ML18082A390
| ML18082A390 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 03/14/1980 |
| From: | Keimig R, Norrholm L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18082A388 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-272-80-05, 50-272-80-5, 50-311-80-02, 50-311-80-2, NUDOCS 8005150163 | |
| Download: ML18082A390 (9) | |
See also: IR 05000272/1980005
Text
1:.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
50-272/80-05
Report Nos.
50-311/80-02
50-272.
Docket Nos.
50-311
License Nos. CPPR-53
REGION I
Priority -------
Licensee:
Public Service Electric and Gas Company
80 Park Place
Newark, New Jersey
07101
Category
Facility Name:
Salem Nuclear Generating Station - Units 1 and 2
Inspection At:
Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey
1980
Inspectors:
Approved by:
Section
c
Bl
date signed
~*/8-8&>
date signed
Inspection Summary:
Inspections on February 3 - March 1, 1980 (Combined Report Nos. 50-272/80-05
and 50-311/80-02)
Unit 1 Areas Inspected:
Routine inspections by the resident inspector of plant
operations including:
tours of the facility; log and record reviews; review of
licensee events; core physics surveillance; and, followup on previous inspection
items.
The inspections involved 31 inspector-hours by the NRC resident inspector.
Results:
One item of noncompliance was identified.
(Infraction-Failure to meet
system operability requirements prior to mode change as required by Technical
Specification 3.0.4 - Details 5).
Unit 2 Areas Inspected:
Routine inspections by the resident inspector of plant
preoperational testing including; tours of the facility; followup on previous
inspection items; and, preparedness for issuance of an operating license. The
inspections involved 9.5 inspector-hours by the NRC resident inspector.
Results:
No items of noncompliance were identified.
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
S. LaBruna, Maintenance Engineer
A. Meyer, Site QA Engineer
E. Meyer, Project QA Engineer
H. Midura, Manager - Salem Generating Station
P. Moeller, Associate Engineer
W. Reuther, Site QAD
F. Schnarr, Station Operating Engineer
R. Silverio, Assistant to the Manager
J. Stillman, Station QA Engineer
J. Zupko~ Chief Engineer
The inspector. also interviewed and talked with other licensee personnel
during the course of the inspections including management, clerical,
maintenance, operations, performance, quality assurance, and construction
personnel.
2.
Status of Previous Inspection Items
(Closed) Unresolved Item (272/79-22-02)1 Calibration of portable radiation
monitors (RM-14's).
The inspector selected several RM-14 monitors in
use and verified that they had been calibrated within the required in-
terval and that the specific instruments were listed on the Inspection
Order printout to ensure subsequent recall and calibration. The inspector
had no further questions on this item.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (272/79-32-04): Periodic testing of P-4 interlock.
The inspector reviewed Performance Department procedure PD-18.1.002,
SSPS Interface Cabinet Functional Test, On-the-spot change 3 to revision
0,. dated January 31, 1980.
The test procedure now calls for periodic
testing of the trip breaker interlock for P-4 at eighteen month intervals.
The inspector had no further questions o~ this item.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (311/79-12-01): Radiation monitoring* system
power supply voltages. The inspector reviewed a memorandum from the
Chief Controls Engineer dated March 6, 1979 which documents a higher
voltage range for the RMS system photo-multiplier tubes. The Acceptance
Test Procedures are being revised to indicate the higher acceptable
voltages. The inspector had no further questions.
(Closed) Noncompliance (311/79-12-02~ Damaged cables and cable trays.
The inspector verified by inspection that tray 2P027 had been replaced
and that neighboring trays had been adequately cleaned.
No evidence
of damage to cable was identified.
The inspector also verified that
appropriate quality documentation had been completed to follow up on
the above findings.. The inspector had no further questions on this item *
....
- *
3
(Closed) Open Item (311/79-30-03):Mode Change checklists in Unit 2
procedures.
The inspector reviewed OI-3.2, Cold Shutdown to Hot
Standby, Revision 2 dated September 20, 1979 and verified that the
checklists for entering Mode 3 and Mode 4 have been included. The
inspector had no further questions on this item.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (311/79-37-0l):Test of P-4 interlock on unit
2 SSPS.
The test was completed on January 24, 1980 in accordance with
the procedure recommended by Westinghouse.
As noted above, procedure
PD-18.1.002 will accomplish periodic testing of this item.
The in-
spector had no further questions.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (311/79-37-03)~Reset of steam generator low-
low level trip point to 11%.
ECN 35397 has been completed to accomplish
this setpoint change.
The inspector reviewed a sampling of level
channel functional tests conducted on unit 2 to verify that the set-
point is now at the higher level. The inspector had no further questions.
Unit 1
3. Shift Logs and Operating Records
a. The inspector reviewed the following plant procedures to determine
the licensee established requirements in this area in preparation
for a review of selected logs and records.
