ML18085A114
| ML18085A114 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 08/18/1980 |
| From: | Hill W, Keimig R, Norrholm L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18085A110 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-272-80-16, 50-311-80-12, NUDOCS 8010230294 | |
| Download: ML18085A114 (9) | |
See also: IR 05000272/1980016
Text
,
-
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION I
50-272/80-16
Report Nos.
50-311/80~12
50-272
Docket Nos.
50-311
DP R -70
License Nos.
Licensee: ___ P_u_b_l_i _c _S_e_rv_i_c_e_E_l_e_c_tr_i_c_* _an_d_._G_as_* *_c_om_.* p_a_n.._y_* _. *_* _. _* _* *--
80 .Park.Place
Newark, New Jersey
07101 * *
Facility Name:
Salem*Nuclear Generating*station*~ Units 1*and*2
Inspection At:
Hancocks Bridge~ New Jersey*
Inspectors:
rr om, Senior Resident Reactor Inspector
~
4~ Yn-JJ:u h.
. .. * ....... .
date
Inspection summarf
.
.
Inspecti ans* on Ju y * 1~31 ~ * 1980 * (Canibined Report* Numbers* 50~272/80~16 *and 50~311/80-12)
Unit 1 Areas Insaected: Routine inspections by the resident inspectors of plant
operations inclu ing tours of the facility; log and record reviews; review of
licensee events; operational safety verification; implementation and tennination
of strike contingency plans; and training staff qualifications. The inspections
involved 72
inspector-hours by the resident NRC inspectors.
Unit 2 Areas Inseected: Routine inspections by the resident inspectors of plant
startup testing including tours of the facility; operating license conditions; and
pre-critical testing. The inspections involved 56 inspector-hours by the resident
NRC inspectors.
Results:
No items of noncompliance were identified relative to Unit 1.
One item
of noncompliance was identified relative to Unit 2 (Infraction-Entry into operating
Mode 3 while exceeding Technical Specification Limiting Conditions for Operation -
Detail 3).
.
8010280 294
DETAILS
1. Persons*contatted
J. Gallagher, Asststant Matntenance Engineer
S. LaBruna, Matntenance Engineer
H. Midura, Manager - Salem Generating Station
P. Moeller, Nuclear Licensing Engirieer
W. Reuther, Site QAD
F. Schnarr, Station Operating Engineer
R. Silveri'o, Assistant to the Manager
J. Stillman, Station QA Engineer
R. Swetnam, Senior Performance Supervisor-HP
J. Zupko, Chief Engineer
The inspector also interviewed and talked with other licensee personnel
during the course of the inspections including management~ clerical, main-
tenance, operati'ons, perfonnance and quality assurance personnel.
2. Status* of Previous I'nspectton *Items
1 No previous inspection i terns were reviewed during this tnspection pert od. *
SITE
3. -Shift*Logs*and*operattng*Retords
a. The inspector reviewed the following plant procedures to determine the
ltcensee established requirements in tfli's area in preparation for a review
of selected logs and records,
AP-5, Operating Practices, Revision 10, May 10, 1980;
AP-6, Operational Incidents, Revision 6, Feoruary 22, 1979;
AP-13, Control of Lifted Leads and Jumpers, Revision 4, February
11, 19.80;
Operations Dir~ctive Manual; and,*
AP-15, Tagging Rules, Revis.ion 0, April 13, 1976.
The tnspector had no questions in thi*s area.
b. Shift logs and operating records were revtewed to verffy that:
Control room l_og sheet entries are filled out and i"nitialled;
Auxiliary l.og sheets are filled out and initialled;
Log entries involving abnormal conditfons provfde sufficient detai'"l
to communicate equipment status, locRout status~ correctfon and
restoration;
Log Book reviews are befog conducted by the staff;
3
Operating orders do not conflict wttfr Tecfinica 1 Specification
requirements;
Incident reports detail no vtolatton of Technical Speciftcation
LCO or reporti_ng requirement; and,
--
Logs and records were maintained in *a.ccordance .. witfi Technical
Specifications and the procedures i'n*3.a aoove.
c. The *review included the following plant shtft logs and operating records
as indicated and discussed with ltcensee personnel:
Log No. 1 - Control Room Daily Log, June 30 ... July 1, July 4~10,
14-31
Log No. 3 - Control Console Reading Sheet (Mode 1-41, June 30 ...
