IR 05000272/1979005
| ML18078B204 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 03/07/1979 |
| From: | Keimig R, Nicholas H, Norrholm L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18078B202 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-272-79-05, 50-272-79-5, 50-311-79-06, 50-311-79-6, NUDOCS 7904190160 | |
| Download: ML18078B204 (13) | |
Text
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION ANO ENFORCEMENT 50-272/79-05 Report No. 50-311 /79-06 50-272 Docket N DPR-70 Region I c
License N CPPR-53 Priority ------
- . Category ___
B~l'-----
Licensee:
Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Place Newark, New Jersey 07101 Facility Name:
Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Uriits 1 & 2 Inspection Inspection*
197 Inspectors:
5~7-?9
- date signed 3/7/7?
7da te 7 s i gfled
date signed Approved Projects
..?-Z-7:3 date signed Inspection Summary:
Ins ections on Januar 14-Februar 17, 1979 Combined Re art Nos. 50-272/79-05;
. 50-311 /79-06 Unit 1 Areas Inspected: Routine inspections of plant operations inc]uding: tours of the facility; log and record reviews; followup on licensee events; and, followup on previous inspection items. The inspections involved 28 hours3.240741e-4 days <br />0.00778 hours <br />4.62963e-5 weeks <br />1.0654e-5 months <br /> by the NRC resident inspecto.
.
Unit 2 Areas Inspected; Routine inspections of plant preoperational testing in-cluding:
tours of the facility; test procedure review and verification; witnessing of Integrated Emergency Safeguards Test and other selected preoperational tests; comparison of as-built plant with FSAR description; preparedness for operating license;
- review of proposed Technical Specifications; participation in ACRS meetings; and, owup on previous inspection item The inspections involved 50 hours5.787037e-4 days <br />0.0139 hours <br />8.267196e-5 weeks <br />1.9025e-5 months <br /> by the NRC dent inspector and 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> by one NRG regional based inspecto ults:
No items of noncompliance were i~entifie Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
'l 9 0 4 I 9 0 1 <oo
- DETAILS Persons Contacted PSE&G R. Griffith, Site QA Engineer Johnson~ Startup Engineer S. LaBruna, Maintenance Engineer A.. Meyer, Site QA Engineer E. Meyer, Project QA Engineer H. Midura, Manager - Salem Generating Station F. Schnarr, Station Operating Engineer R. Silveria, Assistant ta the Manager J. Stillman, Station QA Engineer w
.* Treston, Site QAD J~ Zupko, Chief Engineer The inspector also interviewed other licensee personnel during the course of the inspections including management, clerical, maintenance, operations, performance, quality assurance, testing and construction personne ~
Status of Previous Inspection Items (Closed) Unresolved Item (272/78-07-01):
Definition of duties of the Station Nuclear Training SpecialJst. The inspector reviewed the Training Manual, issued January 22, 1979*~ *which in TPl, Training Organization, Section 2.0, defines the duties of the training staff, including the Nuclear Training Specialist. The inspector had no further questions on this ite (Closed) Unresolved Item (272/78-23-02):
Procedure to detail operator actions required in the event of a loss of coolant accident following reset from inadvertent safety injection. The inspector reviewed pro-cedures I-4.2, Recovery from Safety Injection, Revision 6, January 3, 1979, and I-4.4, Loss of Coolant, Revision 7, December 6, 1978. * Opera-tor actions required to manually initiate safety injection during the interval following SI reset are now adequately covered by these pro-cedure The inspector had no further question *
1Jni t 1 Shift Logs and Operating Records The inspector reviewed the following-pl ant procedures to determine the licensee estaolished requirements in this area in preparation for a review of selected logs and record AP-5, Operating: Practices, Revision 8,. August 24, 1977 AP-6, Operational Incidents, Revision 5, November 20, 1978 AP-13, Control of Lifted Leads and Jumpers, Revision 2, April 10,. 1978 Operations Directive Manual AP*-1s,. Tagging Rules, Revision 0, April 13-,_ 1976 Tha inspector had no questions in this area~ Shift logs and operating: records were reviewed to verify that:
Control room log sheet entries are. filled out and initialed; Auxiliary log sheets are filled out and initialed; Log* entries involving abnormal conditions provide sufficient
- detail to communicate equipment status, lockout status*,
correctfon and restoration; *
Log-book reviews are being conducted by ~he staff; Operating orders do not conflict with Technical Specification requirements; Incident reports detail no violation of Technical Speci-fi-cation LCO or reporting requirements; Logs and records were maintained in accordance with Technical Specifications and the procedures in 3.a abov The review included the following plant shift logs and operating records as indicated and discussed with licensee personnel:
Log No. 1 - Control Room Daily Log, January 13; 14, 15, 17, 29, 31; February 1. 3, -11, 12 and 14
- Log No. 3 - Control Console Reading Sheet, January 13, 14, 15,. 17, 29, 31; February l, 3, 11, 12 and 14 Operating Department. Memoranda #1 through 26 Night Orders, December 29, 1978 - February 2, 1979 Supervisory Letters Temporary Jumper and Lifted Lead Log - all active (both Units)
Incident Reports- 78-383 through 403, 405-408, 409-413 The inspector had no further questions in this are.
