IR 05000322/1980006
| ML19318B790 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/14/1980 |
| From: | Higgins J, Kister H, Nicholas H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19318B788 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-322-80-06, 50-322-80-6, NUDOCS 8006300060 | |
| Download: ML19318B790 (10) | |
Text
_.
. - _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _.
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION
/
nU OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No. 50-322/80-06 Docket No. 50-322 Category B
License No. CPPR-95 Priority
--
Licensee: Long Island Lichtina Ccmoarv 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville, New York 11801
.
Facility Name:
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 Inspection at:
Shoreham, New York Inspection conducted: March 24 - April 27, 1980 Inspectors:
w
-
70
' M '.
, Resident Inspector date signed (
IA O
/
H.11' Nfcholas, Rea'ctor Inspector date signed da'e signec I / M, Fe]
Approved by:
w H. B. Kiste'PT Chief, Reactor Projects Section
'date' signed No. 4, RO&NS Branch Inspection Summary:
Inspections on: March 24 - April 27,1980 (Inspection Report No. 50-322/80-06)
Areas Inspected: Routine onsite regular and backshift inspections by the resident inspector (82 inspection hours) and a region-based inspector (30 inspection hours) of work activities, preoperational testing and plant staff activities including:
tours of the facility; review of test program; review of procedures; comparison of as-built plant to FSAR descriptions; and, followup on previous inspection findings.
Results: No items of noncompliance were identified.
Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
,8006300 o6o
_
_
___
_
.
.
DETAILS
.
1.
Persons Contacted J. Baker, Lead Advisory Engineer (S&W)
L. Calone, Chief Technical Engineer (L)
J. Carney, Site Engineering Representative (S&W)
T. Czapleski, Training Coordinator (NES)
D. Durand, 00A Engineer (L)
C. Fonseca, Site Engineering Representative (S&W)
T. Gerecke, QA Manager (L)
J. Kelly, Field QA Manager-(L)
L.Lewin,AssistantStartupManager(L)
R. Loper, Technical Support Manager (L)
J. Morin, Senior Licensing Engineer (L)
J. Notaro, Operating Engineer (L)
J. Novarro, Project Manager (L)
A. Pederson, Operations Manager (GE)
R. Perra, Chief Inspection Supervisor (S&W)
L. Peyser, Startup Test Engineer (L)
J. Rivello, Plant Manager (L)
J. Reilly, Lead Startup Engineer, NSSS (GE)
J. Taylor, Startup Manager (L)
D. Terry, Lead Startup Engineer, 80P (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, maintenance, operations, engineering, testing, quality assurance, and construction personnel.
2.
Previous Inspection Item Vodate a.
Items Remaining Open (0 pen) Unresolved Item (322/79-05-05):
Response to 0QA Audit Findings:
The inspector reviewed the 0QA audits and audit finding responses for the past year and noted that, while the majority of the items were completed within the specified completion dates, a few items either had no completion dates specified or had exceeded the specified date without establishing a new date.
These items generally required procedural or manual changes.
The licensee's representative stated that dates would be set for all open items and carefully monitored in the future.
This item remains open.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (322/78-13-01):
Beach Accumulation:
The evaluations of beach survey results discussed in paragraph 2.E.(5)
of the Construction Permit from Fall '78, Spring '79 and Fall '79 were still not completed. This item had been previously reviewed in report 79-23 and' remains open.
.
__ _
_--
_
.-
__
.
.
.
(0 pen) Noncompliance (322/79-16-01):
Failure to provide suitably controlled conditions for equipment in storage:
The inspector reviewed the licensee's response dated 2/21/80 and followup actions as detailed below. On March 12, 1980 the licensee issued Quality Control Instruction (QCI) No. FSI-F17.1-060, " Storage and Maintenance of Designated Areas and Specified Category I Compone ts".
This instruction specifies periodic inspections in accordance with ANSI N45.2.2-1972 for all required equipmert.
The inspections verify, among other items:
satisfactory cleanliness; protective covers in place; strip heaters energized; and, storage history cards properly completed. The inspector verified that personnel completing inspections per this instruction were qualified in accordance with ANSI N45.2.6.
The inspector also noted that inspections were currently being per#9rmed more frequently.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's establisheo mechanism for recording the storage location of equipment and noted that items were designated as either in the warehouse (with no further specificity required, although sometimes used)
or in their permanent'y installed location. A component stores requisition (CSR) is completed for any piece of equipment which is moved from the warehouse to its permanent location. The inspector selected several pieces of equipment at random and verified that the oroper documents existed to define the equipments' location.