July 1, July 4-10, 14-31
Log No, 6 - Primary Plant Log, June 30 .... July 1, July 4 ... 10, 14-31
Log No. 7 - Secondary Plant Log, June 30 ... July 1, July 4-10, 14-31
Log No. 8 - Unavailable Equtpment Status Log, June 30 - July 1,
July 4 ... 10, 14-31
.
'
-.... Inddent Reports .,.. Numoers 80 ... 139., 154 ... 155, 157-159, 161, 164..;165,
169_, 172-17 4' 176.-177' 179' 181, 186
--
Tagging Requests - All active (SSS file1
... -
Ntght Orders, June 30 ... July 30'~ 1980
......
Lifted Lead and Jumper L_og ... All *active
d,
The fo 11 owing ooservattons* apply to l_ogs* and records revtewed duri_ng
th.ts reporti_ng per.tod;
.
......
Durt:ng a re:View of operating logs for July 13 and 14, 1980., the
inspector noted that valves- 21 .and 23MS45 we*re found tagged shut
on July 13-and that valves 21 and 22 CS 6 were found tagged shut
on July 14. The MS 45 valves isolate the steam supply to # 23
Auxtltary Feedwater Pump and the. CS 6 valves isolate the Containment
Spray System inside containment, rendering ooth systems inoperaole~
Tl:te p 1 ant ftad entered Mode: 4 and then Mode 3 on July 9. and ttad oeen
at nonnal operating pressure and temperature for several days when
tftese conditfons were noted.
Immedtate* steps to restore operability
of the systems were taken.
Fat-lure to ensure operaotlity prior to
the_p1ant neatup_int? Mode 3 constitutes apearent noncompltance with
Te chm ca 1 Specif1cat1on 3. 0 .* 4 -C'il.1/80 . ..-12~01}.
The fnspector had no further questtons relative to logs and records
reviewed.
4
4. Plant Tour
a. During the course of the inspections, the inspector made observations
- and conducted multiple tours of plant areas, including the following;
b.
(1) Control Room (daily}
(2) Relay Rooms
(3) Auxiliary Building
(4) Vital Switchgear Rooms
(5} Turbine Building
(6) Yard Areas
l7) Radwaste Building
(8}
Penetration Areas
(9) Control Point
Oar Site Perimeter
The following detenninations were made:
Monitoring instrumentation: The inspector verified that selected*
instruments were functional and demonstrated parameters within
Technical Specification limits.
Valve positions. The inspector vertfted that selected valves were
in the position or condition required by Tech:rii'cal Specifications
for the applicable plant mode. This veri'fication included control
board indication and field of>servation of valve position (Charging/
Safety Injection, Auxiliary Feedwater, and Contatnment Spray Systemsl.
Radiation Controls. The inspector verified By observation that
control point procedures and posting requirements were being
followed.
The inspector identified no failures to properly post
radiation and high radiation areas.
Plant housekeeping conditions, Observations relative to plant
housekeeping identified no unsatisfactory conditions.
Fluid leaks.
No fluid leaks were observed which had not been
identified by station personnel and for whicfi corrective action
had not been initiated, as necessary,
Piping vibration.
No excessive piptng viDrations were observed
and no adverse conditions were noted,
Selected pipe hangers and seismic restraints were observed and no
adverse conditions were noted .
Equipment tagging. The inspector selected plant components for
which valid tagging requests were in effect and verified that the
tags were in place and the _equipment in the condition specified.
Control 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. The inspector periodically questioned shift personnel
relative to their awareness of plant conditions and knowledge of
emergency procedures.
Fire protection. The inspector verified that selected fire extinguishers
were accessible and inspected on schedule, that fire alann stations
were unobstructed, that cardox systems were operable, and that adequate
control over ignition sources and fire hazards was maintained.
