ML18086A854
| ML18086A854 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 07/05/1981 |
| From: | Caphton D, Napuda G, Norrholm L, Shaub E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18086A852 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-272-81-03, 50-272-81-3, 50-311-81-04, 50-311-81-4, NUDOCS 8108100179 | |
| Download: ML18086A854 (10) | |
See also: IR 05000272/1981003
Text
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
Report No.
50-272/81-03
50-311/81-04
Docket No.
50-272
50-311
Region I
c
License No. DPR-75
- Priority -----
Category ___ c __ _
Licensee:
Public Service Electric and Gas
80 Park Plaza - 15A
Newark, New Jersey 07101
Facility Name:
Inspection at:
Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 & 2
Hancocks Bridge ;-and Newark,; New Jersey
-
'**
-
-
Inspection conducted:
February 9-18, 1981
A.,,/~
Inspectors: ?(~~ _ ,, _)
G *{feua' Reactor Inspector
Approved by:
Inspection Summary:
Inspector
, Management
DE&TI
da
{lgrred
tle
6~
datsigl1ed
Ins ection on February 9-13 and 18, 1981 (Combined Ins ection Re ort No.
50-272/81-03; 50-311/81-04
Areas Inspected:
Routine unannounced inspection by two region-based inspectors of
QA Program implementation including QA Program Annual Review; QA/QC Administration
Program; Qualification o.f Personnel; Design change and Modifications; Audits; Corrective
Action; and, licensee action on previously identified inspection findings.
The
inspection involved 64 inspector-hours onsite by two region-based inspectors and 34
inspector-hours at the corporate offices by two NRC region-based inspectors and the
Resident Inspector .
Results:
Of the seven areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were identified
in four areas and one item (three examples} of noncompliance was identified in three
areas (Violation-- untimelyj ,fnadequat~ ~~d tneffectiv~ corrective actions,
____ Paragraphs 4. c and 7).
.
.
- s1oe1oo-1798io724~
PDR ADOCK 05000272
G
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
- J. Boettger, General Manager-QA Engineering and Construction
- F. Christiana, Chief Controls Engineer
- N. Dyck, QAD Engineer
- C. Hug, Lead Engineer
- J. Krauth, Chief Desi:gn Engineer
- L. LaVecchia, QA Co6rdinator
B. Leap, QAD Engineer
- H. Lowe, QAD Engineer
- F. Meyer, Manager-QA Operations and Maintenance
- H. Midura, Station Manager
- A. Nassman, Manager - QA Engineering and Construction
- M. Rosenzweig, QAD Engineer
- G. Schneider, QAD Engineer
- J. Stillman, Station QA Engineer
- R. Underitz, General Manager - Nuclear Production
- W. Valaika, QAD Audit Division Head
NRC Personnel
W. Hill, Resident Inspector
- L. Norrholm, Senior Resident Inspector
- denotes those present at the exit interview conducted at the Newark, New
Jersey corporate offices on February 13, 1981.
- denotes those present at the exit interview conducted at the Salem
Station on February 18, 1981.
- denotes those present at both exit interviews.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-272/79-28-04):
Review effectiveness of corrective
action.
Based on the inspection findings discussed in Paragraph 7 this
item is closed.
(Closed) Infraction (50-311/80-01-02):
Failure to establish appropriate
procedures.
Based on the inspection and findings discussed in Paragraph 7
this item is closed .
3
(Open) Infraction (50-272/80-04-02):
Failure to establish appropriate
procedures.
Based on the inspection and findings discussed in
Paragraph 7 this item remains open pending verifications that the
Unit No. 1 MEL is issued by June 30, 1981.
(Closed) Infraction (50-272/80-04-03; 50-272/80-01-03):
Failure to
implement/follow established procedures.
The inspectors reviewed
objective evidence and interviewed engineering personnel to determine
that the implementing procedures in the manuals of the four divisions
of the Engineering Department have been reviewed and revised as
necessary.
