ML18102A346
| ML18102A346 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 08/26/1996 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18102A345 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-272-96-08, 50-272-96-8, 50-311-96-08, 50-311-96-8, NUDOCS 9609030371 | |
| Download: ML18102A346 (3) | |
Text
APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Public Service Electric and Gas Company Salem Nuclear Generating Station Docket Nos: 50-272 50-311 License Nos: DPR-70 DPR-75 Units 1 and 2 During an NRC inspection conducted on June 30, 1996 - August 10, 1996, violations of NRC requirements were identified. In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600, the violations are listed below:
A.
Technical Specification 6.8.1 requires, in part, that licensees establish, implement and maintain written procedures covering the applicable procedures in Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, February 1978. Regulatory Guide 1.33 requires written" procedures to control operation of safety related plant equipment.
Salem. Procedure SC.OP-DD.ZZ-OD08(0), TRIS Tagging Operations, Rev. 6, step 2.1. 7.C requires that operators sign and date that the Tagging Request Inquiry
- System (TRIS) has been updated on the Tagging Request Worksheet.
Contrary to the above, the following examples of failure to update TRIS occurred:
- 1.
On July 15, plant staff failed to update TRIS and sign and date that TRIS had been updated after an operator repositioned valve 21SW161.
- 2.
On July 31, plant staff failed to update TRIS and sign and date that TRIS had been updated after an operator repositioned valves 2SW1 62 and 2SW181.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement 1 ).
B.
Technical Specification 6.8.1 requires, in part, that licensees establish, implement and maintain written procedures covering the applicable procedures in Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, February.1978. Regulatory Guide 1.33 requires written procedures to control safety related maintenance. Salem Procedure NC.NA-AP.ZZ-0009, Revision 10, Work Control Process, step 5.9.1.a requires that the job supervisor ensure the appl,icable post-maintenance test (PMT) has been.
performed, is correct in scope for the work performed; and the results are acceptable.
Contrary to the above, the following examples of failure to perform PMT occurred:
- 1.
On May 15, 1996, a job supervisor failed to ensure technicians performed the applicable PMT following maintenance on a safety injection minimum flow valve (2SJ68).
9609030371 960826
~DR ADOCK 05000272 PDR
- 2.
2 On June 5, 1996, a maintenance supervisor failed to ensure technicians performed the applicable PMT following maintenance on a diesel generator service water header supply valve (21 SW21 ).
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement 1).
C.
The NRC approved PSE&G Nuclear Department Quality Assurance and Safety Review Manual (QASR), procedure ND.QA-AP.ZZ-0016(A), Surveillance of Material/equipment storage, Rev. 3 states that surveillance of material and equipment storage is performed in accordance with procedure ND.PM-AP.ZZ-0300(Q), Storage and Handling of Material. Procedure ND.PM-AP.ZZ-0300(Q), Rev.
0, step 4.1.1 requires that level B items shall be stored in a fire resistant, tear resistant, weather-tight, and well ventilated.building or equivalent enclosure with uniform heating and temperature control. Level C items shall be stored in an equivalent environment with all provisions and requirements as set forth in level B items except heat and temperature control is not required.
Contrary to the above, on August 1, inspectors foun.d a safety~related shaft bearing, part J50207-000-220, labeled storage protection level B, and numerous items labeled storage protection level C, stored in an enclosure not fire resistant, tear resistant, weather tight, and well-ventilated.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).
D.
Appendix B, Criterion XVI of 10 CFR 50 requires that licensees implement measures to insure significant conditions adverse to quality' are promptly identified, corrected, and actions taken to prevent recurrence. Procedure NC.NA-AP.ZZ-OOOO(Q), Action Request Process, Rev. 0, step 5.2.6 requires that plant staff initiate a significance level 1, 2, or 3 Action Request (AR) for conditions adverse to quality.
Contrary to the above from June 21, 1 996 until questioned by an inspector on July 19, 1996, engineering staff failed to initiate a Condition Resolution for a significant condition adverse to quality consisting of four plant modifications with inadequate or missing evaluations required by code or regulations.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).
E.
Technical Specification 6.8.1 requfres, in part, that licensees establish, implement and maintain written procedures covering the applicable procedures in Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, February 1978. Regulatory Guide 1.33 requires written procedures to control operation of safety related plant equipment.
Contrary to the above, during the period of June 30, 1996 to August 10, 1996, the following examples of inadequate procedures were identified:
- 1.
Procedure S2.0P-SO-CVC-0007, revisi9n 4, Fill and Vent of eves, was inadequate in that it did not contain water level limitations to preclude vortexing of the residual heat removal pumps..
- 2.
3 Procedure S2.0P-SO.CC-0002, revision 7, 21 and 22 Component Cooling Heat Exchanger Operation, did not provide sufficient guidance to preclude a pressure perturbation in the service water system.
- 3.
Procedure S2.0P-SO.CA.0001, revision 2, Control Air System Operation, did not ensure isolation of the service water (SW) supply valves during realignment of the SW spool pieces.
- 4.
Procedure SC.MD.FR.FH-0006, revision 6, Reactor Vessel Head Reassembly, did not provide adequate precautions to ensure brittle fracture prevention of the reactor vessel.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement 1).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Pubic Service Electric and Gas Company is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region I, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector at the facility that is the subject of this Notice, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation (Notice). This reply should be clearly marked as a "Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each violation: (1) the reason for the violation, or, if contested, the basis for disputing the violation, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Your response may reference or include previous docketed correspondence, if the correspond.ence adequately addresses the required response. If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order or a Demand for Information may be issued as to why the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked, or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time.
Because your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), to the extent possible, it should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards
. information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction. However, if you find it necessary to include such information; you should clearly indicate the specific information that you desire not to be placed in the PDR, and provide the legal basis to support your
.request for withholding the information from the public.
Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this 26th day of August 1996 *