Releases.
On a sampling basis, the inspector verified that appropriate
documentation, sampling, authorization, and monitoring instrumentation,
were provided for effluent releases.
Technical Specifications. Through log review and direct observations
during tours, the inspector verified compliance with selected Technical
Specification Limiting Conditions for Operation. The following para-
meters were sampled frequently: accumulator levels and pressures,
RWST level, BIT temperature, AFST leveJ, rod insertion limits, contain-
ment pressure and temperature, valve power lockouts, axial flux
difference.
In addition, the inspector conducted periodic visual
channel checks of protective instrumentation and inspection of elec-
trical switchboards to confirm availability of safeguards equipment.
Security. During the course of these inspections, observations
relative to protected and vital area security were made, including
access controls, boundary integrity, search, escort, and badging.
No notable conditions were identified.
Surveillance. The inspector observed pottions of the following sur-
veillance test in progress; Rod Position Indication Calibration.
Maintenance.
The inspector observed portions of maintenance activity
on the following components to verify compliance with procedure and
administrative controls; Boric Acid Transfer pump repair.
6
c. The following acceptance criteria were used for the above i:tems:
Technical Specifications
Ope.ratings Directives Manual
Inspector Judgement
d. The inspector had no questions relative to. observations made duri.ng plant
tours.
5. Strike
At midnight July 24, 1980, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
(IBEW} Union went on strike. Included in the niembershi'p of the union were
licensed reactor operators. Plant operations during tile stri'ke were conducted
by supervisory personnel. SRO-licensed operators from licensee management
and supervisory staffs satisfied minimum shi*ft crew composition as required
by Technical Specifications.
The strike 1 asted for approximately fourteen hours* unti 1 a tentative agreement
was reached which was to be ratified by unfon vote at a later date, The
. striking members were invited back to work.
The inspector monitored plant conditions prior to the strike, turnover of
plant operations to supervisory personnel, and plant operations during the
strike.
No concerns relative to shift relief and reactor operations oy supervisory
personnel were identified, The inspector monitored.followup of the strike
plan, plant security, manning of the Security Force, and communications.
Loss of commercial and Emergency Notification System (ENSl telephones shortly
after the start of the strike, was immediately recogritzed 5y NRC Headquarters,
NRC resident inspector, and 1 i censee management an*d operators. The inspector
monitored the licensee's efforts to establish emergency and Backup communication
capaoilities. Reltaole radio communications were* estaoltshed within approx-
imately twenty minutes* with state and 1oca1 autfioriti es, Coverage by NRC
inspectors continued untll normal operattons resumed following *shtft turnover
to union workers.
The inspectors had no further questions regarding plant operations during .
the strike or the licensee's implementation of *the Strike Contingency plan.
..
7
6. Trainitig*staff
A March 28, 1980. letter to the licensee from the Di*rector, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, required that appltcattons* _for.Senior Reactor Operator
(SRO} license examination oe submitted By August l, 19.80 for ltcensee tratni_ng
staff instructors involved tn tratntng on systems, integrated response,
tr~nsients, and simulator courses.
The licensee tdenttfted three members of tfie training staff who were involved
with training in these areas. The inspector* veri'rted that a current SRO
license was held for the three members identified By the licensee.
The inspector had no further qu~stions regardtng ltcense qualifications of
training staff personnel.
UNIT 1
7. Operational *Events
Unit 1 continued operation at power for the entire inspectton period.
On
July 27, 1980, critical boron coneentration reached effectively zero and a
power coast-down i'nitiated. Power reduction to approximately *so% is antici-
pated, terminating at the start of a refueling outage on September 20.
No concerns relative to this mode of operation were tdenttfi'ed.
UNIT 2
8.
Pre.;.Critical *resting
a. Salem Untt 2 Operating License Number DPR-75, issued on Aprtl 18, 19:80
authorized core load and testing at low power.
