie The four functional managers meet weekly with their staf Items of immediate interest are discussed at all levels as require.0 Organization Details of the Review The inspectors reviewed the licensee's current engineering organization and held discussions with management personnel to determine the structure and controls established in the E&PB Departmen The procedural control of work in the engineering organization was reviewed to assess the effectiveness of engineering procedures and control of design interface The procedures were reviewed for clarity of requirements, and levels of authority and responsibility assigned to various groups and positions.
- ../
The inspectors also reviewed selected work by different engineering groups to assess the* technical adequacy, completeness and complexity of the engineering analysis, design and evaluation Specific attention was paid to assess the quality of engineering output to support plant operations, configuration control and enhancement of plant safety in genera Findings The four groups of the E&PB department function as follows:
Nuclear Engineering Services This group consists of Engineering Standards, Electrical Engineering Engineering Science four functional' areas namely, Nuclear Nuclear Mechanical Engineering, Nuclear including Instrument and Control, and Nuclear Each of these areas is headed by a manage The Nuclear Engineering Standards section is responsible for:
providing support for Nuclear Engineering Projects in the areas of engineering and design standards, drawing revision, design change package close out, the vendor technical document program, maintenance of the MMIS data base; component identification and classification, and procurement engineerin Nuclear Mechanical Engineering section is responsible for:
providing support for Nuclear Engineering Projects in the areas of civil engineering, piping and material analysis, stress analysis, and mechanical engineering for the Salem and Hope Creek plant Nuclear Electrical Engineering section is responsible for:
providing support for Nuclear Engineering Projects in the areas of instrumentation and control, process computers, and electrical engineering for the Salem and Hope Creek plant Nuclear Engineering Sciences section is responsible for:
providing support for Nuclear Engineering Projects in the areas of program analysis including environmental qualification, probabilistic assessment, chemical and process treatment, safety system analysis, seismic analysis, fire protection and engineering assessment In*addition, highly specialized technical consultants provide services to the E&PB department through this secti9 * **
Nuclear Licensing and Regulation This group consists of four functional areas namely, Hope Creek Station Licensing, Environmental Licensing, Salem Licensing, and Nuclear Licensin Nuclear Engineering Projects This group consists of three functiooal areas responsible for providing project management for planned modifications at each of the plants and for engineering activities common to all plants and the sit Performance Enhancement This is a smaller group responsible for evaluating performance enhancement projects for the plant Conclusions Based on the above the inspectors determined that the licensee's engineering department is organized to provide adequate engineering servic~s to the plant The use of Project Managers assures that one individual is responsible for the correct design and installation of major modifications, and that the individuals responsible are knowledgeable of the specific plant configuration and requirement Staffing and Workload In conjunction with the review of the organization, the inspectors examined the staffing and current workload in E&P E&PB has 50 supervisors and managers, 233 professional and technical, and 58 support personne This staff is currently managing approximately 65%
of the present workloa Contracted personnel are used for the balance of the wor In general all engineers and management personnel have degrees i"n the appropriate discipline In addition there are approximately 53 advanced degrees includes eight individuals have doctorate degrees and 51 professional engineers licenses in the E&PB organizatio There are 51 memberships in professional and technical societies and 12 individuals represent the licensee on various owners groups.. The average experience of the staff is 10 to 15 years in the nuclear industr At the time of the inspection there were approximately 20 unfilled position The inspectors determined that engineering projects were normally initiated by*the plant using Engineering Work Requests (EWR).
The EWR is transmitted to the Manager, Nuclear Engineering Projects (NEP).