Plant Tour During the course of the inspection, the inspector made obser-vations and conducted multiple tours of~
--
Control Room (daily)
Relay Room Auxiliary Building Diesel Generator Area
--
Yard Area Rad Waste Building Switchgear Rooms S-4KV and 480/230 Electrical Penetration Area Control Point Turbine Building The following determinations were made:
Monitoring instrumentation. The inspector frequently verified that selected instruments were functional and demonstrated parameters within Technical* Specification limit Valve positions. The inspe_ctor verified that selected valves were in position or condition required by Techni-cal Specifications for the applicable plant mode.
I
-
Radiation controls. The inspector verified by observa-tion that control point procedures and posting require-ments were being followe The. inspector* identified no failure to properly post radiation and high radiation areas *.
Plant housekeeping condition Observations relative to pl ant:* housekeeping i denti fi ed no notable con di ti ans except as stated belo Equipment tags. The inspector* verified. that eight com-ponents, identified to be tagged with "Do Not Operate" tags through active tagging requests were in fact tag-ged and in the correct position~
Fluid leak No fluid leaks were observed which had not been identified by station personnel with corrective action initiated, as necessar Piping vibratio No excessive piping vibration was noted during the plant tour Selected pipe hangers and seismic restraints were observed and no adverse conditions note Control room annunciators. Selected lit annunciators were discussed with control room operators to verify that the reasons for them were understood and corrective action, if required, was being take By frequent observation through the inspection, the inspector
- verified that control room manning requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(k) and the Technical Specifications were being me In addition, the inspector observed shift turnovers to verify that continuity of system status. was maintaine Fire protection. The inspector verified that selected fire extinguishers were accessible and inspected on schedule, that fire alarm stations were unobstructed, and that cardox sys-tems were operabl Except as noted below, no problems were identifie Technical Specifications. Through log review and direct observations during tours, the inspector verified compli-ance with selected. Technical Specification Limiting Condi-tions. for Operatio The following parameters were sampled*
frequently: accumulator levels and pressures, RWST level,.
BIT temperature, AFST level, rod insertion limits, con-tainment pressure and. temperature, valve power lockouts, axial flux *differenc In addition, the inspector conducted periodic V*i sua 1 channe.l checks of protective i nstrumenta ti on..
No problems were identifie The following acceptance criteria were used for the above item Technical Specifications Operations Directives Manual Inspector Judgment The* following specific observations were made by the inspector and identified promptly to station managemen An accumulation of rags was found near the Cardox generator and fuel oil transfer pumps on elevation 84 1 in the Auxiliary Bu*ilding._ These were. immediately remove The Cardox pressure gauge indicated pressure within limits but carried an "Out of Calibration" sticker. Subsequent calibration indicated that the gauge read 10 psi highr but within toleranc An appropriate calibration sticker was applie The reason for the "Out of Calibration 11 designa-tion* has not been determine One* area on elevation 100 1 in the Auxiliary Building was cordoned off and posted with two signs, separated by ap-proximately 20 feet, which indicated radioactive materials storage and a radiation are One sign carried the legend, 11Walkthrough Permitted," and the second indicated, "No
Walkthrough.