The inspector reviewed "UNICO Electrical Construction Department Storage Maintenance Supplement" dated March 18, 1980, which further detailed storage requirements for electrical ec,uipment installed in the plant. A memorandum was also written from J. Vitelli to E. Tesko dated March 4,1980, " Instrumentation Audit Findings" which establishes daily tours of the Reactor Building and Control Building to identify improper storage of installed instrumentation.
The inspector reviewed records of these daily inspections and noted that between March 7 and April 3,1980 about 40 deficient items were identified.
The inspector reviewed the results of inspections conducted per the new procedure QCI No. FSI-F17.1-060 and noted that between March 12 and April 5, 1980 seventeen Deficiency Correction Orders (DC0's) were written, several of which contained mult'ple items relating to improper protection and inadequate cleanliness. As of April 11, the majority of these items remained open.
During the time period of this inspection,
.the inspectors conducted frequent tours of the facility and noted that storage conditions had, in general, improved; however, additional instances of improper storage of installed equipment were brought to the licensee's actention.
The inspector toured the battery rooms and noted that conditions were acceptable, although the doors were found unlocked several times. Because of the number of discrepancies that continue to be identified, this item remains open.
.
i
_
.
.-
.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (322/80-02-03):
Envirc'nmental Qualifications of RTD's: All steam tunnel conduits are designed to be sealed and moisture tight, from the component served, to the sleeve where they exit the steam tunnel area.
The moisture barrier is provided by proper fittings, sleeves, gasketed junction boxes, etc. The inspector questioned the type of QC inspections performed to verify the required moisture tightness and accompanied a Field Quality Control (FQC) Inspector on several final acceptance inspections for Category I conduit installations in the Drywell and in the Reactor Building. The inspector noted that the Quality Control Instruction (QCI) No. FSI-F12.1-080, " Inspection.of Raceway (Conduit)
Installation" did not check the tightness of connections or that good and proper workmanship prevailed as specified in Regulatory Guide 1.30 and ANSI N45.2.4-1972.
The licensee's representative stated that those attributes had been checked in the past but that the QCI would be revised to specify such checks.
The inspector also questioned the sealing of the ends of open conduits in wet areas.
The licensee's representative stated that this would be required, but that a program to seal and inspect these had not been established yet. This item remains open.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (322/80-04-03):
CRAC System Design Items:
The inspector noted that some of the same items applied to the RBSVS System also.
Due to the number of undocumented deviations between the as-built systems and committments in the FSAR and R.G. 1.32 the inspector stated that a review of the as-built CRAC and RBSVS systems against their design requirements appeared appropriate.
The licensee's representative acknowledged this comment, This item remains open.
b.
Items Closed (Closed) Noncompliance (322/79-05-02):
EQAP's not updated to incorporate change notices:
The inspector reviewed the licensee's response to the noncompliance dated 5/24/79 and followup actions as described below. All EQAP's have been reviewed and reissued as QAP's (Quality Assurance Procedures) with their associated change notices incorporated or cancelled, as appropriate.
The revised QAP-5.1 calls for an annual review of procedures, which will be documented and which will incorporate or cancel any change notices in effect.
The inspector further reviewed the EQAP's and change notices identified in the noncompliance to determine the potential for procedural errors caused by the change notices not having been incorporated.
In all cases the changes to the EQAP's were clearly identified in the change notices, which were attached to the pertinent EQAP. Additionally, the changes were of a type that offered little potential for misuse, e.g.
adding flexibility, administrative changes and clarifying requirements.
This item is considered closed.
'
r I
.
.
(Closed) Inspector Followup Item (322/77-21-01):
QA/QC coverage of controls for removal and installation of parts for flushing: The inspector reviewed the program for control of the special process associated with removal and reinstallation of parts from flushed systems.
Per QAP-S-09.1 the Operational Quality Assurance (0QA) organization reviews each flushing procedure to ensure quality related characteristics have been included.
When executed, the flush procedures will have 0QA witnessing at specified points as described in QAP-5-02 2 and QAI-09-2-01.
Generally the removal and reinstallation of parts and associated cleanliness is controlled by the flush procedure itself.
If parts are removed or a system opened after the flush is completed, controls will be via the repair / rework procedures of the startup manual and the startup instruction from Appendix 4A of the Startup Manual entitled, " Maintaining Cleanliness During Repair / Rework of Flushed Systems". 0QA also has verification points specified by each of these documents for Category I systems and has a standard surveillance plan for reviewing the installation of ASME bolted joints. This item is considered closed.
