ML18102A461
| ML18102A461 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 10/03/1996 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18102A460 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-272-96-11, 50-311-96-11, NUDOCS 9610160171 | |
| Download: ML18102A461 (2) | |
Text
NOTICE OF VIOLATION Public Service Electric and Gas Company Salem Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos: 50-272 50-311 License Nos: DPR-70 DPR-75 During an NRC inspection conducted from July 22-26, 1996, two violations of NRC requirements were identified. In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," NU REG 1600, the violations are listed below:
A.
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XI, Test Control," requires, in part, that measures shall be established to assure that all testing required to demonstrate that components will perform satisfactorily in service is identified in accordance with written test procedures which incorporate the requirements and acceptance limits contained in applicable design documents. Test procedures shall include provisions for assuring that adequate test instrumentation is used. Test results shall also be evaluated to assure that test requirements have been satisfied.
Contrary to the above, as of July 21, 1996, the valve factors for the 34 motor-operated valves (MOVs) in Families 3 and 9.1 were incorrectly derived from dynamic test results, in that:
- 1.
inadequate test instrumentation was used when performing the dynamic tests
. of charging header stop valves 1 and 2 CV 68 and 69.
- 2.
the dynamic test results for MOVs 1 and 2 CV 68 and 69 were inadequately evaluated. Subsequent evaluation of the unusually low valve factors derived from the test data evidenced an error in the upstream pressure measurement.
- 3..
the two dynamic tests used in establishing valve factors for 20 MOVs in MOV Family 3 were not adequately justified.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).
B.
1 O CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion Ill, "Design Control," requires, in part, that measures shall be established to assure that the design-basis is correctly translated into specifications, drawings, procedures, and instructions. PSE&G Engineering Procedure NC.DE-PS.ZZ-0033(Q)-A4, "MOV Program Operating Condition Evaluation," specified a design-basis differential pressure closing requirement of 379 pounds per square inch (psid) for residual heat removal isolation MOVs 1&2 RH1 and 380 psid for MOVs 1&2 RH2. PSE&G Engineering Procedure NC.DE-PS.ZZ-0033(Q)-
A8, "MOV Capability Assessment," requires the performance of mechanical design calculations using this information as design inputs to establish proper setpoints for assuring operability under design-basis conditions.
9610160171 961003 PDR ADOCK 05000272 G
Contrary to the above, PSE&G failed to incorporate the design-basis differential pressure closing requirements into the thrust calculations for the four risk significant pressure isolation MOVs (1&2 RH1 and RH2) in question. Specifically, mechanical design calculations, S-1-RHR-MDC-0890, Sheets 1 & 2 and S-2-RHR-MDC-0906, Sheets 1 & 2, incorrectly omitted the differential pressure closing requirement from the target thrust. The design packing load of 2500 pounds (force) was incorrectly assumed to be the only closing thrust requirement. This combination of errors also reduced vaive operating thrust margins and created the possibility that these MOVs might not close under design-basis conditions.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Public Service Electric and Gas 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 correspondence 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 3rd day of October 1996.