ML18079A657
| ML18079A657 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 04/06/1979 |
| From: | SCHNEIDER F W Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | GRIER B H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18079A656 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908020057 | |
| Download: ML18079A657 (7) | |
See also: IR 05000272/1979002
Text
- I ick W. Schneider
Vice President
Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Place Newark, N.J. 07101 201/430-7373
Production
0 * April 6, 1979 Mr. Boyce H-*. Grier Director*of
USNRC Off ice of Inspection
and Enforcement
Region 1 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 Dear Mr. Grier: NRC INSPECTION
REPORT 50-272/79-02
INSPECTION
DATE JANUARY 8-12 *AND 15-17, 1979 UNIT NO. l SALEM GENERATING
STATION We have reviewed the report of your inspection
transmitted
with your letter dated March 15, 19.79, which was
on March 19, 1979. The following
information
is . provided as a response to_ your report: : :.. Item A,. Infraction:
Section 2.1.1 of Appendix B, Environmental
Technical
Specifications (ETS) for Salem Nuclear Generating
Station, Unit 1, requires, in part, that the maximum across the denser shall not exceed 16.5°F during normal operation
with all circulation
water pumps operating.
During pump outage, the maximum. across the condenser
shall not exceed l6.5°F for more than 24 consecutive
hours because of scheduled
maintenance
and inspection.
In the event that the specification
is exceeded, rective action shall be taken to reduce the to within specification.
Contrary to these requirements:
1. The 16.5°F maximum across the condenser
was exceeded during normal operation
with all six circulating
water pumps on several occasions, cluding December 9, 10, 11 and 12, 1978. rective actions taken were untimely
adequate to reduce the condenser to within specification.
- (_) * -. . Boyce H. Grier --2-4-6-79 2. The 16.5PF maximum AT across the condenser
was exceeded for more than 24 consecutive
hours on several occasions
including
November 15 through 19, 1978 (113 hours0.00131 days <br />0.0314 hours <br />1.868386e-4 weeks <br />4.29965e-5 months <br />); November 20 through 23, 1978 (79 hours9.143519e-4 days <br />0.0219 hours <br />1.306217e-4 weeks <br />3.00595e-5 months <br />) and December 4 through 7, 1978 (75 hour8.680556e-4 days <br />0.0208 hours <br />1.240079e-4 weeks <br />2.85375e-5 months <br />s}.* Corrective
actions taken were untimely*
- *and/orinadequate
to reduce the condenser
AT to *within specification.
- * Our response to Item "A" is: 1. 2. 3. The station did not exceed the Environmental
Technical
Specification (ETS) limits for AT on any of the dates cited. The cause of this being listed as a noncompliance
was that station personnel
did not have the proper documents
available
for*the inspector
to review. -The *computer
hourly printouts
are used for recording
denser AT's as required.by
section 2.1.la Appendix B of the ETS. The hourly printouts
are an instantaneous
reading of the condenser
AT's. By chance the computer recorded sective peak AT's on. its hourly printouts.
This gave the erroneous
impression
the condensers
were operated in excess of the ETS limits. This is not true, operator logs clearly indicate the condensers
were operated within ETS limits_ between computer printouts.
To prevent future items of noncompliance
a recorder will be. installed, which will supplement
the computer printout by providing
a continuous
record of condenser
AT; average condenser
outlet temperature
and the number of circulators
in-service.
We are in compliance
now. The recorder will be. in operation
by the end*of the refueling
outage. Item B, Deficiency:
Section 5.5.2 of Appendix B, ETS requires, in part, that the plant operating
procedures
shall include provisions
to ensure that the plant and all its systems and components
are operated in compliance
with the limiting conditions
for operation
established
as part of the ETS. Section 5.3.2 requires, in part, that the Station Operations
Review Conunittee (SORCl shall review plant procedures
which have a potential
impact on the environment
- Contrary to these requirements, the plant chlorination
procedures
used to operate the
- , ... .e Boyce H. *Grier -3-4-6-79 cholorination
system in compliance
with the limiting conditions
for operation
established
in Section 2.2.1 of Appendix B, ETS were not viewed by SORC as required.
