ML18085A245
| ML18085A245 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 10/10/1980 |
| From: | Schneider F Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | Brunner E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18085A243 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8011180805 | |
| Download: ML18085A245 (3) | |
Text
.. ~~
. -*-~
.erick W. Sch~eider Vice President Pub I ic Service E Jectric and Gas Company 80 Park Place Newark, N.J. 07101 201 /430-7373 Production October 10, 1980 Mr. Boyce H. Grier, Director Office of Insi:*ectior.. anC' Enforcememt Region J U.S. Nuclear Regnlat.ory Commission 6.31 Park,'!\\venue King of Pru~sia, PA 19406 Attention:
Mr*. Eldon ~r. Brunner, Chief
~eactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Gentlemen:
COMBINED INSPECTION 50-272/80-20 AND 50-311/80-16 We have reviewed the report of the subject inspection conducted by Mr. L. Norrholm of your office on August 1-31, 1980.
Our response to the infraction identified in Appendix A is as follows:
Item A Infraction A.
Technical Specification 6.8.1 states in part:
"Written procedures shall be established, implemented and maintained covering **. the applicable procedures recommended in Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33, November 1972."
Regulatpry Guide 1.33 includes Paragraphs A.3 Equipment Control (e.g.
Locking and Tagging and A.8 Log Entries.
An implementing procedure, Operations Directives Manual, Revision 5, states, in Section 3.1.5, "Operations Log No. 1 - Control Room Daily Log *** 2) Entries to the narrative portion shall include but not be limited to:
- .* j) Implementation and termination of Technical Specification Action Statements *** " Operations Directives Manual Section 3.1.6 states, in part, " **. Oper-ations Log 3 - Control Console Mode 1.4 ***
These logs are completed on a daily basis by the operating shifts.
Each log contains instructions which describe when readings are to be taken."
Implementing procedure, AP-15, Tagging Rules, Revision O, states in section 7.0.K, "No tags shall be removed until the equipment has been released for service by the man for whom it has been tagged."
Boyce H. Grier, Dir.
- 2 -
10-10-80 Contrary to the above the following failures to implement procedures were identified:
a..
On August 1, 1980, the Unit l Refueling Water Storage Tank was observed to be at 40.5 feet, placing the unit in an Action Statement of Technical Specification 3.5.5.
On August 15, 1980, the Unit 2 *Auxiliary Feed-water Storage Tank was observed to be at 88%, placing the unit in an Action Statement of Technical Specifi-cation 3.7.1.3.
In neither case, had a narrative log entry been made, nor any other acknowledgement of an Action Statement been noted.
- b.
During the period August 22-28, 1980, log entries on Operations Log No. 3 for Unit 2 did not conform to c *.
the directions given on the log, which state, "l)
On coming and off going NCO to initial at watch re-lief or the on duty NCO to verify position at least every 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />."
Position of the valves were noted, how-ever no initials appeared in the log.
A tagging request dated March 16, 1978, which was still effective and in the active file on August 21, 1980, called for red "Do Not Operate" tags to be placed on valves 13LW16 and 14LW16.
The tags were not in place on-the valves as specified when inspected on August 21, 1980.
Reply to Item A (a)
- 1.
The cause was operator error; in each case the operator failed to notice the decreasing tank levels after satis-factory readings had been logged less than one hour before.
An.other factor that might have contributed to these errors is the small size of the control room level indicators which makes them difficult to read at a glance.
- 2.
To help correct the situation in the future a memorandum has been issued to all licensed operators emphasizing the im-portance of being constantly aware of existing conditions and entering action statements in the narrative log.
- 3.
Also, we have initiated an engineering evaluation of the idea to design an alarm that will warn the operator when levels in the subject.tanks are decreasing.
We expect this evaluation to tell us our further course.of action
- We are in compliance now.
Boyce H. Grier, Dir.
3 -
10-10-80 Reply. to Item A *(bl
- 1.
The incident was caused by operator error.
The valves were checked as indicated in the log, but the operator failed to initial the log.
- 2.
To prevent future items of noncompliance the supervisors have been notified via the Night Order Book to remind the NCO's on their shift to be sure the valves get the proper surveillance check and to initial properly.
- 3.
We are in compliance now.
Reply to Item A (c)
- 1.
The apparent cause was that the tags were subjected to outside elements.
Even with plastic covers being utilized to protect the tags, two years in the elements probably resulted in degradation of the string by which they were attached.
- 2.
To correct the situation new tags are to be affixed.
- 3.
To prevent future items of noncompliance an inspection order has been initiated to check at regular intervals whether any tagging requests in the files are older than six (6) months.
The operator will verify on location that such tags are properly attached.
- 4.
Date for full compliance is December 1, 1980.
If you have any further questions with regard to this. matter we will be pleased to discuss them with you.
Sincerely,
~~
CC Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555