When the EWR is evaluated by NEP to be for work requiring limited resources it is D
r
- sent to the Manager, Nuclear Engineering Services (NES) who assigns appropriate engineering personnel to complete the wor For larger projects NEP organizes a preliminary project team to evaluate the request and prepare a proposal including the engineering approach, cost and schedule for the plant managers approva When approved the Project Manager organizes a project team consisting of individuals from disciplines required to complete the project~ The Project Manager determines the degree of quality assurance involvement on a specific project basi During interviews with the Manager of Nuclear Engineering Projects, the Special Projects Manager and Project Managers, the licensee stated that there were approximately 175 active capital projects and 400-500 small projects in work for all three plant During normal non-outage periods the engineering groups are not routinely scheduled for overtime wor During outages and installation of the hardware, engineers work overtime as required to support the outage schedul The average time to complete a capital project is one year with a range of a few months to several year Staffing requirements for capital projects are determined by the Project Manage A typical project team consists of from 5 to 10 individuals including the Project Manage The plant system engineer is always part of the project team, and on safety related projects the quality assurance representative is from the plant staff. Other team members are assigned to projects by their supervisors at the request of the Project Manage These team members work on the projects but do not receive technical or administrative direction from the Project Manage However, based on the project schedule these team members are expected to give priority to the project during specified period '
Conclusions The use of a matrix organization in the engineering department allows the ltcensee to effectively schedule large* tasks involving multidiscipline project This approach also allows the staff to be available through the unit supervisors to work on smaller project This flexibility combined with the system engineers serves to provide coverage for all of the plant This approach depends largely on the accuracy of the schedules developed by the Project Managers and close cooperation of these Project Managers and the Engineering Supervisor Plant involvement is assured by the system and QA engineers on project team.0 Communications The inspectors interviewed managers and engineers to determine the extent and effectiveness of communications between organizations and with managemen The basic means of communication is through weekly meetings i
- at the unit level progressing through weekly meetings with th~ unit managers up to monthly meetings with the highest management levels on sit The monthly meetings include the general managers from engineering, quality assurance, the plant managers and other equivalent level manager In addition to the formal weekly and monthly meetings, there is considerable day to day interaction between the engineering and the plant staff on specific projects and task The Project Managers are required to provide the status and schedules for their assigned projects to the engineering managers and supervisors to resolve any scheduling conflict Conclusions These meetings provide adequate communications for management control of the various projects and tasks in E&P Individual communications between project team members and the ~roject Manager appear satisfactory for accomplishing the major project.0 Quality Assurance The inspectors interviewed Quality Assurance managers, reviewed the 1988 Assessment of QA Program Effectiveness Report, dated March 19, 1989, and audit reports NM-88-35 and WM-86-01 From these interviews and reviews the inspectors determined that the audits were comprehensive and technically oriented:
The timeliness of responses to audit findings by E&PB was reported (in ~he March 19, 1989 report) to have improved from 20%
on time responses in 1987 to 48% on time responses in 198 Significant improvement in the timeliness of response to corrective actions was accomplished by E&PB between the years of 1987 and 1988 as shown in the table below:
Days for Response Number of Act i o.n Requests 1987 1988 less than 30
47 greater than 30
29 greater than 60
10 greater than 90
5 It should be noted that in accordance with the licensee 1 s QA Program an on time response requires a commitment, including the date, to correct the problem, not tlie actual.completion of the corrective actio In reviewing*the above audit reports the inspectors noted that the deficiencies noted in audit WM-86-018 (audit dates 11/13 -12/12/86)
'
..
pertaining to processing and evaluation of vendor documentation (by E&PB)
are also listed in the March 19, 1989 report as a significant deficiency still unresolve Conclusions E&PB has made significant improvement in the response time for QA action request However, it appears that while the timeliness of responses have been reduced, the total number of action requests received by E&PB has not materially changed as determined from responses less than 30 days old (50 in 1987 vs. 47 in 1988).
This indicates that while action requests are being handled better, some management attention might be indicated to determine if there are any program changes that should be initiated to reduce the number of action request.0 Licensee's Actions on Previous NRC Concerns (Closed) Unresolved Items (50-272/86-23-02 and 50-311/86-23-02):
Licensee's completion and verification of the Environmental Qualification Master List (EQML).
The licensee had completed walkdown verification of both Units 1 and 2 during the 1987 - 1988 perio Subsequently the EQML had been update The inspector reviewed the EQML, Revision 4, which was updated on June 24, 1988 and found it acceptabl These items are close (Closed) Unresolved Items (50-272/86-23-08 and 50-311/86-23-08):
Qualification of CONAX Electrical Seal Assemblies (ECSA).
During the 1986 EQ inspection the inspector identified that a similarity analysis between the tested model and the installed model at Salem was not included in file EQ-2 The inspector reviewed file EQ-22 and found that the similarity analysis was now included as tab 7 of this fil These items are close (Closed) Potential Enforcement/Unresolved Items (50-272/86-23-03 and 50-311/86-23-03):
Qualification of (a) Rockbestos EPR Cable ( File EQ-08 and (b) Rockbestos Coaxial Cable (Old File EQ-32 - now included in File EQ-08).
The licensee had updated the EQ file extensively since the 1986 inspectio The inspector reviewed EQ-08, particularly the System Component Evaluation Work Sheet (SCEW) and the test report For the EPR Cable, the 1 i'censee used Wyl e Test Report 17722-2 dated December 4, 1985 to support the qualification of this cabl For the coaxial cable the licensee used Rockbestos Test Report QR-6802, Revision 0 dated March 12, 1986 to support the qualificatio The licensee stated that currently no
Rockbestos coaxial cable was installed in the Salem plant The licensee intends to qualify Rockbestos second and third generation cable for future use (first generation cable is not qualified for harsh environment use).