Our response to Item "B" is: 1. The compliance
date committed
to, in our 1978 response, was extended by the Station Quality Assurance
Department.
The extension
was granted in view of the problems being_ countered
with the operation
of the chlorination
system. *Failure.of
the station to meet the commitment
date was not *brought to the attention
of the station Manager. The cedure has now been reviewed by SORC, approved and implemented.*
2. To preyent future items of noncompliance
the SQAE has taken action to improve the effectiveness
of the Outstanding
Items *List (0. I.) as a means of insuring implementation
of rective actions. These include: a) The O.I. list has been computerized
and now clearly indicates
the commitments, required corrective
actions and who is responsible
for them. b) If the corrective
action for an NRC item will not be complete by the committed
date the SQAE will notify the station Manager. 3. We are presently
in compliance.
Item C, Deficiency:
Section 2.2.2 of Appendix B, ETS requires, in part, that the average suspended
solids concentration
in the effluent from the Nonradioactive
Chemical Liquid Waste Disposal System, (NLWDS), shall not exceed 25 mg/liter on an annual basis. Contrary to these requirements, the annual (1978) average for suspended
solids concentration
in the effluent of the NLWDS exceeded 25 mg/liter.
Our response to Item "C" is: 1. This noncompliance
was caused by using water with a high total suspended
solids (TSS) to quench the steam generator
blowdown.
Corrective
action was initiated
in early April 1978 by discontinuing
the use of quench water. This action resulted in TSS levels <25 mg/liter from April through the end of 1978.
- ' . --1 Boyce H. Grier -4-\... 4-6-79-2. To prevent future items of noncompliance
the steam generator
blowdown quench water will remain secured. A change to the ETS is being processed
which wou.ld align the ETS TSS limit for the Nonradioactive
Waste'Basin
effluent with the EPA limit of 30 ppm (net) as in the present NPDES permits. 3. We are in compliance
now and the data collected
for 1979 does.not indicate that we will have a problem in this area. Item D, Deficiency:
Section 5 *. 6 * 2 of Appendix B, ETS requires, in part, that a report shall be submitted
in the event that a limiting condition
for operation
is exceeded.
The event shall-be reported within 30 days by a written report to the Director of the Regional In-* spection and Enforcement
Office (with a copy to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation).
Contrary to these requirements, on several occasions, *including
those instances
- indicated
in item A of .this Appendix, the ceeding of the condenser
AT limiting condition
for operation
was not reported as* required.
Our response to Item "D" is: 1. As indicated
in Item A station personnel
did not have the proper documents
available
for the inspector
to review. The *station did not fail to report exceeding limits. Station Incident Reports document all instances
of exceeding
AT limit. These incident reports provide the reason for ceeding the AT limit and the justification
for the termination
that the incident was not reportable.
To rect 'the situation
all pertinent
documents .are now available
for review by the inspector.
- 2. Future items of noncompliance
will be prevented
by the corder to which we connnitted
to in reply to Item A. 3. We are operating
in compliance
now and the recorder will *be in operation
by* the end of the refueling
outage. I-tem E, Deficiency:
Section 5. 5 .1 of Appendix B, ETS requires*,.
in pa.rt, that detailed written procedures, including
applicable
checklists
and tions,. shall* be prepared and followed for all activities
involved in carrying out the*ETS. -Procedures
for the environmental veillance
and*special
study*programs
described
in Section 3 and 4 shall be prepared*by*personnel
responsible
£or the particular
- 11> ..... i \ ' . Boyce H. Grier -s-4-6-79 monitoring
program. Section 5.3.2 requires, in part, that the Station Operations
Review Committee (SORC} shall review plant procedures
which have a potential
impact on the environment.
Section 3.1.1.S* of the ETS requires, in part, that a physical i;nventory
of identif"iable
chemicals, *excluding*spent
- laboratory
reagents and condenser*tube
corrosion
products, discharged
directly to*the river shal:l be maintained
and submitted
as part of the annual report. Contrary to these requirements, procedures
for physical inventory
or identifiable
chemicals
discharge
directly to the river.were
not reviewed by SORC* as required.
Our response to Item "E" is: I. The compliance
date committed
to, in our 1978 response, was extended by the Station Quality Assurance
Department.
