ML20154D422

Ack Receipt of Informing NRC of Steps Taken to Correct Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-272/83-37. Violations Occurred as Stated in Notice of Violation & Appropriately Classified in Aggregate at Severity Level III

ML20154D422
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	03/21/1988
From:	Russell W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Miltenberger S Public Service Enterprise Group
Shared Package
ML20154D394	List: IR 05000271/1983026 IR 05000272/1983037 ML20154D389 ML20154D422 ML20154D456 ML20154D489
References
FOIA-88-92 EA-84-036, EA-84-36, NUDOCS 8809150271
Download: ML20154D422 (6)

See also: IR 05000272/1983037

Text

. y

l'

'

,

-

e*

/  %,,

'g

UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[11U

j* '*

j REGION I

, f 475 ALLENDALE ROAD

KING OF PRUS$1 A, PENNSYLVANIA 19406

.....

March 21, 1988

Docket No. 50-272

License No. OPR-70

EA 84-36

Public Service Electric & 'las Company

ATTN: Steven E. Miltenberer -

Vicu President, Nuci .ar Operations

P.O. Box 236

Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038

Gentlemen:

Subject: Notice of Violation (Inspection No. 50-272/83-37)

This refers to your letter dated July 15, 1987, in response to the Notice of

Violation sent to you with our letter dated June 15, 1937. Our letter and

Notice described three violations of fire protection program requiremen+.s at

Salem. The violations were classified in the aggregate as a Severity Level III

problem, but a civil penalty was not proposed.

In your response, you do not agree that these items should be classified as

violations, and you request that the aggregate Severity level of the violations

be reduced from level III to Level IV, claiming that the violations appear to

be based more upon alleged deficiencies in interpretation of 10 CFR "O,

Appendix R implementation guidance rather than the regulation itself. Further

you state that configurations described in the Notice involve items which ,

subsequent to the NRC reviews, have become the subject of exemption requests,

and are also similar to those approved at other plants as exemptions to the

rule or as engineering evaluations without NRC approval.

After careful consideration of your response, we have concluded, for the

reasons provided in the enclosed Appendix, that the violations occurred as

stated in the Notice, and were appropriately classified in the aggregate at

Severity level III.

Thank you for informing us of the corrective and preventive actions documented

in your letter. These actions wil? be examined during a future inspection of

your licensed program.

\

esb9150271 800022

PDR FOIA ( 7

le

JONES 88-92 PDR >

- -- -

7/r

.

i'

.

Public Service Electric 2

and Gas Company

In accordance with Section 2.790, of the NRC's "Rules of Procedure", Part 2,

Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter will be placed in >

the NRC's Public Document Room.

'

Sincerely,

h"[)h-ik

William T. Russell i

Regional Administrator

cc w/ enc 1:

Thomas S. Shaw, Jr. , Vice President - Production

J. M. Zupko, Jr. , General Manager - Salem Operations

B. A. Preston, Manager, Licensing and Regulation ,

< S. E. Miltenberger, Vice President - Nuclear Operations

General Manager - Nuclear Safety Review

M. J. Wetterhahn, Esquire

R. Fryling, Jr., Esquire

i

Public Document Room (PDR)

Local Public Document Room (LPDR)

Nuclear Safety Information Ce-ter (NSIC)

NRC Resident Inspector

State of New Jersey

l

,

-

t

l

l

l

2

.= .~. . . _ . .. . - , . -. . -

-. . . . _ . . . - . . . .

>

.

. .

'

Public Service Electric .' 3

and Gas Compa'ny -

i

b:c w/ encl: . i

Region I Oceket Room (with concurrences)  !

' Fanagement Assistant, ORMA (w/o encl)

CRP Section, Chief -l

- Robert J. Bores, DRSS t

D. Holody, R1 .i

J. Lieben..an, OE  :

J. Goldberg, OGC i

F. Mira.2 11a, NRR  :

'

,

I

i

4

t

.

. .

Appendix

Evaluation and Conclusig

In a letter dated July 15, 1987, the licensee responded to a Notice of

Violation issued on June 15, 1987 concerning the tailure to adhere to certain

fire protection requirements set forth in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R. In the

licensee's response, they (1) deny the violations, and (2) request that if the

violations remain as stated, the aggregate Severity Level should be reduced

from Level III to level IV.

Provided below is (1) a summary of the licensee's reasons for denying each of

the violations and the NRC response regarding these denials; (2) a summary of

licensee's reasons for seeking a reduction in the Severity level and the LC

response to that request; and (3) the overall NRC conclusion regarding the

licensee's response.

I. SUMMARY OF LICENSEE RESPONSE CONCERNING VIOLATION A, AND NRC

EVALUATION OF THAT RESPONSE

With respect to Example 1 of Violation A, involving a lack of separation

and suppression capability for charging pumps, the licensee indicated that

it had identified to the NRC, in letters dated December 28, 1983, and

January 13, 1984, that the separation of charging pumps did not conform to

the NRC inte.pretation of Appendix R contained in Generic Letter No.

83-33, and requested an exemption request prior to the 1984 inspection.

However, the exemption request was not submitted until after the

inspection began on December 5, 1983. Further, the licensee also

indicated that, in accordance with Generic Letter No. 86-10, complete

area-wide suppression is not required to ensure compliance with

Appendix R. Although the NRC agrees with the licensee regarding this

contention, the NRC notes that this Generic Letter also stipulates that

when suppression (and detection) features are not installed over the

entire area, licensees must perform an evaluation to assess the adequacy

of partial suppression (and detection) to protect against the hazards in

the area. Such an evaluation was not performed by the licensee until

after the st.rt of the inspection on December 5,1983, and that subsequent

evaluation formed the basis for the exemption request. Since the

licensee was unable to demonstrate an ability to achieve safe shutdown at

'

the time of the inspection, an adequate basis was not prov',ded for

withdrawal of Example 1 of Violation A.