(Closed) Inspector Followup Item (322/79-23-02): Addition to Audit Checklist: The licensee has added a step to the standard audit checklist for reviewing the preoperational test packages. The new step is to ensure that all exceptions and deficiencies have been reviewed and properly dispositioned. This item is considered closed.
3.
Plant Tour The inspector conducted periodic tours of accessible areas in the plant during normal and backshift hours.
During these tours, the following specific items were evaluated:
-- Hot Work: Adequacy of fire prevention / protection measures used.
-- Fire Eq ipment:
Operability and evidence of periodic inspection of fire suppress'on equipment.
.
-- Housekeeping: Minimal accumulations of debris 6nd maintenance of required cleanness levels of systems under or following testing.
-- Equipment Preservation: Maintenar :e of special precautionary measures for installed equipment, as applicable.
-- Component Tagging:
Implementation and observance of equipment tagging for safety, equipment protection, and jurisdiction.
-- Instrumentation:
Adequate protection for installed instrumentation.
-- Logs: Completeness of logs maintaine. _ _ _ - -_.
.
.
-- Security: Adequate site construction security.
-- Prohibited Items: Observations to determine no smoking in restricted areas and no alcoholic beverages onsite.
-- Control Room:
Review of control panels for adequate instrumentation, labeling and human engineering aspects. Also, review of licensee-established ". Control Board Deficiency Log".
Minor problem areas were discussed with licensee representatives throughout the inspection.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Preoperational Test Program Status The inspector met with the startup manager and his staff, the GE operations manager, the senior planning scheduler, the OQA engineer, process center personnel, and other licensee representatives, and held discussions on the following items and areas:
-- Construction schedule;
-- Testing schedule;
-- Critical flow path and construction milestones;
-- System turnovers and delays;
-- Interface between construction and preoperational testing;
-- Test procedure status, test sequencing and scheduling; and,
-- QA and QC role during preopera'.ional test program.
During the period of the inspection the licensee completed the major part of a rescheduling effort which had been ongoing for several months. As a result of thds rescheduling a new projected fuel load date was established as the summer of 1982.
5.
Preoperational Test Program Implementation a.
Discussion The inspector met with the startup manager and members of his staff, and discussed the following areas of preoperational test program implementation:
-- Tect program administration; cnd,
-- Test document control
,
The items and concerns discussed in these two areas included:
-- Verification by review of logs, examination of test procedures, and interview of test personnel, that the following were implemented:
.
,
,
.
(1) A method for verifying a test procedure is current prior to its use; (2) Methods to assure personnel involved in the conduct of a test are knowledgeable of the test procedures; (3) Methods to change a test procedure during the conduct of testing; (4) Criteria for interruption of a test and continuation of an interrupted test; (5) Methods to coordinate the conduct of testing; (6) Methods to document significant events, unusual conditions, or interruptions to testing; and, (7) Methods for identifying deficiencies, documenting their resolutions, and documenting retesting.
-- In the area of test document control the inspector conducted the following:
(1) Selected five recently approved test procedures and verified that the review and approval were in accordance with administrative procedures; (2) Selected twelve drawingr which are being used by test personnel and verified that they are current issues by comparison with master indices; and, (3) Selected one field chanced dra # 1, and verified that the change was referred to the desig!
.ineer 1 ar review and revision of drawings.
b.
References The inspector used the following documents for ref erence in the inspection:
-- Startup Manual;
-- Final Safety Analysis Report:
-- Quality Assurance Manual;
-- Station Operations Manual;
-- Quality Assurance Procedures;
,
-- Preoperational Test Procedures;
-- Acceptance. Test Procedures; and,
-- Regulatory Guide 1.68, Initial Test Programs for Water Cooled Nuclear Power Plant.
c.
Findings The inspector verified by revieM of logs, records, and drawings; examination of test procedures; random sampling of approved procedures; drawings and field changed drawings; and interview of test personnel, that all items and concerns in the test program administration and test document control areas were implemented.
As a result of reviews of references, interviews and discussions with the startup manager and his staff, no discrepancies were noted in these two areas of test program implementation that were covered during this inspection and the inspector had no further questions at this time.
The remaining items and areas of test progrr-implementation will be followed up in detail on subsequent inspc t s.
6.
Diesel Generator (D/G) Ventilation System a.
Documents Reviewed
-- Shoreham FSAR section 9.4.10 and NRC requests and response section.
-- Type B Release Package for Diesel Generator (D/G) Ventilation System (X-60), along with 0QA review of same.