AP-5, Operating Practices, Revision 9, April 23, 1979;
AP~6, Operational Incidents, Revision 6, February 22, 1979;
AP-13, Control of Lifted Leads and Jumpers, Revision 3,
February 22, 1979
Operatfons Directive M~nual; and,
AP~15, Tagging Rules, Revision_O~ April 13, 1976;
The inspector had no questions in this area.
b.
Shift logs and operating records were reviewed to verify that:
Control room log sheet entries are filled out and initialled;
Auxiliary log sheets are filled out and initialled;
Log entries involving abnormal conditions provide sufficient
detail to communicate equipment status, lockout status, cor-
rection and restoration;
Log book reviews are being conducted by the staff;
Operating orders do not conflict with Technical Specification
requirements;
Incident reports detail no violation of Technical Specification
LCO or reporting requirement; and,
- -
- *
4
Logs and records were maintained in accordance with Technical
Specifications and the procedures in 3.a above.
c. The review included the following plant shift logs and operating
records as indicated and discussed with licensee personnel:
Log No. 1 - Control Room Daily Log, February 1-18, 20-28
Log No. 3 - Control Console Reading Sheet, February 1-18,
26-28
Night Orders, February 2-4
Incident Reports, 80-01 to 80-25, 80-28 to 80-37, 80-39 to
80-44, 80-48 to 80-54 (1/1/80 - 1/29/80)
4.
Plant Tour
a. During the course of the inspections, the inspector made observations
and conducted multiple tours of:
(1) Control Room
(2)
Auxiliary Building
(3) Turbine Building
(4) Yard Areas
( 5)
Radwaste Building
(6) Control Point
b.
The following determinations were ma~e*:
Monitoring instrumentation:
The inspector verified that selected
- instruments were functional and demonstrated parameters within
Technical Specification limits.
Valve positions. The inspector verified that selected valves
- were in the position or condition required by the Technical
Specifications for the applicable plant mode.
Radiation controls. The inspector verified by observation that
control point procedures and posting requirements were being
followed *
Plant housekeeping conditions. Observations relative to plant
housekeeping identified no notable conditions .
Fluid leaks.
No fluid leaks were observed which had not been
identified by station personnel with corrective action initiated,
as necessary.
5
Piping vibration.
No excessive piping vibration was noted
during the plant tours.
Selected pipe hangers and seismic restraints were observed
and no adverse conditions were noted.
Contrcil room annunciators. Selected lit annunciators were
discussed with control room operators to verify that the
reasons for them were understood and corrective action, if
. required, was being taken.
By frequent observation through the inspection, the inspector
- verified that control room manning requirements of 10 CFR
50.54 (k) and the Technical Specifications were being *met.
In addition, the inspector observed shift turnovers to verify
that continuity of system status was maintained.
Fire protection. The inspector verified that selected fire
extinguishers were accessible and inspected on schedule, that
fire alarm stations were unobstructed, that cardox systems
were operable, and that adequate control over ignition sources
and fire hazards was maintained.
Technical Specifications. Through log review and direct
observations during tours, the inspector verified compliance
with selected Technical Specification Limiting Conditions
for Operation. The following parameters were sampled fre-
quently: accumulator levels and pressures, RWST level, BIT
. temperature, AFST level, rod insertion limits, containment
pressure and temperature, valve power lockouts, axial flux
difference.
In addition, the inspector conducted periodic
visual channel checks of protective instrumentation.
Security~ During the course of these inspections, observations
relative to protected and vital ~rea security were made, in-
cluding access controls, boundary integrity, search, escort,
and badging.
No notable conditions were identified.
c. The following acceptance criteria were used for the above items.
(1) Technical Specifications
(2) Operations Directives Manual
(3)
Inspector Judgement
1--
6
d.
The inspector had the following comments relative to observations
made during plant tours:
On F'ebruary 14, the inspector noted that containment average
temperature had decreased to 69°F.
Station procedures require
that accumulators be maintained above 7QOF when pressurized
due to NOTT considerations. Local temperatures were checked
by the operator and verified to be 89°F.
The inspector expressed
concern that no indication or alarm was available to the operator
to signal potential low temperature conditions near the accumu-
lators. The licensee stated that appropriate design changes
will be investigated.
On February 28, the inspector found several red
11 Do Not Operate"
tags loose in the Auxiliary Building.
The tags were intended
to be in place on components of the waste evaporator and had
been authorized on tagging requests #21832 and #27181.
The
tags had not been cleared from these tagging requests. It was
subsequently determined that the components tagged had been
removed as a part of major modifications to the waste evaporator,
after the tagging boundary had been moved back..
Tagging docu-
mentation was corrected and the issue is being pursued with
the maintenance contractor.
During the course of the inspection, the inspector noted that
a temporary release was ih effect on the
11A
11 reactor trip
bypass breaker, authorizing tag removal and* closure of the
breaker during continued ~larit operation. It was verified that
the tag was in place as required and the breaker open.
Docu-
mentation was corrected to terminate the temporary release.
The inspector had no further questions relative to the above.
5.
System Operability and Surveillance Testing
To provide assurance.that safety systems were available during operation,
the inspector conducted independent verification of surveill~nce testing
and system conditions as reflected in operating parameters and control
room records.
