ML18078A875
| ML18078A875 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 02/02/1979 |
| From: | Jennifer Davis NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18078A873 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7902260569 | |
| Download: ML18078A875 (10) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DD OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT John G. Davis, Acting Director In the Matter of DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT CO.
(Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-272 (2.206)
DIRECTOR 1 S DENIAL OF 2. 206 REQUEST By letter dated November 24, 1978, Mr. Ernie Mabrey, on behalf of the Delaware Safe Energy Coalition, requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission suspend the operating license for the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. l, operated by the Public Service Electric
& Gas Company of New Jersey, pending investigation of safety hazards at the facility.
This letter is being treated as a request for action pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission 1s regulations.
The asserted bases for the request by the Delaware Safe Energy Coalition are: (1) information concerning the safety of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station contained in an NRC intern~l memorandum described in a news release ap~earing in the November 21, 1978 editiun of the Morning News of Wilmington, Delaware, and (2) that 15,000 gallons of reactor coolant had leaked from a reactor coolant pump in Salem Unit No. 1.
Specifically, the news release described comments by inspectors about the Salem Generating Station as follows:
11Altogether 10 inspectors gave their evaluation of the 1,090 megawatt plant. At least two of the inspectors rated the radiation control and safeguards portion of the installations 1acceptable 1 --or barely safe enough to be permitted to continue operating, according to the study.
11A majority of the inspectors, however, gave the plant a slightly_ less than average evaluation.
11The inspectors' comments included:
'The plant control room is very poorly designed.
This is a relatively new plant with gro\\tdng pains. *a needs close inspection attention to assure that appropriate improvements are m~de. Have had a number of problems in start-up phase, which were corrected by management.
Problems with operator controls.
1 11At least one inspector criticized control room as being designed 'in house--it is a disaster waiting.to happen.
111 The Delaware Safe Energy Coalition also expressed concern that too many abnormal occurrences have occurred at the Salem Generating Station, Unit 1.
I have reviewed the factors asserted by the Delaware Safe Energy Coalition to support its request for suspension of the operating license for Salem Generating Station Unit 1.
For the reas6ns set. forth below, I have determined that no proceeding to suspend the operating license will be instituted.
........................................... --.............................. -... -........................ -**............................................................................. '......................... -.~
I The 11 internal memorandum report 11 to which the Morning News article on November 21, 1978, refers, is titled 11 Employee Survey on Evaluation of Licensees.
11 (Employee Survey).
It was prepared by the NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement (IE).
The report is one of several documents*
which discuss* various efforts by IE to develop techniques to evaluate licensee regulatory performance.
- l.
Draft transmittal letter for SECY-78-554
- 2.
Commission Paper -
- 3.
NUREG/CR-0110-Licensee Performance Evaluation
- 4.
Draft Study - Individual Site Ratings From IE Employee Survey, dtd April 1978
- 5.
Memo E. M. Howard to Ernst Volgenau dtd September 26, 1977
- 6.
Draft Report - An Evaluation Of The Nuclear Safety-Rel ated Management Performance of NRC Operating Reactor Licensees During 1976, dtd February 1977
- 7.
Memo E. M. Howard to Ernst Volgenau dtd October 26, 1977 (These documents are attached in Appendix A)
- ---******************.... *****************-***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************. *****************-*******1
- .............. ::::.*::::::::::::*:::::::::::::::::::*:*:*:*:*:*:.:.:::*:*>:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:-::*:*:*:-:._::*:*".":-::._::._::_:_:_:_: __ :_:;_:;:::*:*:'.'.*:::*:*:*:*:*:*::"""*:*:*::*:*:*:*:*:,:::::-.::-.*:-..::_-._:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_::._:_:.:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:::::::::::::::::::**-.:::.:*:_::;-.::.:-;-:-:-:-:-.":::::::::.-.-.::::::::.*:*::*:::::::::::::::::::I It is important to understand that the evaluation, which is described in the 11 Employee Survey on Evaluation of Licensees, 11 and other documents noted above is made to distinguish between levels of acceptable performance.
Unacceptable performance is dealt with through enforcement actions taken promptly whenever the need is identified. Enforcement actions, which may range from a Notice of Violation to an Order to Modify, Suspend, or Revoke a License, are selected commensurate with the degree of severity of licensee noncompl~ance wit~ NRC Rules and Regulations or conditions of the license.
No need to issue an order to suspend or revoke the license has been.identified at Salem Nuclear Generating Station.
In the Employee Survey 11 ten people made subjective ratings of Salem.
Some commenters were more critical than others. There are recognized shortcomings with this type of opinion survey method of evaluation; e.g., individual opinions are subjective, they may not be clearly supported by fact, and they may be unduly influenced by the 11 last contact 11 with the licensee or the personality of licensee representatives.
On page 2 of the "Employee Survey 11 the survey results were qualified by the following statement:
11Although the information is untested, unvalidated, not directly related to licensee compliance with NRC require-ments, and unreviewed by licensees, it may be of some use to IE management in gaining insights into the perceived safety at the 45 operating power reactor sites licensed by NRC.
Some of the information may provide additional insights that will help identify inspection program improvements or form the basis for management conferences with licensees.
For these latter purposes, the information should be used with some discretion and with an awareness of its limitations noted above."
It is in this context that the comment quoted in the newspaper article, 11The plant control room*was designed in house - it is a disaster waiting to happen, 11 must be evaluated. It represents the "unvarnished" opinion of one individual among many who rated Salem.
It is not an agency opinion developed after consideration of all the relevant factors.
