ML18079A571

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
IE Insp Rept 50-311/79-12,Noncompliance Noted:Failure to Maintain Installed Cable Trays in Accordance W/Procedures
ML18079A571
Person / Time
Site: Salem PSEG icon.png
Issue date: 04/05/1979
From: Ebneter S, Finkel A
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML18079A569 List:
References
50-311-79-12, NUDOCS 7907230023
Download: ML18079A571 (5)


See also: IR 05000311/1979012

Text

..

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

.port No.

50-311/79-12-

50-311

Region I

Docket No. ------

License No.

CPPR-53

Priority ------

  • licensee: Public Service Electric and G~s Company

80 Park Place

Newark, New Jersey 07101

Facility Name:

Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2

Inspection at: Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey

Inspection conducted:

February 13-14, 1979

-) </ ./} I

7

- inspectors:

//, (. LJJ

.

A. E. Finkel, Reactor Inspector

fl <.?/

n

Approved by: . _5_* ........

,;..
..'l,___..~.-..'----'°'-==---,,.,..._-*------

S. o: Ebneter, Chief, Engineering Support

Section No. 2, RC&ES Branch

Inspection Summary:

Category ___ B ___ _

J~/;';lf Jf

date s'i g ned

date signed

date signed

~ff/7'9

7date signed

Inspection on February 13-14, 1979 (Report No. 50-311/79-12)

Areas Inspected:

Routine, unannounced inspection by a regional based inspector.

The inspection consisted of the review of the radiation monitoring system instal-

lation and safety-related cable and tray installation. The ,inspection involved

13 inspector-hours ,on site by one NRC regional based inspector *. ** .. - <-~>::. * -, .. -

_

Re'sults: Of t_he,~w~ ar_el1~_ 1n~pe~ted, ng *1J~ni$,Qf nqncq111pliance* wet~: ideritifjed~*-,.:

in ~n~ area ;_:_,one apparerrt"'item-*of *noncomplfance wa's *ide'ntiffed* fn "'one area*. (In~ -.:

.

fraction ~ failure to maintain 1nsta1 ted cable trays in accordance with procedures,

paragraph 2. a).

Region I Form 12

(Rev. April 77)

/ ..

DETAILS

1.

Persons Contacted

Public Service Gas and Electric Company.

P. Bailey, Electrical Field Engineer

  • J. Brady, Electric Field Engineer
  • S. Chawaga, Project Quality Contra l E_ng i neeri ng
    • L. Corleto, Controls Engineer
  • J. Destefano, Site Quality Engineer

R. Griffith, Site Quality Assurance Engineer

  • E. Meyer, Project Quality Assurance Engineering
  • D. Mclaughlin, Senior Construction Erigineer

United Engineering and Construction, Incorporated

  • R. Cheyne, Project Superintendent

W. Copeland, Quality Control Supervisor, Electrical I and C

  • E. Walsh, Assistant Field Superintendent - QC
  • denotes those present at the exit interview

2.

Radiation Monitoring System

The inspector reviewed the documentation and examined the installa-

tion of the Radiation Monitoring System equipment as listed below

in i terns (a ) and ( b ) :

a.

Documentation.

The insp~ctor examined the records associated

with the foll owi_ng radiation monitoring systems:

  • * Egu i pment No.

2RlA

2RlB

2R11A

2Rl2A

2Rl2B

2R21

2R41A

Name

Area Monitor

Process Monitor

Process Monitor

Process Monitor

Process Monitor

Area Monitor

Process Monitor

Location

Control Room

Control Room

Int~ke Duct

Containment Sampling

Particulate

Containment Sampling Noble

Gas

Containment Sampling Iodine

24

11 .Steam Generator Slowdown

Plant Vent Sampling

Particulate *

}.

2R41B

2R41C

.3

Process Monitor

Process Monitor

Plant Vent Sampling

Particulate

Plant Vent Sampling

Noble Gas

The records included factory acceptance test data, nondestructive

tests, certification of conformance, storage and maintenance

_records, installation inspection records, and data identifying

calibration data.