Surveillance test documentation reviews for current satisfactory tests
were conducted for the following: Solid State Protection System, Hot
Shutdown Panel, RCP Seal Injection Flow, Quadrant Power Tilt Ratio,
Axial Flux Difference, and Vital Heat Trace circuits *
r~--
,:.i. .....
7
Independent verifications included the following; visual channel checks
of protective instrumentation, valve and breaker positions as indicated
on the control boards~ valve position verifications by inspection in
the field (Charging/safety injection system), independent calculations
of quadrant power tilt and performance of axial flux difference sur-
veillance test procedures.
Review of surveillance procedure SP(O) 4.5.4.2(a), Emergency Core
Cooling-Vital Heat Trace, conducted on February 27, 1980 indicated
that the primary circuit of heat tape 601 was inoperable as recorded
on the surveillance data sheet. The surveillance had been marked as
unsatisfactory, but no corrective action initiated and the procedure
filed. At the time of the surveillance, the plant was in Mode 3 and
no acknowledgement made of the ACTION Statement that became effective
with one vital heat trace circuit inoperable (Technical Specification 3.5.4.2). This condition persisted when the plant was brought critical
(Mode 2) at 0426 on February 28, 1980.
This mode change while relying
on the conditions of an ACTION Statement is contrary to the require-
ments of Technical Specification 3.0.4. During the time of vital heat
trace inoperability, boron injection tank piping temperatures remained
within limits, such that the conditions of the ACTION Statement were
complied with.
The above situation constitutes noncompliance with Technical Specification
3.0~4 (272/80-05-01).
Unit 2
6.
Plant Tour
a.
The inspector conducted periodic tours of all accessible areas in
the plant. During these tours, the following specific items were
evaluated:
(1)
Hot Work.
Adequacy of fire prevention/protection measures
used.
(2) Fire Equipment.
Operability and evidence of periodic inspection
of fire suppression equipment.
(3) _ Housekeeping.
Minimal accumulations of debris and maintenance
of required cleanness levels in systems under or following
testing.
(4) * Equipment Preservation. Maintenance of special preservative
measures for installed equipment as applicable.
( 5)
Component Tagging.
Implementation and obseryan~~ _ Q_f ___ ~g_u_i pme_nt_ _______ ~.
tagging for safety or equipment protection.\\__
_ ______ .
-~-..
, ______ -----,.--- *~-..--~------ - ---* -- -
- -** ------------.--- -
.
-~------ll:c---
. .
..
.
--~*
-~*--*-*"*-'--** ---- --------
- -*
--~-----
8
(6) Maintenance. Corrective maintenance in accordance with esta-
blished procedures.
(7)
Instrumentation. Adequate protection for installed instrumen-
tation.
(8) Cable Pulling. Adequate measures taken to protect cable from
damage while being pulled.
(9) Communication.
Effectiveness of public address system in all
areas of the site.
(10) Equipment Controls. Effectiveness of jurisdictional controls
in precluding unauthorized work on systems in test or which
have been testes.
(11) Logs.
Completeness of logs maintained and resolution of
identified problems.
(12) Foreign Material Exclusion. Maintenance of controls to assure
systems which have been cleaned and flushed are not reopened
to admit foreign material.
(13) Security.
Implementation of security provisions. Particular
attention to maintenance of Unit 1 protected area boundary.
(14) Testing. Spot-checks of testing in progress were made.
b.
The inspector had no comments relative to observations made during
the tours of the plant.
7. *Operational Readiness
10 CFR 50.57 states that the issuance of an operating license is, in*
part, contingent upon a finding that construction of the facility has
been substantially completed, in conformity with the construction permit
and the application, as amended, the provisions of the Act; and the rul~s
and regulations of the Commission.
In order to provide a basis for this finding, the inspector is conducting
a continuing review of licensee readiness to operate the facility. This
review includes, but is not limited to, the following areas:
Completion of the NRC inspection program to assess construction,
testing, and operational preparedness.
Status of facility operating procedures and personnel training *
I
9
Status of all enforcement items and unresolved matters.
Status of the preoperational test program.
Status of construction activities.
Proposed facility Technical Specifications .
. Review of licensee outstanding items, particularly those iden-
tified for completion or resolution after core load.
Implementation of corrective measures to Unit 2 as a result of
items identified in Unit 1 for Reportable Occurrences, inspection
findings, and IE Bulletin and Circulars.
Participation in an NRR/Applicant meeting held on February
27, 1980 to discuss status of open pre-licensing issues.
Operational safety concerns arising from the above reviews will be
promptly identified to facility management for resolution prior to the
inspector reaching a finding of operational readiness.
No specific
safety concerns have been identified to date.
8. Unresolved Items
Areas for which more information is required to determine acceptability
are considered unresolved. Status of previous unresolved items is
contained in Paragraph 2 of this report.
9~ Exit Interview
At periodic intervals during the course of this inspection, meetings
were held with senior facility management to discuss inspection scope
and findings.
.,