ML18079A659
| ML18079A659 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 03/06/1979 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18079A656 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-272-79-02, 50-272-79-2, NUDOCS 7908020064 | |
| Download: ML18079A659 (3) | |
Text
APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Public Service Electric and Gas Company Newark, New Jersey License No. DPR-70 Docket No. 50-272 Based on the. results of an NRC inspection conducted on January 8-12 and 15-17, 1979, it appears that certa.in of your activities were not conducted in full compliance with NRC regulations and conditions of your NRC Facility License No. DPR-70, as identified below.
Item A is categorized as an Infraction. The remaiili_ng items are Deficiencies.
A..
Section 2.1. l of Appendix B, Environmental Technical Specifications (ETS) for Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1,. requires, in part, that the maximum 6T across the condenser shall not exceed 16.5°F during normal operation with all cireulation water pumps operating.* During pump outage, the maximum. 6T across the condenser shall not exceed 16.50F for more than 24 consecutive hours because of scheduled maintenance and inspection.
In the event that the specification is exceeded, corrective action shall be taken to reduce the 6T to within specification.
Contrary to these requirements:
- 1.
The 16.5°F ma~imum 6T across the condenser was e~ceeded during normal operation with all six circulating water pumps on several occasions, including December 9, 10, 11 and 12, 1978.
Corrective actions taken were untimely and/or inadequate to reduce the condenser 6T to within specification.
- 2.
The 16.5°F maximum 6T across the condenser was exceeded for more than 24 consecutive hours on several occasions including November 15 thro_ugh 19, 1978 (113 hours0.00131 days <br />0.0314 hours <br />1.868386e-4 weeks <br />4.29965e-5 months <br />); November 20 throu.gh 23, 1978 (79 hours9.143519e-4 days <br />0.0219 hours <br />1.306217e-4 weeks <br />3.00595e-5 months <br />) and December 4 through 7, 1978 (75 hours8.680556e-4 days <br />0.0208 hours <br />1.240079e-4 weeks <br />2.85375e-5 months <br />).
Corrective actions taken were untimely and/or inadequate to reduce the condenser 6T to within specification.
B.
Section 5.5.2 of Appendix B, ETS requires, in part, that the plant operating procedures shall include provisions to ensure that the plant a*nd all its systems and components are operated in compliance with the limiting conditions for operation established as part of the ETS.
Secti~n 5.3.2 requires, in part, that the Station Operations Revfew Committee (SORC) shall review plant procedures which have a potential impact on the environment
- 7 9 o a o 2 oob '\\
Appendix A 2
Contrary to these requirements, the plant chlorination procedures used to operate the chlorination system in compliance with the limiting conditions for operation established in Section 2.2.1 of Appendix B, ETS were not reviewed by SORC as required.
C.
Section 2.2.2 of Appendix B, ETS requires, in part, that the average suspended so 1 ids concentration in the effluent from the Nonradi o-acti ve Chemi ca 1 Liquid Waste Di sposa 1 System, (NLWDS), sha 11 not exceed 25 mg/liter on an annual basis.*
Contrary to these requirements,. the annual (1978) average for suspended solids concentration in the effluent of the ~LWDS ex-ceeded 25 mg/liter.
D.
Section 5.6.2 of Appendix B, ETS requires, in part, that a report shall be submitted.in the event that a limiting condition for operation is exceeded.
The event shall be reported withi~ 30 days by a written report to the Director of the Regional Inspection and Enforcement Office (w.ith a copy* to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation)-.
Contrary to these requirements, on several occasions, including those instances indicated in item A of this Appendix, the exceeding of the condenser ~T limiting condition for operation was not reported as required.
E.
Section 5.5.1 of Appendix B, ETS requires, in part, that deta.iled written procedures, including applicable checklists and instructions, shall be prepared and fol lo.wed for all activities involved in carrying out the ETS.
Procedures for the environmental surveillance and special study pr_ograms described in Section 3 and 4 shall be prepared by personnel responsible for the. particular monitoring program~ Section 5.3.2 requires, in part, that th~ Station Opera-tions Review Committee (SORC) sha11* review plant procedures which have a potential impact on the environment.
Section 3.1.1.5 of the ETS'requires, in part, that a*physical inventqry of identifiable chemicals, excluding spent laboratory reagents and condenser tube corrosion products, discharged directly to the river shall be maintained and submitted as part of the annual report.
Contrary to these requirements, procedures for physical inventory of identifiable chemicals discharged directly to the river were not reviewed by SORC as required.
Appendix A 3
F.
Section 2.2.2.of Appendix B, ETS requires, in part, that a grab*
sample shall be taken once per day from the collecting basin discharge pipe and analyzed for suspended solids using a method which is acceptab 1 e to EPA. Samples s ha 11 be taken during peri ads of actua 1 discharge.
G.
Contrary to these requirements, daily samples collected from the collecting basin discharge pipe during periods of actual discharge on November 8, October 24 and September 26, 1978, were not analyzed for suspended solids as required.
Section 3.1.1.1 of Appendix B, ETS requires, in part, that grab samples shall be taken weekly (weather permitting) during a chlor-ination cycle and analyzed for free and total residual chlorine.
The samples shall be taken in the vicinity of the circulating water discharge, from the station intake water, and from a point that is outside and downstream of the discharge water mixing zone.
Contrary to these requirements, grab samples were not taken and analyzed for free and total residual chlorine during any of the chlorination cycles performed during August 1978.