On the basis of surveys, the signs were cor-rected to be consistent and to permit walkthroug The inspector noted that Operating Memo #3, dealing with emergency notifications of various parties and agencies (not Emergency Plan Notifications), was out of date in that contact telephone numbers for NRC Region I were incorrec Immediate steps were taken to provide the shift with the correct number.. *
7 On January 16, 1979, containment particulate activity channel Unit 2 lRllA ala*rmed, at its relatively low setpoint. This action should have. initiated containment ventilation isolation which would:. be indicated by illumination of a control room status light. At the time,. the containment ventilation valves were shut-wi"th no pressure relief or purge in progres The radia-tion monitoring channel was declared inoperable for* a period of approximately 14 hours1.62037e-4 days <br />0.00389 hours <br />2.314815e-5 weeks <br />5.327e-6 months <br /> while troubleshootin During this period, the containment ventilation valves remained shut. It was determined that each* of the radiation. monitoring channels (RllA,. Rl2A and Rl2B) was functioning properly and that an in-
. dependent containment ventilation isolation signal from the SEC in the event of a loss of coolant in fact would isolate the containment. It was then concluded that a previous alarm con-dition of the Rl2A channel had not been reset at the RMS panel after reset of.containment isolation. at* the control consol As a. result, a second RMS isolation signal will not. cause iso-lation of containment~ This situation has no impact on SEC isolation function Details of this occurrence were* reported to NRC, Region I in LER' 79-11/0l The sianificance of this event is not clear in the LER as submitte Clarification of the event details fn a' supplementary report* is an unresolved item (272/79-05-01).
5~
Witnessing of Preoperational Testing For all testing witnessed and described below, the following aspects, as a minimum, were verified by the inspector on a sampling basis:
The latest procedure with appropriate approved changes
- was available and in use by crew member The minimum crew requirements had been me Briefings had been conducted with test personnel as require Adequate dry runs were held by all inspection team Test prerequisites were me Special test equipment and instrumentation required by the procedure was calibrated, inservice and manned by test per-sonne g-Test personnel met.-qualification requirements of ANSI N45. Testing was being performed as required by the procedur Crew-actions appeared to be correct and timely during the performance of the tes All-data-were collected for final analysis., by the cognizan test: personnel. _
Test results observed by the inspectors indicated that test acceptance criteria. had been me _Portions of the following specific tests were witnessed by the inspectors:
SUP 20.l - Reactor Protection/Emergency Safeguards Time Response Measuremen This test is used to verify that protective instrument time response is consistent with de-sign and the proposed Technical Specification The SUP consists of a ~eries of Detailed Test Procedures specific to each instrument channel and based on Performance Department procedures in use on-Unit l. The testing* is conducted by Performance Department personne *
SUP 2~ - Nuclear Instrumentation. This SUP consists of initial checkout and channel calibration of source, inter-mediate-and power range nuclear instrument channels. Testing is performed by Performance Department personnel employing Detailed Test Procedures based on operating plant surveillance procedure SUP 51 - Integrated Test of Engineered Safeguards and Emer-gency Power system This test verifies operation and se-quencing of safeguards loads and the diesel gerierators under various combinations of blackout, accident and diesel qenerator availability condition ~ The-following comments apply to testing witnessed:
The inspector noted that a set of "Training Only" prints were in use at-the work site when time response testing was in progres The drawings were used in a discussion of overall testin No reference to these drawings during testing in accordance with the detailed test procedures was observe The prints were removed from the work sit Part of the stated test objective in section 10.4 of SUP 51 was to verify diesel generator starts on receipt of a containment high pressure signal. The inspector, in witnessing this portion of the test, observed that the procedure had been modified by an "on-the-spot change
to start with the three diesel generators already runnin Adequate justification for the* change could not be pro-:
vide The. section was re-performed as originally writ-
. ten,. with the diesel generators starting from a standby conditio The inspectors had no further-questions relative to testing
- witnesse *.
Comparison of As-Built Pl ant to FSAR Description As a continuing effort until licensing of Unit 2, the inspector performed a verification, using construction pri'nts and field observations, to determine that various safety-related systems have* been constructed as described in the facility's. Final Safety Analysis Repor *
The systems reviewed during this reporting period included Contain-ment Spra The following were, included in this review:
FSAR Section PSBP 205335 A 8763-6, Containment Spray Field Observations - Auxiliary Building 84 1 elevation,. sou.th penetration area, containment The verification included motor size, number, valve and piping ar-rangement in all areas, spray header arrangement and spray nozzle configuratio The inspector had no questions relative to the above observation.