With respect to Example 2 af Violation A, involving inadequate fire

protection features for the 460 VAC/230 VAC switchgear, including only a

partial height one hour barrier at Unit 1, the licensee indicated that a

similar partial height one hour barrier was approved for Salem Unit 2 by

,

the NRC during the licensing review. Since Appendix R, which became

effective on February 17, 1981, is applicable to plants licensed to operate

.

prior to January 1,1979, and Salem Unit I was licensed on August 13, 1976,

l

whereas Salem, Unit 2 was licensed on April 18, 1980, the compliance

,

.

.

..

Appendix 2

requirements for the two units are different. The approval of the partial

height on a one hour barrier for Unit 2 is not suf ficient justification for

not complying with the requirements of Appendix R at Unit 1, unless a

specific exemption was requested and approved. Since the exemption for

the incomplete one hour fire barrier at Unit I was not requested until

after the start of inspection on December 5, 1933, specifically, by letters

dated December 28, 1983, January 31, 1985, and January II,1986, which also

proposed upgrading of the CO2 system with an automatic total flooding fire

suppression system as a long term corrective act:Jn, the licensee has not

provided an adequate basis for withdrawal of Example 2 of Violation A.

With regard to Example 3 of Violation A, involving a door on a fire wall

not being rated to 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />, the licensee indicated that Generic letter No.

86-10 states that the fire area boundaries need not be completely wall to

wall and ficor-to-ceiling. Although the NRC agrees with the licensee, the

NRC notes that Generic Letter No. 86-10 also requires a licensee evalu-

ation in such cases where the boundaries are not completely rated to

determine if the boundaries will withstand the hazards associated with the

area. Such an evaluation did not exist prior to the start of the inspec-

tion on Dece.mber 5, 1983. Therefore, the licensee did not provide an

adequate basis for withdrawal of Example 3 of Violation A. After the

start of the inspection, the licensee requested an exemption, by letter

dated January 31, 1984, which was withdrawn by letter dated

January 17, 1986, due to the licensee's commitment to provide a rated fire

barrier between redundant equipment.

II. SUMMARY OF LICENSEE'S RESPONSE REGARDING VIOLATION B, AND NRC EVALUATION

OF THAT RESPONSE.

With regard to Violation B, involving the lack of planning, procedures

and materials to implement fire damage repairs of RHR pumps, the' licensee

indicated that the Salem shutdown model does not utilize repairs to the

RHR system for safe shutdown. If such repairs are not utilized, the

redundant pumps should be provided with the fire protection separation

features in accordance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix R. Such features were not

provided. Further, the licensee references Generic Letter No. 86-10

concerning not needing a complete fire barrier between redundant pumps.

In such cases, the Generic Letter requires performance of an adequate

evaluation of the barrier. At the time of the inspection, such an evalua-

tion had not been performed. Therefore, the licensee did not provide an

adequate basis for withdrawal of the violation. The NRC recognizes that

subsequent to the inspection, the licensee requested an exemption, by

letters dated January 31, 1984, April 5, 1984, and January 17, 1986. The

January 17, 1986 letter also proposed a modification consisting of enhanced

penetration seals and fire detection in the area. Although the corrective

actions were initiated af ter the inspection, the RHR pump area was not in

compliance at the time of the inspection,

i

.

.'

.

. *

t

Appendix 3

III. SUMMARY OF LICENSEE'S RESPONSE REGARDING VIOLATION C, AND NRC EVALUATION

OF THAT RESPONSE

With regard to violation C, involving the failure to provide adequate fire

protection features for Pressurizer Heater Cabinet And Pressurizer

Pressure and Level Instrumentation Cabinet 355 inside non-inerted contain-

ment, the licensee states that the 10 USSG steel plates in Panel 335 and

the steel conduit inside cantainment were adequate "non-conbustible

radiant energy shields" (alternative III.G.2.t). However, neither of

these shields qualify as an acceptable radiant energy shield, nor were ,

they similar to the licensee's design used in containment NW quadrant for i

the electrical cable penetrations (see Inspection Report No. 50-272/83-37,

Section 7.1.4). An exemption request, on January 31, 1985, and

January 17, 1986, and your proposal to have sprinkler coverage of the

Panel 335 in your January 17, 1986 letter, were not submitted untti af ter

'

the inspection. Therefore, the licensee did not provide an adequate basis

for withdrawal of the violation.

IV. SUMMARY OF LICENSEE'S RE0 VEST FOR A REOUCTION IN SEVERITY LEVEL OF THE

VIOLATION, AND NRC EVALUATION OF THAT RESPONSE.

'

The licensee requests a reduction in the Severity Level of the violation,

if the violations stand. The licensee did not provide a basis for this '

request. Although the safety significance of the individual violations

was considered low, the violations were nonetheless classified in the

aggregate as a Severity level III problem because they demonstrated, at

the time of the inspection, a lack of adequate analysis of, and attention

i to, assuring adherence to the separation, suppression, and detection

j requirements set forth in 10 CFR 50, Appendix R. In light of these

program.matic deficiencies, the violations were appropriately classified

in the aggregate as Severity Level !!I. 1

V. NRC CONCLUSICN

4

The violations occured as stated in the Notice of Violation and were  :

approprately categorized in the aggregate at Severity level III.

l

<

1

4

}

1

i