ML18101B124

LER 95-007-00:on 900503,diesel Surveillance Required by TS Was Missed.Revised Process for Modifying EDG Surveillance frequency.W/951201 Ltr

ML18101B124
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	12/01/1995
From:	GREENLEE S, WARREN C C Public Service Enterprise Group
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
LER-95-007-02, LER-95-7-2, LR-N95216, NUDOCS 9512050157
Download: ML18101B124 (5)

Text

' ('i';t: $j *

• . Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038-0236 Nuclear Business Unit C*:=C 01 1995 LR-N95216 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:

LICENSEE EVENT REPORT 311/95-007-00 SALEM GENERATING STATION -UNIT 2 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-75 DOCKET NO. 50-311 This Licensee Event Report entitled "Missed Diesel Surveillance Required by the Technical Specification

is being submitted pursuant to the requirements of the Code of Federal Regulations 10 CFR5 0 . 7 3 (a) ( 2 ) ( i) . SORC Mtg.95-141 Attachment DVH/tcp C Distribution LER File 9512050157 951201 PDR ADOCK 05000311 Sincerely, {!

C. Warren General Manager -Salem Operations 1-hl' F\t\\\T i--in \\11;r

.. foJJ I 95-2168 REV. ,6/94 S PDR

• Attachment A PSE&G Commitments for LER 311/95-007-00 The following items represent

• PSE&G commitments made to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission related to LER 272/95-027-00.

The commitments are as follows: A review of EDG failures since October 1992 will be performed to determine if any there were any further instances where increased EDG surveillance test frequency was required but not performed.

This review will be completed by January 31, 1996. A supplement to this LER will be provided if other EDG surveillance tests were determined to be missed.

NRC FORM 366 (4-95) U.S. llJCLEAR RElll.ATORY aMCISSICll LJ:CENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) FACILITY NA1E (1) (See reverse for required nuiber of digits/characters for each block) SAUM GENERATING STATION UNIT 2 TITLE (4)

• APPROVED BY Oii NO. 3150-0104 EXPIRES 04/30/98 ESTIMATED BURDEN PER RESPONSE TO COMPLY WITH THIS MANDATORY INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST: 50.0 HRS. REPORTED LESSONS LEARNED ARE INCORPORATED INTO THE LICENSING PROCESS AND FED BACK TO INDUSTRY.

FORWARD COMMENTS REGARDING BURDEN ESTIMATE TO THE INFORMATION AND RECORDS MANAGEMENT BRANCH (T-6 F33) U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, WASHINGTON'-20555-0001, AND TO THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION DOCICET lllllER (2) PAGE (3) 05000311 1 OF 3 Missed Diesel Sm:veillan:E Required by the Technical Specifications EVENT DATE <5> MONTH DAY YEAR 05 03 90 LER lllltBER C6 , REPORT DATE C7) MONTH DAY YEAR 95 -007 -00 12 01 95 OTHER FACILITIES lllVOLVED C8l FACILITY NAME DOCKET NUMBER FACILITY NAME 05000 DOCKET NUMBER 05000 THIS REPORT JS SUBMITTED PURSUAJIT TO THE RECIJIREIEllTS OF 10 CFR §: (Check one or more) (11) G (9) 5 20.2201(b) 20.2203(a)(2)(v) x 50.73(a)(2)(i) 50.73(a)(2)(viii P<IER LEVEL (10) 20.2203(a)(1) 20.2203(a)(2)(i) 20.2203(a)(3)(i)

50. 73(a)(2)( ii) 20.2203(a)(3)(ii)

50. 73(a)(2)( iii) 20.2203(a)(2)(ii) 20.2203(a)(4)

50. 73Ca)(2)( iv) 20.2203(a)(2)(iii) 50.36Cc)(1)

50. 73(a)(2)(v) 20.2203(a)(2)(iv) 50.36(c)(2)

50. 73(a)(2)(vi i) LICENSEE CONTACT FOR THIS LER (12) NAME TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include Area Code) Mr. s. Greenlee, Operations Technical SUpport Manager 609 -339 -3500 *--C-AU_S_E

__ S_Y_S_TE_M

__

..... 1:--C-AU_S_E

__ S_Y_ST_E_M

__ C_OM_PON __

...... SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT EXPECTED <14l 'YES (If yes, c°""lete EXPECTED SUBMISSION DATE). EXPECTED SUBMJ SSICll DATE (15) ABSTRACT (Limit to 1400 spaces, i.e., approximately 15 single-spaced typewritten Lines) (16) MONTH DAY YEAR On November 1, 1995, it was detennine:i that: (1) surveillance tests for the 2A ErG were not perfonned as required on May 3 and 2_3, 1990; and (2) surveillance tests for the 2C ErG were not perfonned as required on May 7, 18, 21 and 24, 1990. '1hese surveillan:E tests were increased frequency tests required due to previous ErG valid test failures.

'!he failure to perfonn these tests was discovered as a result of an ongoing Commi'bnent Verification Program. No llmoodiate ex>rrective actions were taken for this event *since the prcx:::ess for inplementin;J increased ErG surveillance test frequencies was nn:tified in October of 1992. A review of ErG failures since October 1992 will be perfonned to detennine if there were additional ErG surveillan:E tests missed. other surveillance test program; were evaluated for similar programmatic problems, and no additional problems were identified.

'!his event is reportable in accordance with 10 CFR 73(a)(2)(i)(B), any ex>mi.tion prohibited by the plant's Technical Specifications.