Pl ant. Tour The inspector *conducted periodic tours of all accessible areas in the plan During these tours, the following specific items were evaluated:
Hot wor Adequacy of fire prevention/protection measures use..
10" Fire Equipmen Operability and evidence of periodic tnspection of fire suppression equipmen Housekeepin Minimal accumulations of debris and main-tenance of required cleanness levels in systems under or following testing.*
Equ.ipment Preservation. Maintenance of special preserva-tive measures for. installed equipment as applicabl Component Taggin Implementation and observance of equip-ment tagging_ for safety or equipment protectio Maintenance. Corrective maintenance in accordance with established procedure Instrumentation. Adequate protection for installed instru-mentatio Cable Pulling. Adequate measures taken to protect cable from damage while being pulled *
Communicatio Effectiveness of public address system in all-areas of the sit Equipment Control Effectiveness of jurisdictional controls in precluding unauthorized work on systems in test or which have been tested~
Log Completeness of logs maintained and resolution of identified problem Foreign Material Exclusion. Maintenance of controls to as-sure systems which have been cleaned and flushed are not re-opened to admit foreign materia Securit Implementation of security provisions. Particular attention to maintenance of the Unit l protected area boundar Testing. Spot-checks of testing in progress were _mad J,
...
11 The following specific comments apply to tours made during this inspection perio On January 31, 1979 at approximately 2:00 p.m., a fire occurred in the.B phase windings of the 2G group bus 4KV/460V transformer which supplies non*-vital (non-safety-related) load The fire generated considerable smoke in the 84 1 elevation switchgear room and was ex-tinguished within.five minutes by site safety and fire brigade personne No outside.assistance was required or calle Inspection of the transformer following
- the event identified considerable damage. to the B phase and:some damage to an adjacentphas No other damage or injury resulted from the fir The transformer has been replace Two prior failures of Gould (ITE) transformers in non-safety-related applications have occurred at Salem in recent*years. These transformers are similar in design and manufacture to transformers in vital application At the inspector's request, an analysis was performed to determine the cause of failure and* to assess potential generic impact on safety system As documented in a response to DR*,~0105, the cause is attributed to moisture in the winding The same cause is given for the prior failures. Storage and installation requirements impose better control on safety-related equipment and therefore, it is. concluded that a similar* failure should not be ex-pected in safety-related electrical system The applicant has concluded that this event is not reportable under 10 CFR 50.55{e).
The inspector had no further questions on this ite.
Operational Readiness CFR 50.57 states that the issuance of an operating license is, in part, contingent upon a finding that construction of the facility has been substantially completed, in conformity with the construction permit and the*application, as amended, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of th*e
- Corrnni ssion; and that the facility wil 1 be operated in conformity
- with the applications as amended, the p*rovisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission.
In order to provide. a basis for this finding, the inspector is. conducting* a continuing review of licensee read.iness to operate the faci-lit This review includes, but is not limited to, the following areas:
Completion of the NRC inspection program to assess con-
. struction, testing *and. operational preparedness *.
Status* of facility operating procedures and personnel trainin Status of all enforcement items and unresolved matter Status of the preoperati anal test program and the startup test progra *status of construction activitie Review of proposed facility Technical Specification Review of licensee outstanding items, particularly those identified for completion or resolution* after core loa Implementation of corrective measures for Unit 2 as a result of items identified. in Unit l from Reportable Occurrences, inspection findings, and IE Bulletin and Circular Operational safety concerns arising from the above reviews will be promptly identified to facility management for reso.lution prior to the inspector reaching a finding of operational readines No specific safety concerns have been identified to dat b~
In addition to the above activities, during this inspection period, the inspector attended subcommittee and full committee meetings of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards relating to PSE&G
- Company's application for an operating license for Salem Unit ~
Unresolved Items Areas for which more information is required to determine acceptability are considered unresolve An unresolved item is contained in Para-graph 4 of this report *
- .*
J.*.-
1 Exit Interviews At* periodic intervals during* the course of this. inspection, meetings were he.l d w-i th senior fac.i 1 i ty management* to discuss inspection scope and findings.