Based on the findings of IE Inspection Reports 50-
272/80-19 and 50-311/80-14, and the findings discussed in Paragraphs
4 and 7 of this report~ this "item ts c*1 osed.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-272/80-04-04; 50-311/80-01-04):
Drawing 207522 depicted local pressure indicator PL1047 at a different
location in Auxiliary Feedwater System than as-built condition is
indicated on Drawing 20523.
The inspector reviewed Revision 13
dated June 19, 1980 to drawing 207522 and verified it depicted the
correct location of pressure indicator, PL1047.
(Closed) Deficiency (50-272/80-04-05):
Completed single copy
Design Change Packages ED 0173, 0174, 0183, 0227 and 0268 were
transmitted from Station to the corporate offices:and _stored in non-
fire rated steel cabinets.
The inspector verified that.the subject
design change packages were also recorded on m1crof1lm 1n the Station
Technical Document Room.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-272/80-19-01; 50-311/80-14-01):
Corrective action associated with audits of document control area.
The inspector reviewed documented results of followup action with
respect to Licensee Audits 79-3-G.l-3(R) and S0-80-05.
With the
exception of a chemistry procedure yet to be issued all required
corrective actions on these audit findings had been verified as
accomplished.
The inspector noted that another audit of this area
was scheduled for February 23, 1981.
Based on the foregoing and
the findings discussed in Paragraph::5, thi~ item is closed.
(Closed) Deficiency (50-272/80-19-02; 50-311/80-14-02):
Unsatisfactory
warehouse hold area conditions and discrepancies with respect to
warehouse housekeeping inspections.
The inspector verified that
the subject inspection records ~enerated since the initial finding
were *s; gned* by the i nspectthg official and tpen transmitted ,
..
to the Technical Document Room for microfilming.
The inspectors
also toured the warehouse and noted that though conditions were
4
somewhat crowded the hold areas were clearly marked.
A recent
Boric Acid shipment that was in a hold status was securely roped in
with several hold tags displayed in easily seen locations.
The
inspectors al so noted that a quantity of previously aq:epted material,
turned over from the constructor, was being re-reviewed/inspected
for incorporation into the licensee's warehouse stock.
The licensee
representative stated that management consideration is being given
to enlarging warehousing capability.
Based on the foregoing this
item is closed.
(Closed) Deficiency (50-272/80-19-03; 50-311/80-14-03):
Failure to
provide objective evidence that proper environmental conditions
were met during calibration of test equipment used in safety related
maintenance (John Fluke Multimeter Nos. PD-003, 004 and 187).
The
inspector verified that the Temp-Humidity recorder was installed in
the calibration lab and reviewed the subsequent recalibration data
for the three multimeters.
All three meters were within specifications,
therefore no other licensee followup action was necessary.
3.
QA Program
a.
References
FSAR Admendment 43, Appendix D - Quality Assurance
Quality Assurance Manual Volumes 1, Policies and Procedures
and 2, Salem QA Instructions.
Implementing procedures referenced in subsequent paragraphs
of this report.
b.
Program Review
The inspectors reviewed the changes made to the QA Manual,
organization and implementing procedures in order to ascertain
that they were consistent with the QA Programs as described in
the FSAR Appendix D.
c.
QA/QC Administration
The inspectors reviewed the referenced documents to verify
that:
The scope and applicability of the QA Program were
defined.
Appropriate controls were established to prepare, review
and approve QA Program procedures, including changes
thereto.
A mechanism has been established to review and evaluate
the QA Program.
d.
Findings
The licensee has recently reorganized the QA organization to
have the onsite QA functions (QA/QC and Audits) be the responsibility
of the Corporate QA Department.
QA Procedure 1, Organization, Revision 10, 12/1/80; and QA
Instruction 1-1, PSE&G Corporate QA Department, Revision 3,
12/1/80; have been revised to reflect the new organization and
delegate the authorities and responsibilities necessary to
implement the QA program.
The licensee stated that those implementing procedures that it
is necessary to change so as to reflect the present QA organization
authorities and responsibilities, are expected to be revised
during the next three months.