Tfi.e li'cense and.accompanying
Technical Specifications contain several conditions to oe met prior to
neat- up and prior to criticality, Tfi.e fol lowi*ng conditions* were verified
as descrioed o*elow By the i"nspectors,
At tfie conclusion of th.is inspection?
tne unit was tn Mope 3.
No conditions for criticality were outstandi'ng.
Some open items remained to be resolved. All *fiad direct impact on system
- operaoility as descriBed in Techritcal Spectftcation 4~0!4.
Tfte fol lowing license conditions, ltsted oy li'cense paragraph were
vertfied:
Technical Specification 7 .3(11 ""' Completton of SUP *21 (Radiation
MonitoringL
The startup procedure fiad beeri completed for criticality
and reviewed by the Preoperati ona 1 Revi.ew Commtttee.
Open ttems*
were related to testing of cnannels i'n the redundant computer.
Operaoility of the system prior to crtttcal operatton was verified,
Technical Specification 7,3[2) - Construction and testing open items.
The listing of remaining open items was reviewed.
No items remained
which were identified as impacting on safety or compliance with
Technical Specifications.
8
Technical Specification 7.3(3) and 7.4(3) - Completion of test
program and repairs as required by the provisions of IE Bulletin
- 79-02, Revision 2.
The anchor* bolt test program and all identified
repairs were completed prior to critical operation of the unit.
Technical Specification 9.5. - Testing of remaining steam generator
safety valve. The valve was successfully lift tested during hot
system operation prior to criticality.
Technical Specification 9.6. - Boron concentration.
On a continual
basis, the inspector verified that a minimum boron concentration
of 2000 ppm was maintained until just prior to criticality. At
. the time of entry into Mode 4, sufficient unit 2 operator's licenses.
were held to support critical operation.
Technical Specification 9.7. - Procedures to provide guidance to
supervisor of the unaffected unit in the event of an emergency on
the companion unit. The inspector verified that a procedure was
in place on both units to direct shift supervisor action in the
event of an accident on the other unit.
b.
The inspectors observed portions of testing conducted during this
period. Observations included the following; correct procedure in
use, crew requirements, test prerequisites, plant conditions, cali-
brated test equipment, adherence to procedure, coordination, data
collection, and data review.
The following tests were observed:
SUP 7013 Reactor Coolant Flow Coastdown
SUP 70.4 Pressurizer Spray and Heater Capability
--
SUP 70.7 Rod Drive Mechanism Timing
SUP 70.9 Rod Control System Operation
The inspectors had no questions in this area.
c.
Heatup of the unit began on July 7, 1980 and Mode 4 established. The
unit entered Mode 3(Hot Standby) on July 9.
Cooldown to Mode 4 was
initiated when it was discovered that several instrument channels were
not operable and tracking plant conditions (3 steam flow channels, one
steam pressure channel, and two pressurizer pressure channels). These
channels were later found to be isolated due to shut isolation valves.
The discovery was made prior to required operability of the respective
instruments in accordance with Technical Specification 3.3.2.1.
Due
to the potential loss of required instrumentation, licensee corrective-
action to prevent recurrence is being requested. This item is unresolved
pending review of the licensee's proposed actions (311/80-12-02).
-"\\-. .,
........ !"'
9
Following restoration of the instrument cnannels, heat up to Mode 3
. was resumed.
On July 22, the plant was cooled down to Mode 5 tn order
to effect repairs. to leaRing spray valves whicff were impeding tlie
pressurizer neater capacity test (SUP 70.4J. Heat.up resumed on July
- 28 and Mode 3 re-entered on July 29.
At tile con cl us ion of this inspection
period, tlie unit was in Mode 3 and ready for i'ntttal cri'ticality.
The inspector had no further questions relative to testing activittes.
9. Unresolved !terns
Areas for which more information is required to determine acceptaf)iltty
are considered unresolved.
An unresolved item ts contained in Paragraph
8 of this report.
10. Exit Interview
At periodic intervals during the course of this inspectton, meetings were
held with senior faciltty *man.agement to di*scuss inspectton *scope and findings.