The extension
was granted +/-n*view of the existing station lo.ad and that the 1978 Annual F.eport was not due until April 1979. Failure of the station to meet the commitment
date was not brought to the attention
of* the station Manager. The procedure
has now"been reviewed by SORC,*approved, and implemented.
r) 2. To prevent future items of noncompliance
the SQAE.has taken action to improve .the effectiveness
of the Outstanding
Items (.O.I.) List as a means of insuring*implementation
of rective actions. These include:
a. The O.I. list has been computerized
and now clearly indicates
the commitments, .required
corrective
action*s and who* is. responsible
for them. b. If the corrective*action
for an NRC item will not be complete*
by the. committed
date the SQAE will notify the. station Manager. 3. We are presently
in compliance.
Item F, Deficiency:
Section 2.2.2 of Appendix B, ETS requires, in part, that a grab sample shall be taken once 'per day from the coll,ectin9
basin
pipe and
for suspended
solids usirig a method which is acceptable
to EPD. '* Samples shall be taken during periods of actual discharge.
Contrary to these requirements, *daily.sam:g>les
collected
from the collecting
basin discharge
pipe *during :g>eriods
of actual charge on November 8, October 24 .and September
26, 1978, .were not
- () * . ' -Boyce H. Grier -6-4-6-79_ analyzed for suspended
solids as required.
_Our response to item "F" is: 1. Station records indicate that -all required TSS samples were ,taken. The samples, were shipped. to an outside laboratory
for analysis.
- We determined
that this laboratory
was not -reliable and therefore
we* are currently
seeking a qualified
replacement.
During the"interim
the analysis is being formed at the-station.
A review of the records since January 1, 1979 indicates
compliance
with the requirements
of section 2.2.2 of the ETS. 2. To prevent reoccurrence
a copy of the chemistry
schedule has been posted in the Chemistry
Lab *. This posting clearly indicates
the required chemistry;samples
and their due dates. A proposed change in the ETS has been prepared for approval, changing the sampling and analysis schedule to agree with requirements
contained
in'the,present
EPA-NPDES.
permits. 3. We are presently
in compliance.
Item G, Deficiency:
Section 3.1.1 of Appendix B, ETS requires, in part, ,that g:rab samples shall be taken weekly--(weather
permittingt
during a chlorination
cycle and analyzed for free and total. residual chlorine.
The samples shall be taken in the vicinity of the circulating
water discharge,* -from the station intake water, and from a point that is outside* and down stream of *the discharge
water mixing zone. Contrary.to
these requirements, grab samples were not taken and analyzed for free and total residual chlorine during,any
of the chlorination
cycles performed
during August
Our response to item "G" is: 1. During the month of August
the common chlorination
system for the Main Condenser
and Service Water System was not in normal, daily operation.
During the period August 1 to 15, 1978 the system was operated*:for
five* short weriods of time to identify the system problems *. From August 16 to 31, 1978 the system reni-ained
out of service. During these test periods the Energy Laboratory
was not notified that the system had been o:rperated.
The noncompliance
was reviewed with the supervisor*in
charge of the chlorination
system and it was emphasized
that he must coordinate
the operation
of the system to insure the required samples are obtained even during test periods. * ,_*
--** \.', * .... * i .. -. Boyce H. Grier -7-4-6-79 2. To prevent future noncompiiances
the present river water sampling schedule will be reviewed and ETS changes requested
to formulate
a new sampling schedule.
This will provide all the necessary
data for reports, eliminate
duplication
and * assure future compliance.
3. We are presently
in compliance.
Effectiveness
of Management
Controls The following
actions have been. taken to improve mana.gement
control at the station and to insure compliance
with the ETS. Directions
have been issued to install additional
recording
equipment
to provide the operator with better* condenser
temperature
data and* produce permanent
continuous
records. ETS change requests are being process.ea
to nate excessively
restrictive
and confusing
ETS *requirements.
A computer program has been initiated
to track outstanding (O.I.) items for better management
control. The SQAE has been directed to closely monitor the computer O.I. list and when it appears that an item is not being properly acted upon, he will bring that item to the attention
of the station Manager. CC Directer, Office of *InsJ?ection
and Enforcement
Sincerely,