The licensee stated that the
current implementing procedures (QAI 1 s, AP-17 and OQI 1 s) will
be followed until revised.
The licensee is also evaluating the current QA Manual to
determine if the structure or content should be changed.
In
addition, the licensee is evaluating QA positions/personnel to
determine if changes in authorities, duties and responsibilities
are necessary.
The inspector stated this area will be reviewed during subsequent
routine inspections.
4.
Design Change/Modifications
a.
References
Engineering Department Directive No. 1, Operational
Design Change control - Salem Nuclear Generating Station,
Revision 1.
AP-8, Station Design Changes, Tests and Experiments,
Revision 4
b.
6
Review
The inspectors selected and reviewed the design changes listed
below to verify, as applicable, that:
they were accomplished
in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 and the licensee's QA Program
requirements; code requirements and specifications were
included; acceptance tests including acceptance values and
standards were included; records of equipment performance were
reviewed and accepted; and, prints/drawings and operating
procedures were revised (a sample).
The Design Change Packages (DCPs) reviewed were:
1EC-0414A, Service Water System
lEC-0430, Solid State Protection System
lEC-0574, Emergency Diesel Generator Air Start
lEC-0973, Sampling System Containment Penetrations
lEC-1034, Main Steam Isolation Valve Remote Operating Switch
2EC-1035, Main Steam Isolation Valve Remote Operating Switch
c.
Findings
In their June 3, 1980, letter to RI describing corrective
actions for unacceptable conditions identified during IE
Combined Inspection 50-272/80-04; 50-311/80-01 the licensee
stated that the Technical Document Room (TOR) would receive
prompt notification via an Operational Design Change Notice
(ODCN) of any engineering drawings affected by a Design
Change and that this action would be implemented by September
30, 1980.
The inspectors noted that the corrective actions described in
the licensee's letter to RI dated June 3, 1980, had been
incorporated into each of the above DCPs with the exception
noted below.
The
inspectors identified that the implemented corrective
action was not adequate in that Revision 2 to DCP lEC-1034 had
been issued by site engineering but had not been received by
the TOR as of February 18, 1981.
The Design Change Document
Status List (a part of the DCP) indicated that revised ODCNs
C3/01, C4/01, C5/01 and C6/01 affected Drawing 231407-A-1403.
The inspector reviewed the latest as-built drawing and determined
that it did differ from the as-built information available in
the TOR for operating personnel.
The inspector also concluded
that no safety concern existed .
5.
7
In order to ascertain if the above was an isolated instance
the inspector selected three additional DCPs that had been
revised by site engineering with the following results:
lEC-0722, Revision 4 was the current DCP status and the
TOR had that revision;
lEC-0663, Revision 12 was the current DCP status while
the TOR had only Revision 8; and,
2EC-0550, Revision 2 was the current DCP status while the
TOR had Revision 1.
All four of the above DCP rev1s1ons had been issued by site
engineering during November-December, 1980.
The three instances identified above where the TOR did not
have current as-built information constitute an example of
inadequate corrective action that is included into the item of
noncompliance discussed in Paragraph 7 .
Audits
The inspectors reviewed the audits listed below.
These audits were
reviewed to verify that they were conducted as follows:
in accordance
with written checklists/procedures; by trained personnel not having
direct responsibility in the area(s) audited; with findings documented
and reviewed; with followup actions initiated/completed/closed out;
and, with audit frequencies and general audit conduct in accordance
with established standards.
S-80-9 Radwaste, Radiation Protection, SNM and Analytical
Measurements
Cooperative Management Audit, October 10-24, 1980.
The inspectors also reviewed the corporate and site audit/surveillance
schedules.
The inspectors noted that existing schedules are being
followed during the reorganization phase of the Quality Assurance
Department.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
~-
6.
Review of Personnel Qualifications
The licensee has appointed individuals to fill the positions of
General Manager -Quality Assurance and Manager - QA Operations and
Maintenance.
The inspector reviewed the qualifications of and interviewed these
individuals to verify that their qualifications were consistent
with the Quality Assurance Program requirements and ANSI 18.1.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
7.
