IR 05000272/2017002

Integrated Inspection Report 05000272/2017002 and 05000311/2017002

ML17221A021
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	08/08/2017
From:	Fred Bower Reactor Projects Branch 3
To:	Sena P Public Service Enterprise Group
References
IR 2017002
Download: ML17221A021 (40)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:T. Joyce UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

2100 RENAISSANCE BLVD., SUITE 100 KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406-2713 August 8, 2017 Mr. Peter P. Sena, III President and Chief Nuclear Officer PSEG Nuclear LLC - N09 P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 SUBJECT: SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 - INTEGRATED INSPECTION REPORT 05000272/2017002 AND 05000311/2017002

Dear Mr. Sena:

On June 30, 2017, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an inspection at Salem Nuclear Generating Station (Salem), Units 1 and 2. On July 13, 2017, the NRC inspectors discussed the results of this inspection with Mr. Patrick Martino, Salem Plant Manager, and other members of your staff. The results of this inspection are documented in the enclosed report.

NRC inspectors documented two licensee-identified violations which were determined to be of very low safety significance in this report. The NRC is treating these violations as non-cited violations (NCVs) consistent with Section 2.3.2.a of the Enforcement Policy. No NRC-identified or self-revealing findings were identified during this inspection.

If you contest the violations or significance of these NCVs, you should provide a response within 30 days of the date of this inspection report, with the basis for your denial, to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555-0001; with copies to the Regional Administrator, Region I; the Director, Office of Enforcement; and the NRC Resident Inspector at Salem.

This letter, its enclosure, and your response (if any) will be made available for public inspection and copying at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html and the NRC Public Document Room in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390, Public Inspections, Exemptions, Requests for Withholding.

Sincerely, /RA/ Fred L. Bower, III, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 3 Division of Reactor Projects Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311 License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75

Enclosure:

Inspection Report 05000272/2017002 and 05000311/2017002 w/Attachment: Supplementary Information

REGION I== Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311 License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75 Report Nos. 05000272/2017002 and 05000311/2017002 Licensee: PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG) Facility: Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Location: Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Dates: April 1, 2017 through June 30, 2017 Inspectors: P. Finney, Senior Resident Inspector A. Ziedonis, Resident Inspector R. Barkley, Senior Project Engineer P. Boguszewski, Resident Inspector (Acting) E. Burket, Senior Reactor Inspector P. Cataldo, Senior Resident Inspector N. Floyd, Reactor Inspector J. Furia, Senior Health Physicist J. Schoppy, Senior Reactor Inspector Approved By: Fred L. Bower, III, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 3 Division of Reactor Projects Enclosure

SUMMARY

Inspection Report (IR) 05000272/2017002, 05000311/2017002; 04/01/2017 - 06/30/2017;

Salem Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 and 2 (Salem); Routine Integrated Inspection Report.

This report covered a three-month period of inspection by resident inspectors and announced inspections performed by regional inspectors. No NRC-identified or self-revealing findings were identified during this inspection. The significance of most findings is indicated by their color (i.e., greater than Green, or Green, White, Yellow, Red) and determined using Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 0609, Significance Determination Process (SDP), dated October 28, 2016.

Cross-cutting aspects are determined using IMC 0310, Aspects Within Cross-Cutting Areas, dated December 4, 2014. All violations of NRC requirements are dispositioned in accordance with the NRCs Enforcement Policy, dated November 1, 2016. The NRCs program for overseeing the safe operation of commercial nuclear power reactors is described in NUREG-1649, Reactor Oversight Process, Revision 6.

Other Findings

Two violations of very low safety significance that were identified by PSEG were reviewed by the inspectors. Corrective actions (C/As) taken or planned by PSEG have been entered into PSEGs corrective action program (CAP). These violations and C/A tracking numbers are listed in Section 4OA7 of this report.

REPORT DETAILS

Summary of Plant Status

Unit 1 began the inspection period at 100 percent rated thermal power (RTP). On May 15, operators identified a rise in primary to secondary leakage, indicating a possible steam generator (S/G) tube leak that was confirmed on May 16. The leak subsequently stabilized at a rate of approximately seven gallons per day. Around May 26, the leak rate slowly fell to less than the minimum detectable level of one gallon per day and remained below that threshold for the remainder of the inspection period. The unit remained at or near 100 percent RTP for the remainder of the inspection period.

Unit 2 began the inspection period at 100 percent RTP. The unit completed a planned shutdown (S/D) on April 14 for the 2R22 refueling outage. On April 20, PSEG declared an Unusual Event due to elevated hydrazine levels in the containment atmosphere. A reactor startup was commenced on May 29 and full RTP was reached on June 2. The unit remained at or near 100 percent RTP for the remainder of the inspection period.

REACTOR SAFETY

Cornerstones: Initiating Events, Mitigating Systems, and Barrier Integrity

1R01 Adverse Weather Protection

.1 Summer Readiness of Offsite and Alternate Alternating Current Power Systems

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors reviewed plant features and procedures for the operation and continued availability of the offsite and alternate alternating current (AC) power system to evaluate readiness of the systems prior to seasonal high grid loading on May 31. The inspectors reviewed PSEGs procedures affecting these areas and the communications protocols between the transmission system operator and PSEG. This review focused on changes to the established program and material condition of the offsite and alternate AC power equipment. The inspectors assessed whether PSEG established and implemented appropriate procedures and protocols to monitor and maintain availability and reliability of both the offsite AC power system and the onsite alternate AC power system. The inspectors evaluated the material condition of the associated equipment by interviewing the responsible system manager, reviewing condition reports and open work orders (WOs), and walking down portions of the offsite and AC power systems including the 500 kilovolt (kV) switchyard.

b. Findings

No findings were identified. ==1R04 Equipment Alignment

.1 Partial System Walkdown

==

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors performed partial walkdowns of the following systems:

• Unit 1, 12 Component cooling (CC) pump out of service (OOS) for degraded outboard bearing on June 9
• Unit 2, Unborated water system isolation during S/D on April 17
• Unit 2, Spent fuel (SF) pool cooling after full core offloaded on April 25
• Unit 2, 21 Service water (SW) nuclear header following restoration and during subsequent planned maintenance on header components on May 8
• Unit 2, 2B and 2C emergency diesel generator (EDG) mechanical and electrical support systems during planned maintenance on the 2A EDG on May 15
• Common, Control area ventilation following a radiation monitor failure on May 8 The inspectors selected these systems based on their risk-significance relative to the reactor safety cornerstones at the time they were inspected. The inspectors reviewed applicable operating procedures, system diagrams, and notifications (NOTFs). The inspectors also performed field walkdowns of accessible portions of the systems to verify system components and support equipment were aligned correctly and were operable.

The inspectors examined the material condition of the components and observed operating parameters of equipment to verify that there were no deficiencies. The inspectors also reviewed whether PSEG staff had properly identified equipment issues and entered them into the CAP for resolution with the appropriate significance characterization.

b. Findings

No findings were identified. ==1R05 Fire Protection