-- Proposed Technical Specifications for Shoreham NPS.
-- Pertinent System piping and instrumentation drawings (P&ID's) and logic drawings.
-- Preoperational Test Procedure, PT-414.001-1, " Diesel Generator Room Ventilation System".
-- Station Procedure, SP23.414.01, "HVAC-Emergency Diesel Generators".
-- System Description #414, "HVAC-Emergency Diesel Generators".
-- QAI-14.1-01, " Station 0QA Review of Conditional Release Packages".
b.
Scope The inspector, in company with the startup test engineer, toured the as-built system in the plant and observed all major system components, piping, ductwork and selected instrumentation and controls.
The inspector performed additional systrm tours to note the storage conditions of installed equipment.
The inspector also reviewed the system release / turnover package and the QA comments on_this package.
Based on document review and the system tours the inspector ceinpared the as-built system and the approved system test and operating procedures to the various regulatory requirements and license commitments.
t
.
-
.
.
.-
- -
.
.
The inspector also reviewed the system and instrumentation design and system procedural steps.for items which could potentially cause operator misinterpretation. With the exception of the below items, the inspector had no further questions at this time.
c.
FSAR Items t
The following items did not agree.with the FSAR commitments, as
!
described below, and are designated as unresolved item (322/80-06-01).
1
'
(1) Roem_ Design Temperature
!
Paragraph 9.4.10.1 of the FSAR states that the minimum and maximum
-
0
'
design 0/G room. temperatures are 40 F and 120 F, respectively. The
control room alarms for D/G room abnormal temperature are set at 35 F i
and 1250F.
The inspector noted that this did not appear to meet the requirement of 10CFR50, Appendix A, Criterion 13 to provide appropriate-controls to maintain variables and systems within their prescribed operating ranges.
(2) Diesel Engine Exhaust Paragraph 9.4.10.3 of the FSAR states that the diesel exhaust is dis-charged above the control building roof in an upward direction and thus it is highly improbable that thi exhaust would re-enter the combustion air intake. The inspector noteo on the system tour that the exhaust piping discharged horizontally tos,rd the side of the building, where the air intake is located.
(3) System Testing
Paragraph 9.4.10.4 of the FSAR states that all system components will be periodically tested,during plant normal operation.
Currently the system is not included in the plants preventive maintenance (PM) program or its surveillance testing program.
.
7.
Design Control
.
The inspector reviewed several aspects of the licensee's design control measures. The following documents were used as a reference for pertinent requirements.
)
-- 10CFR50, Appendix B, Criterion III; I-
- ANSI N45.2.11, Draft 3, Rev.1, July 1973, " Quality Assurance
.
Requirements for the Design of Nuclear Power Plants";
-. Regulatory Guide 1.64, October 1973
" Quality Assurance Requirements
'
.for:the Design of Nuclear Power Plants; i
'
- -- Shoreham NPS, FSAR, Chapter 17;
,
-
-- LILCO Engineering QA Manual;
_
f rD,p a
hye d
.-
. - - -
- - - -
- - -
-
m,g
,,h-.e,-
.,,
y
-
-
-
-- Ston2 & Webster (S&W) Engineering Assurance Manual;
-
-- S&W QA Program 7or Shoreham NPS;
-- S&W Company QA and Control Manual; and,
-- A yeement between S&W and Engineering and Professional Guild, Local 66 of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, AFL-CIO, Effective December 31, 1977.
Tne above documents specify various requirements in the design control area. They also require that audits be performed periodically by S&W and by LILC0 to determine conformance with these requirements. The inspector reviewed the most recent audit of the S&W Site Engineering Office (SE0) by S&W Engineering Assurance, Audit No. 8 dated September 21, 1979.
The inspecter also reviewed the last LILC0 audit performed on the SE0 (in the area of Engineering and Design Coordination Reports - E & DCR's)
and the last LILC0 audit performed on S&W Engineering in Boston. The results of these audius were ganerally satisfactory, although a few discrepancies were identified and then subsequently corrected.
The inspector also reviewed the educational and experience backgrounds of selected engineering personnel working ir. the S&W Site.Enginee"ing Office.
The inspector discussed with S&W management the methods used to assure satisfactory performance.of personnel and to assure that the final design work is accurate and correct.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
8.
Unresolved Items
_
Areas for which more information is required to determine acceptability are considered unresolved. An unresolved item is contained in Paragraph 6.c of this report.
9.
Management 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 e<it interviews of region-based inspectors conducted with plant managenent during the course of this inspection.
__
,
-
-