NRC FORM 366 (4-95)

• NRC FORM 366A (4-95) U.S. NUCLEAR REQILATORY COICISSl(JI LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) '.I'filcr' aNI'INUATION FACILITY NAME C1) DOCKET LER IUtBER (6) YEAR I SEQUENTIAL I REV NUMBER NUMBER SAUM GENERATING STATION UNIT 2 05000311 95 -007 -00 TEXT Clf more space is required.

use additional copies of NRC Form 366A) (17) PIAN!' AND SYSTEM IDENI'IFICATION Westir$ouse

-Pressurized Water Reactor Emergency Diesel Generator

{EIV'I:.X;}

• PAGE (3) 2 OF 3 * . I e Energy Industcy Ident1f1cat1on System (EIIS) codes and component function identifier codes appear in the text as { SS/C'CC} . IDENTIFICATION OF OCClJRRENCE Event r:ates: May 3, 1990, May 7, 1990, May 18, 1990, May 21, 1990, May 23, 1990, and May 24, 1990 r:ate Dete:rmined to be Reportable:

November 1, 1995 a::>NDITIONS PRIOR 'ID OCClJRRENCE Salem Unit 2: Mode 5, ooo % Reactor PcMer '!here were no sb:uctures, components, or systems that were inoperable at the start of the event that contributed to the event. DESCRIPITON OF OCClJRRENCE on November 1, 1995, it was dete:rmined that: (1) surveillance tests for the 2A Ea:; were not perfonned as required on May 3 and 23, 1990; and (2) sur:veillance tests for the 2C ED:; were not perfo:rm=d as required on Ma.y 7, 18, 21 and 24, 1990. 'Ihese sur:veillance tests were increased frequency tests required due to previous Ea:; valid test failures.

'!he failure to perform these tests was discovered as a result of an ongoing Connnitrnent Verification Program. '!he version of Salem Technical Specification 4.8.1.1.2 that was in effect at the time of the missed sur:veillances required that the Ea:; test frequency be as specified in Table 4. 8-1. '!his table required that follCMing a third valid test failure, the sur:veillance test frequency was to be adjusted from once per 14 days to once per 7 days, on a unit basis. FollCMing a fourth valid failure, the table required that the sur:veillance test frequency be increased to once per 3 days, also on a unit basis. FollCMing a valid failure of the 2B Ea:; on May 2, 1990 (a third valid failure), a Special Report, SR 311/90-5, was issued stating that testing of the Effis had been increased to once per seven (7) days. Contrary to the special report and the Technical Specification requirements, the 7 day sur:veillance tests were missed for the 2A Ea:; on May 3, 1990, and the 2C Ea:; on May 7, 1990. NRC FORM 366A (4-95)

• NRC FORM 366A (4-95) u_s_ llJCLEAR REQILATORY alltISSICll LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) T.E>cr' CDN!'INUATION . FACILITY NAME (1) DOCKET LER lllllER (6) YEAR I SEQUENTIAL I REV NUMBER NUMBER SAUM GENERATING STATION UNIT 2 05000311 95 -007 -00 TEXT Cif more space is required.

use additional copies of NRC Form 366A> (17) DESCRIP.I'ION OF oc::x::IJRRENCE (Cont'd) PAGE (3) 3 OF 3 On May 18, 1990, another valid failure was experienced with the 2A ED:;, followed by a valid failure of the 2B ED:; on May 21, 1990. Special Report 311/90-6 identified that the smveillance frequency had been increased to once per three (3) days. contrary to the special report arrl the Technical Specification requirements, the 3 day smveillance test of the 2A ED:; was not perfonned as required on May 23, 1990. Additionally, the 3 day smveillance tests for the 2C ED:; were not perfonned a8 required on May 18, 21, arrl 24, 1990. APPARENI' CAUSE OF oc::x::IJRRENCE

'!he exact cause of the event was not detennined due to the age of the issue. However, it appears that there was a time lag in the planning arrl scheduling process between a recognized smveillance test failure arrl the inplementation.of increased test frequency.

Additionally, this program weakness was not recognized, so canpensato:ry actions were not taken. mIOR SIMIIAR oc::x::IJRRENCES One similar occurrence, since 1990, was identified in IER 311/90-032-00.

'!his event involved a failure to perfonn required increased frequency smveillance tests for three c::orrponent cooling punps arrl a sei:vice water p..nnp. SAFRlY SIGNIFICANCE Testing of the EOOs is required to ensure that they will operate as designed to mitigate the consequences of a loss of off-site J:X:Mer. '!he successful c::x::inpletion of subsequent smveillance tests demonstrated that the EI::Gs would have functioned as required.

'lherefore, the safety significance of this event was low. CDRRECI'IVE ACI'IONS '!he process for IOOdifying ED:; smveillance frequency was revised in October 1992. '!his revision was the result of observations on potential problemS with the process by the onsite Safety cammi.ttee.

'!he new process, which is :now part of the ED:; smveillance pro:edure, requires i.nnnecliate notification of appropriate personnel so that recurring tasks can be generated prior to the next required test. A review of ED:; failures since October 1992 will be perfonned to detennine if there were any further instances where increased mx; smveillance test frequency was required but not inplemented.

'!his review will be c::x::inpleted by Janua:ry 31, 1996. A supplement to this IER will be provided if other ED:; smveillance tests were detennined to be missed. other smveillance test programs were evaluated for similar programmatic problems.

No additional problems were identified.

O'lan;Jes in the Isr program were already inplemented to prevent similar occurrences as a result of IER 311/90-032-00.

NRC FORM 366A (4-95)