The inspector determined that the two test reports are valid and not subject to the concerns of Information Notice 84-4 These items are close (Closed) Unresolved Items (50-272/86-23-07 and 50-311/86-23-07):
Qualification of 8IW XLPE insulated coaxial cable with hypalon jacke During the 1986 inspection, the licensee used 8IW test report 8912 to support qualification for LOCA environment Test Report 8912 did not provide information on cable insulation resistance during the LOCA testin Since the 1986 inspection, the licensee replaced file EQ-27 with file EQ-05 and replaced test report 8912 with a new 8IW Test report, 8917 Revision 1, dated December 198 Insulation resistance values were recorded during the LOCA tes Howe~er, this type of cable is used at the Salem plant for the Victoreen containment high range radiation monitor, which has stringent requirements for the coaxial cable and connector Victoreen tested the radiation monitor and the 8IW coaxial assembly in 198 During this testing several f~ilures were reporte Victoreen claimed that the test failures were due to moisture intrusion into tre cable insulatio Victoreen finally completed the test successfully by i'solating the cable assembly from the steam environment inside a stainless steel condui Victoreen indicated in attachment I of Report 45050.l that the following three installations represent the qualified configuration: The radiation*detector was mounted and sealed to the flange of the LOCA chamber such that the detector was internal but with the connector surface external to the.environment of the LOCA chambe.
Copper tubing was used to protect the cable termination One end of the tubing was connected and sealed with epoxy to both the connector and the detector, located inside the test chambe The other end of the tubing penetrated and was sealed externally to the flange of the LOCA chambe This effectively isolated the cable from the steam atmosphere during testin.
The third method of sealing the connector and cable from the LOCA environment was through the use of stainless steel jacketing and electrical penetrations made in the flange of the LOCA chamber utilizing the same sealed connector parts as are used on the 877-1 detector (the one tested by Victoreen).
The coaxial cables tested with the Victoreen radiation monitor were 81WF fluoromolymer (Tefzel) insulated (not the same as installed at Salem).
The inspector reviewed the EQ file for the Victoreen radiation monitor and found no evidence that the Salem installation is the same as one of
the configurations described abov According to the licensee, certain lengths of the installed coaxial cables were exposed to the containment environmen At the conclusion of the inspection, the licensee committed to perform a walkdown inspection of the cable assemblies to assure qualification status and document the results of the walkdown inspectio On April 26, 19889.the licensee called the inspector and sta*ted that the walkdown had been completed and confirmed that the installation was similar to the third method of installation described abov The inspector.considered items 50-272/86-23-07 and 50-311/86-23-07 close However, qualification of the Victoreen radiation monitor assembly is unresolved pending NRC review of Salem file EQ-41 to verify that the installed configuration is the same or similar to (with justification)
the qualified configuration (50-272/86-06-01; 50-311/89-05-01).
10.0 Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items or violation Unresolved items are discussed in paragraph.0 Management Meetings Licensee management was informed of the scope and purpose of the inspection at the entrance interview on April 10, 198 The findings of the inspection were discussed with licensee representatives during the course of the inspection and presented to licensee management at the April 14, 1989 exit interview (see paragraph 1 for attendees).
At no time during the inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspecto The licensee did not indicate that proprietary information was involved within the scope.of this inspectio ATTACHMENT A Documents/Activities Reviewed Current organization charts for the Engineering and Plant Betterment (E&PB) Department Nuclear Department Engineering Manual Organizational/Administrative Procedures OA-AP.ZZ-OOOl(Q), Revision 0, E&PB Organization OA-AP.ZZ-0002(Q), Revision 0, Engineering Manual System OA-AP.ZZ-0004(Q), Revision 0, On-the-Spot Changes to NOE Manual Procedures Nuclear Department Administrative Procedures NA-AP.ZZ-0008(Q), Revision 0, Administrative Control of Design and Configuration Changes Design/Engineering Administrative Procedures DE-AP.ZZ-OOOl(Q), Revision 0, Design Bases Input DE-AP.ZZ-0006(Q), Revision 1, Vendor Manual and Vendor Drawing Control DE-AP.ZZ-0008(Q), Revision 0, 10 CFR 50.59 Reviews and Safety Evaluations DE-AP.ZZ-OOll(Q), Revision 0, Code Job Package