Corrective Action
The inspectors reviewed corrective actions associated with previously
identified findings (reference Paragraph 2), control of design
changes/ modifications (reference Paragraph 4) and occurrences that
usually require Licensee Event Reports (LERs - Reference Paragraph
5 and 6.b in IE Report 50-272/79-28).
This review was made to
determine that corrective action in these various areas was:
Timely, i.e., accomplished within a required/specified time
frame as conditions or commitments dictate;
Adequate, f;e., corrected all of the causes of identified conditions
adverse to quality; and,
Effective, f~e., prev~nt recurrent or similar conditions adverse
to quality.
The two examples discussed below and the example in Paragraph 4.c
constitute an item of noncompliance for untimely, ineffective and
inadequate corrective action (50-272/81-03-01; 50-311/81-04-01).
(a)
The Senior Resident Inspector had documented his concern about
the effectiveness of licensee corrective action in IE Report
272/79-28 with respect to recurring instances of missed plant
surveillances (Paragraph 5 of that report) and the collapse of
a CVCS Holdup Tank that was similar to events detailed in IE
Circular 77-10.
The Senior Resident Inspector identified that surveillances
continue to be missed as evidenced by the following LERs.
,, ,
9
80-42/03L, Missed 24 volt Battery surveillance
80-52/03L, Missed inservice inspection of valves
80-66/03L, Missed Fire Detection instruments surveillance
The above, LERs 78-14, 78-15, 78-25, 78-34, 79-15, 79-17, 79-
22, 79-23, 79-25 and 79-30 (Referenced in the subject IE
Report), and the CVCS Holdup Tank collapse are instances of an
example of ineffective corrective action.
This example is
included in the item of noncompliance discussed below.
The Senior Resident Inspector informed the licensee of this
example of an item of noncompliance during a meeting on March
2' 1981.
(b)
In a response (dated June 3, 1980) to IE Inspection Reports
50-272/80-04 and 50-311/80-01, dated May 6, 1980, the licensee
stated that corrective actions in the following areas would be
accomplished by the specified dates.
Engineering Department Procedures by September 1, 1980
Incorporation of five Design Change Packages into the
records system prior to the licensee's response letter
An administrative system established for overall control
of the content and information of a Design Change Package.
Material Equipment List (MEL) for Unit No. 1 issued by June
30' 1981.
A Training Program whereby operations personnel are briefed
on all design changes affecting operations fully implemented by
September 30, 1980.
Material Equipment List (MEL) for Unit No. 2 issued by
September 30, 1980.
Revision and issuance of a station procedure addressing
as-built drawings/information and the proper use thereof
by September 30p 1980.
The issuance of the Unit No. 1 MEL by June 30, 1981 will be
verified during a subsequent inspection.
Also, verification
that the Electric Production Training Center has developed a
format and is implementing a program for briefing operations
personnel on modifications affecting operations will be followed
up in conjunction with Infraction 50-272/80-14-01.
10
The inspector identified untimely corrective action in that: The
Unit No. 2 MEL was not issued until November 3, 1980; and, Procedure
AP-3, designated by licensee management as the one to address as-
built information and its proper use, was not issued as of February
18, 1981.
Further, RI had not been notified of the non accomplishment
of this corrective action or the reasons therefore.
The licensee stated during the exit interview on February 18,
1981, that AP-3 had been reviewed and approved by SORC that
. day and would be issued the next day.
8.
Exit Interview
Licensee management was periodically informed of inspection findings
as follows:
Date
2/9/81
2/11/81
2/13/81
2/18/81
3/2/81
Report Paragraph
Entrance Interview, 2,
2, 3,_4 and 6
2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7
2, 3, . 4, 5, 6 and 7
7
A summary of inspection findings was provided to the senior licensee
representatives at the corporate offices on February 13 and at the
station at the conclusion of the inspection (denoted in Paragraph
1).
The results of the inspection were also discussed between the
licensee and the Senior Resident Inspector during a meeting on
March 2, 1981.
The licensee acknowledged the inspectors' findings.