While opinions of the Commission's inspectors are valued, enforcement action, including 1 i cense suspension, must be based. upon findings of inspections and investigations and not mere opinion.
An additional survey comment concerned a problem previously identified by NRC inspectors in the Salem Unit No. 1 c6ntrol room involving burned out light bulbs in controls with back lighted push buttons.
Each indication has two bulbs, which, if both burned out, could give the operator an ambiguous indication.
The N.RC Region I Office has followed this problem, which was recently resolved.
The lice~see is now using longer-lived bulbs, checking both bulbs in each.indicator on a watch routine basis and replacing any that have burned out.
The control room design was reviewed and found acceptable by the NRC during the licensing of Salem Unit l.
Nevertheless, as part of the followup to the individual opinions contained in the survey report, the Directors of the Commission's Regional Offices were contacted concerning the statements pertaining to the reactors in their Regions.
In particular, Region I was asked whether the control room design and operator controls at the Salem Unit 1 facility presented a potential safety problem.
While the layout of the control room is not identical to that normally supplied by Westingbouse, the noclear steam supply system ~endor for Salem, the operators are trained to operate the plant utilizing the Salem control.room scheme and are licensed by NRC on the Salem control board.
The Operator Requalification Training Program recognizes the design differences between the Salem control room scheme and that of the simulated control room used by Westinghouse for training. Specific requirements are imposed to provide operators with additional training on the Salem control board for emergency and abnormal procedures when simulator training is carried out on the Westinghouse control board for requalification purposes.
The operation of the control room has been reviewed as part of the numerous inspections conducted by NRC in$pectors based in the NRC Region I Office in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
These inspections will continue to be conducted.
Moreover, since July 10, 1978, an NRC inspector has
- -. been stationed in residence at the Salem site as part of NRC's program to place resident inspectors at operating power reactor sites. His full time duty assignment is NRC inspection of Salem.**
Conduct of the inspect~on program at Salem on a continuing basis by several NRC inspector$ does not indicate that operation of Salem Unit No. l poses undue risk to the health and safety of the public or protection of the environment.
For this reason I have decided that conditions at Salem Unit No. l do not warrant taking the requested action.
- Two types of inspections are conducted at operating reactor facilities including Salem Unit No. l; routine or preventive inspections; and reactive inspections.
The former are done on a rec~rring basis, and they include inspection of functional areas of the licensee management control and quality assurance program.
Qualification, training, calibration, surveillance, maintenance, procedures and plant opera-tions are examples of functional areas inspected.
Reactive inspec-tions are done in response to an event or condition that has occurred at the plant.
These inspections transcend the functional areas of licensed operations by focusing on the specific* event, its safety significance, cause, corrective action and generic implications.
Event followup enables the inspector to verify adequate licensee management control to the extent that the event 11 exercises 11 the li~ensee 1 ~ syste~.
~..
II The second fact which Mr. Mabrey, on behalf of the Delaware Safe Energy Coalition, asserted as the basis for requesting suspension of the operating license for Salem, was a leak of 15,000 gallons of radioactive water from a reactor coolant pump.
This leak occurred as a result of mechanical failure of the shaft seal in one of the four installed reactor coolant pumps.
The entire volume of leakage was contained within the reactor containment building.
No release of radioactive material to the environment occurred.
Neither the reactor protective system nor the emergency cooling system were actuated nor were such actuation necessary to recover from the leak.
A licensee is required to have procedures to provide for a variety of potential incidents including the event which occurred here.
Region I, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, has reviewed this event and concluded that the licensee's operating staff took proper actions in accordance with approved plant procedures for reactor coolant pump seal failure.
There were no items of noncompliance with the NRC Rules and Regulations or the fac.ility license associated with the event.
The licensee reported the event to the NRC in accordance with the reporting requirements of
- J
.. " its license.
The NRC resident inspector reviewed the actions taken by_
the licensee, inspected seal replacement and verified satisfactory operation of the new seal.***
Since the operation of Salem Unit l, a number of licensee event reports have been submitted by. the licensee as required by the Commission.
None of these involved items of noncompliance or safety concerns that justified taking the enforcement actions you requested.
- More detailed technical information is provided in the enclosed licensee letter to the NRC Region I Director, dated Nov~mber 2, 1978, which forwards the licensee event report (Appendix B).
Also attached as Appendix C, is an excerpt of IE Inspection Report No. 50-272/78-26, wh*ich documents the inspection findings on the seal failure and repl a.cement.
... ~
w,..
~
I II Based on the foregoing discussion and the provisions of 10 CFR 2.206, I have determined that no basis exists for conducting an investigation at Salem or instituting a proceeding to suspend the operating license for Salem Unit No. l. The request by the Delaware Safe Energy Coalition is hereby denied.
A copy of this determination will be placed in the Commission's Public Document Room at 1717*H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20555, and the local Public Document Room for the Salem Nuclear Generating Station located at the Salem Free Public Library, 112 West Broadway, Salem, NJ 08079.
A copy of this document will al so be fi 1 ed with the Secretary of the Commission for its review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c) of the Commission's regulations.
In acc6rdance with 10 CFR 2.206(c) of the Commission's R~les of Pra~tice, this decision will constitute the final action of the Commission twenty (20) days after the date of issuance, unless the Commission on its own motion institutes review of this decision within that time.
Dat'ed at Bethesda, Maryland, this ;!,aJ day of February 1979
Enclosures:
Appendices A,* B and C FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- -4~
!Jo n ~avis Acting Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement