IR 05000322/1979020
| ML19296C844 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/14/1980 |
| From: | Higgins J, Kister H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19296C838 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-322-79-20, NUDOCS 8002280668 | |
| Download: ML19296C844 (9) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No. 50-322/79-20 Docket No. 50-322 License No. CPPR-95 Priority Category B
--
Licensee: Long Island Lichting Comoany 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville, New York 11801 Facility Name: Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 Inspection at: Shoreham, New York Inspection :anducted:
November 7 - December 9, 1979 Inspectors:
48.! c
[
/
d!gO d. L. Higgins, Resident inspector date signed date signed date signed Approved by:
[eu
//
@
H. B. Kister, Chief, Reactor Projects Section date signed No. 4, RO&NS Branch Inspection Summary:
Inspections on November 7 - December 9, 1979 (Recort No. 50-322/79-20)
Areas Inspected:
Routine onsite regular, backshif t, and holiday inspections by the resident inspectr r (52 inspection hours) of work activities and preoperational testing including:
- ours of the facility; test witnessing; review of equipment tagging; review of operating procedures; followup on IE Bulletins, Circulars, and Information.'totices; review of operator training; Catecory I painting; allegations of plant defects; and, followup on previous inspection findings.
Results: No items of noncompliance were identified.
R Apr 7)
8002280[p Q
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted H. Calabro, Senior Inspector, FQC (S&W)
T. Czapleski, Training Coordinator (NES)
D. Durand, 0QA Engineer (L)
C. Fonseca, Site Engineering Representative (S&W)
J. Kelly, Field QA Manager (L)
L. Levin, Assistant Startup Manager (L)
B. McCaffrey, Project Engineer (L)
J. Morin, Senior Licensing Engineer (L)
J. Notaro, Operating Engineer (L)
J. Novarro, Project Manage.- (L)
J. Riley, Lead Startup Engineer (GE)
J. Rivello, Plant Manager (L)
W. Steiger, Chief Operating Engineer (L)
J. Taylor, Startup Manager (L)
NES - Nuclear Energy Services L
- Long Island Lighting Company S&W - Stone and Webster GE - General Electric The inspector also interviewed other licensee and contractor personnel during the course of the inspection including management, clerical, mainten-ance, operations, engineering, testing, quality assurance, and instruction personnel.
2.
Previous Inspection Item Update (Closed) Inspector Followup Item (322/78-04-01):
The inspector asked to review the seismic qualification data for the emergency diesel generator air start receivers.
The data was unavailable ensite but was sent from S&W headquarters in Boston, Massachusetts and will be retained with inplant records.
The inspector reviewed the following reports:
" Report of Test on Starting Air Receiver for Delaval Turbine, Inc." by ETS, December 4,1975; and, Test Procedure 11001(T) for " Seismic Vibration Testing of Starting Air Receiver," dated October 3, 1974.
This item is closed.
(0 pen) Inspector Followup Item (322/79-11-02):
During routine tours of all safety-related buildings the inspector observed fire fighting eouipment, including fire hose station, deluge system and fire extinguishers.
The inspector noted that many fire extinguishers continued to be found below full charge.
This item remains open.
"
.
.
(0 pen) Item of Noncompliance (322/79-16-01): As of December 9, 1979, the licensee has not officially received the notice of this violation nor has he had the opportunity to resoond to it.
At various times during the past month, the inspector noted additional openings on safety-related equipment which were not immediately covered after use.
This item remains open pending the licensee's response and implementation of corrective action.
3.
Plant Tour The inspector conducted periodic tours of accessible areas in the plant during normal, backshift, holiday, and weekend hours.
During these tours, the following specific items were evaluated:
Hot Work.
Adequacy of fire prevention / protection measures used.
--
Fire Equipment. Operability and evidence of periodic inspection of
--
fire suppression equipment.
Housekeeping. Minimal accumulations of debris and maintenance of
--
required cleanness levels of systems under or following testing.
Equipment Preservation. Maintenance of special precautionary measures
--
for installed equipment, as applicable.
Reactor Vessel Internals.
Observation of work in progress in the vessel
--
and observance of special tool control and personnel access control within the reactor vessel.
Component Tagging.
Implementation and observance of equipment tagging
--
for safety, equipment protection, and jurisdiction.
--
Instrumentation. Adequate protection for installed instrumentation.
Logs. Completeness of logs maintained.
--
Securi ty. Adequate site construction security.
--
Prohibited Items.
Observations to detemine no smoking in restricted
--
areas and no alcoholic beverages on site.
Minor problem areas were discussed with licensee representatives throughout the inspection.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
o
.
4.
Test Witnessing a.
Motor Operated Valve Test The inspector reviewed test procedures and witnessed various portions of the tests listes below for the B Service Water Pump discharge valve (lP41 * MOV-0318):
C&IO Test CG.0GJ.012-4, " Insulation Resistance of Electrical Equipment."
C&IO Test CG.000.014-3, " Motor Operated Valve Static Test."
C&IO Test CG.000.022-5, "480 VAC MCC Cubicle and Control Circuit Checkout."
C&I0 Test CG.000.025-1, " Motor Operated Valve Dynamic Test."
The inspector witnessed circuit continuity checks and meggar checks; and reviewed calibration of test equipment, com91etion of procedural steps, tagging of equipment and component release documentation.
The tests were not satisfactorily completed due to several wiring changes specified on design change documents (FDDR-KS-01-517, 585, and 546)
being incomplete. These changes are still in the installation stage and are scheduled for completion in the near future.
The above tests will be rerun at that time.
The inspector had no further questions at this time.
b.
Instrument and Service Air Test The inspector reviewed the following procedures:
PT-117.001, Revision 3, dated June 20, 1979 with TCN's 1 through 7, Instrument and Service Air Preoperational Test; the Interim Operating Instruction (I0I) for the Instrument and Service (I&S) Air System (lP50A); and, the normal operating procedure for the I&S Air System, SP23.ll.01, Revision 1.
The inspector also witnessed portions of Part II oi the Preoperational Test, which checked proper operation of the air compressors and dryers.
Except as noted in Paragraph 6 below, the inspector had no further questions at this tim.
5.
Tagging a.
Jurisdictional Tags The inspector reviewed the licensee's system for placement of jurisdic-tional tags (yellow, blue, and green) as described in the Startup Manual and a memo from L. Levin titled, " Blue Tagging," dated October 18, 1979.
The inspector observed several systems throughout the plant which had been released for testing and noted that actual blue tagging was as required.
The inspector noted that the memo on tagging modified the Startup Manual and apparently had not followed the normal approval route for a manual revision.
The licensee's representative stated that the memo had been discussed and agreed upon at a meeting of the Joint Test Group (JTG), which is the approving body for manual revisions.
The licensee's representatives further stated that any future change to the Startup Manual would be formally reviewed and approved by the JTG.
b.
Safety Tags The inspector reviewed the requirements for safety (red) tags as described in the Startup Manual and also several tagging orders for safety related systems.
For five tagging orders selected for the Residual Heat Removal System and the Service Water System, the inspector, in company with a plant operator, observed the proper placement of tags and the correct position of the tagged component.
During routine tours of the plant the inspector noted that personnel observed the requirements of tags in place, except as noted below.
During the performance of one C&I0 test the insoector observed a technician cycle a breaker with red tags attached. Although the breaker was racked out and control power was removed, this cycling was not in strict conformance with the rules for tagging.
The licensee's representative discussed this with the technician involved to correct his understanding of the tagging rules and also with other technicians and test personnJ.
Such cycling of breakers appears to have been an isolated case.
The inspector noted that the tagged position of the breaker, switch, valve, etc., was recorded on the tagging order and on the tag itself, even though there was no space provided for such recording on the tag.
Additionally, the tag numbers were stamped on the tags and recorded on the tagging order, even though no blank existed on the tagging order.
The inspector noted that without the continued recording of positions
.
.
on tags and numbers on tagging orders, confusion could possibly result in the placement of tags and the position of components.
The licensee's representative acknowledged this comment and stated that the system appeared to be working satisfactorily, but would be watched for any problems that might develop.
6.
System Operating Procedures Regulatory Guide 1.68-73, Appendix C, Paragraph 8, and the Shoreham FSAR, Paragraph 14.1.5, state that during the preoperational test program normal system operating procedures should be used in order to evaluate or test the operating procedures in order to assure that operating personnel are trained in their use.
Currently, when a system or portion of a system is turned over to the startup group, an Interim Operating Instruction (I0I) is written by the Test Engineer, to detail preventive maintenance requirements and for use by the operators to operate the system.
The I0I is approved by the cognizant Lead Startup Engineer.
Portions of the normal system operating procedures are sometimes used by reference in the I0I, but are not formally used in their entirety until preoperational testing of the system is complete and the system is turned over to the plant staff.
Part of the turnover process includes a review of the normal system operating procedures to ensure they are accurate.
The inspector stated that the current system did not appear to meet the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.68 or the FSAR.
This item is unresolved and is designated item no. (322/79-20-01).
7.
NRC Bulletins, Circulars, and Information Notices The inspector reviewed the licensee's method for receiving, evaluating and implementing the various documents (Bulletins, Circulars, and Information Notices) received from the NRC.
These documents contain descriptions of various plant or equipment problems generally noted at other power plants and deemed to be generic in nature.
The construction or project organization receives and reviews the documents and takes required actions in the design or construction area. Action taken is documented and filed.
If action of an operational nature is required, a memorandum is typically sent to the plant operating staff without followup. The plant operating acaff also receives and reviews the various documents, using a recently issued procedure, SP 12.007.01, " Technical Correspondence and Bulletins." With respect to the review system established by the plant staff, the inspector noted that the organization of the log made it difficult to use, the Technical Support Manager apparently was not being notified when items passed their established due dates, and that several documents were incorrectly determined to be not applicable to Shoreham (e.g.,Bulletin 78-03 and Circular 77-12). The licensee's representative acknowledged these comments and stated that all documents classified as not applicable would be reviewed again by the plant
staff to determine applicability and to establish dates for required action if necessary. Additionally, the system would be reviewed to determine if c.hanges are needed.
This item is unresolved and designated as item no.
g322/79-20-02).
8.
Training The inspector reviewed the training requirements of Section 13.2 of the FSAR, the plant training procedure, SP 21.006.02, "NRC License Training Program," the training schedule and selected lesson plans for the onsite training (OST) courses, Parts I and II.
The inspector also attended training sessions on the Technical Specifications for Emergency Core Cooling Systems and Emergency Power Systems.
No unacceptable conditions were noted.
9.
Category I Painting a.
General The inspector reviewed the following documents to establish licensee requirements and commitments for painting inside the primary containment.
FSAR Section 6.2.1.6, Revision 16.
Specification'No. SH1-228, " Protective Coatings within the Primary Reactor Containment Structure," with 3 Addenda.
Procedure No. 228-997-1, " Procedure for Applying Protective Coatings within the Suppression Chamber, i.e., Inside the Downcomers."
Regulatory Guide 1.54-1973, " Quality Assurance Requirements for Protective Coatings Applied to Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants."
ANSI N101.4-1972, " Quality Assurance for Protective Coatings Applied to Nuclear Facilities."
FQC Procedure 10.6.
b.
Record Review The inspector reviewed a sampling of the below records in order to verify confirmance with the above requirements and commitments.
Coating Applicator's Coating Record.
Protective Coating Inspection Reports.
Material Storage Temperature Records.
Quality Control Inspection Reports.
Calibration Records for thermometers, psychrometers, and dry film thickness gauge and standards.
During this review the inspector noted that quality control and inspec-tion requirements were being carried out as required; the identity and shelf life of the paint was verified; mixing, curing and testing of paint was performed and witnessed each day; temperatures and humidities were measured as specified; surface preparation was completed before painting; thickness of the various coats of paint were tested to be proper; and identified deficiencies in the painting were documented and corrected as necessary. With the exceptions of the items in Paragraph d below, the inspector had no further questions in this area.
c.
Work Witnessing At various times during the inspection the inspector observed the storage of painting materials, the mixing and curing of epoxy paints, the preparations of surfaces to be coated, the application of different coats of paint and the quality control inspection of the above activi-ties.
The inspector observed active painting on the drywell liner and surface preparation in the drywell, suppression chamber, and throughout the length of one downcomer.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
d.
Procedural Inconsistencies The procedural limits for paint storage are listed as 550 to 1000 and 700 to 1000 in different places.
The paint manufacturer recommends storage at 550 to 950 The inspector noted several days when actual storage temperatures were 690 The paint application procedure for downcomers specifies that the
ambient air temperatures should be 10 F above the dewpoint in Step 4.11 and 5 F above the dewpoint in Step 9.1.1.
Other painting procedures
specify 100F above the dewpoint.
This item is unresolved pending resolution of the above inconsistencies and determination if any limits have been exceeded (item no. 322/79-20-03).
10. Allegations of Plant Defects The NRC has recently received various allegations of defects in the plant as constructed and tested.
A separate inspection will be conducted to thoroughly review each of these allegations and to conduct interviews in order to determine if these are additional areas which need review and inspection.
The inspector conducted a preliminary review of one allegation relative to
" valves popping and a pipe being thrown 50 feet through the air, around June 15."
The inspector reviewed test records, log entries, and discussed the issue with personnel involved in testing and system operation during that time frame and could find nothing to substantiate the claim.
One incident occurred on June 13, which could have been the source of the allegation.
During a flush of the Core Spray System a gasket in a bolted joint gave way and sprayed water over a large area.
There were also piping vibrations noted on the Core Spray Pump and Piping.
The gasket installation which gave way was not the final one for the system. An E and DCR was written to evaluate the vibrations and the pump vendor, Byron Jackson, performed a special evaluation of the vibrations in July, 1979.
The vendor co.;cluded that the vibrations were acceptable in Report No. 272-20950, dated July 30, 1979.
The plant engineering staff has not yet caepted the vendor report or closed out the E and DCR. The inspector had no further questions at this time.
11. Unresolved Items Areas for which more information is required to determine acceptability are considered unresolved.
Unresolved items are contained in Paragraphs 6, 7, and 9.d of this report.
12. Manacement Meetings At periodic intervals during the course of this inspection, meetings were held with senior plant management to discuss the scope and findings of this inspection.
The resident inspector also attended entrance and exit interviews of region-based inspectors conducted with plant management during the course of this inspection.