Reviewing the factory test data for the 2RlB, 2Rl3A, 2Rl3C and

2Rl5 monitor power supplies, the inspector determined the

power supply voltage position O for the above radiation monitors

was out of the specification voltage range on the high end of

the setting. .The range for the 0 setting was listed as +500

VOC to +1200 VOC +50 VOC. In the five monitors listed above,

all 0 setting for-the high end of the voltage range were over

+1500 VOC.

The licensee stated that the design of this setting

is being changed and a new voltage level will be established

by engineering for all radiation monitors listed on drawing

244150-A-1642-3.

This matter is considered to be unresolved and will be reviewed

by an NRC inspector during a subsequent inspection (311/79'.'"12-

01).

b. * *installation

The inspector examined the installation of the following

radiation monitoring equipment:

Radiation Monitoring Cabinet No. 236 A and B, drawing

242788-A- 1644.

The inspector examined and verified the

cabinet location, installation and the fire sealing of

the cables entering the cabinet.

The No. 235 cabinet was

installed in accordance with the engineering documentation *

and verified by quality control.

2RlA Area Control Room Monitor and 2R21 Area Containment

Post Accident Monitor equipments were not yet installed

in the control room panel nor was the 2R21B monitor or

2RlA monitor installed in its drawing location.

The

inspector did verify that the mounting locations were in

accordance with the drawings.

The installation and quality control inspection of the entire*

radiation monitor system has not progressed to the point where

complete system inspection can be performed by the licensee.

Therefore, the total system installation will be examined by .

an NRC inspector during a subsequent inspection.

,J;

-

4

3.

Cable and Tray Installation

During a random inspection of safety-related cables and trays, the *

inspector identified the following safetyjrelated cable trays with

bent side rails and bent bottom cross bars in the south penetration

area of the Auxiliary Building.

Tray 2P027

Tray 2P066

Tray 2P037

\\

The licensee had identified Cable Tray 2P027 as having this problem

on Deficiency Report {DR) No. 4479, dated October 19, l.976.

The

tray was replaced May 1978 and the crafts were re-instructed as to

the requirements that safety related cable trays shall comply_with

and the DR closed on October 2, 1978. It appears that the replaced

. tray, 2P027 has been damaged to the same condition that originally

was identified iri DR No. 4479.

While the inspector was inspecting the trays in the south penetra-

tion area, elevation 78 feet, he observed craft personnel walking

on safety related cables in tray 2P037.

The craft supervisor was

informed of the problem and the craft personnel were taken off the

cable tray. The inspector also identified metal shavings on top of

and between cables in tray 2P027.

The licensee was informed by the inspector that positive corrective

action was required immediately due to additional potential damage

that may occur to installed safety-related cables and trays by

craft personnel working in the area during painting and cleanup,

that is presently being performed at Salem Unit 2.*

The licensee's Detail Construction Procedure (DCP) 2205, dated

August 24, 1978, Revision 9, paragraphs 4.23 and 4.24, states in

part "No craft personnel shall walk in trays, except when abso-

lutely necessary to pull cable, and cable trays shall be maintained

free of debris, tonstruction materials, tools, etc."

The licensee's drawing number*2m~53!=i shows installed cable trays

with straight side rails and stra_ight bottom cross bars .

....

I

5

The inspector informed the licensee that the conditions found in

the south penetration area are contrary to the licensee's construction

procedure 2205 and drawing number ~Q~52~, Appendix B, Criterion V,

which states: "Activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by

documented .*. procedures or drawings ..* and shall be accomplished

  • in accordance with these. * . procedures or drawings **.

11

This item is considered to be an Infraction (311/79-12-02).

4.

Unresolved Items

Unresolved items are matters about which. more information is required

  • to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance

or deviations.

An unresolved item disclosed during the inspection

is discussed in Paragraph 2.a.

5. * Exit Interview

The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph

1) at the conclusion of the inspection.

The inspector summarized

the purpose and scope of the findings.

The licensee acknowledged

the inspector's findings .