IR 05000322/1981004
| ML19352B225 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/28/1981 |
| From: | Higgins J, Kister H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19352B224 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-322-81-04, 50-322-81-4, NUDOCS 8106030463 | |
| Download: ML19352B225 (7) | |
Text
.,
.
)
L,-
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATCRY CCXXISS:CN
.
0?? ICE OF !NS?ECT:CN ANC ES?CRCEMENT Region !
!
.
Raport No. 50-322/81-04
-
Cocket No. 50-322 Catagory
License No. CP?R-95 Priority
--
Licensce:
Long Island Lighting Cocoany
.
175 East Old Country Road Hicksville, New York 11801
.
Facility Nama:
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 Inspection at:
Shoreham, New York Inspection conductad: March 9 - April 14, 1981 V 34{ f/
~
'
'
- nspectors:
~
ca:a signac
/{C.Hj{ljdl,SeniorResident:nspector ca:a signec
_
ca:a signac M6' F-/
Approved by: K. B. Kister',-Chief, Reactor ?rojacts Section IC
' catc/ sighac Projects Branch #1, DRPI
.
-
.
Insoection Summary:
Insoections on: March 9-April 14,1981 (Inspection Report No. 50-322/81-C4)
Areas Inscected: Routine onsite regular, backshift and weekend inspections by the resident inspectcr (90 inspection hours) and a regional supervisor of work activities, preoperational testing and plan.t staff activities inc.luding:
tours of the facility; test witnessing; review of procedures, drawings, and preoperational I
program practices; comparison of as-built plant' to FSAR description; review of
.
Quality Assurance; and, followup on previous inspection findings.
.
Resul ts: J!o violations were identified.
8106030 L (7 Region ! For: 12 lRav. April 77)
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted D. Durand, 00A Engineer (L)
T. Gerecke, Quality Assurance Manager (L)
J. Kelly, Field 0A Manager (L)
W. Klein, Lead Startup Engineer (L)
L. Lewin, Assistant Startup Manager (L)
W. Matejek, Lead Advisory Engineer (S&W)
8. McCaffrey, Assistant Project Manager (L)
J. Morin, Senior Licensing Engineer (L)
J. Novarro, Project Manager (L)
A. Pederson, Operations Manager (GE)
J. Riley, Lead Startup Engineer (GE)
D. Terry, Lead Startup Engineer (L)
E. Youngling, Startup Manager (L)
GE - General Electric L
- Long Island Lighting Company S&W - Stone and Webster The inspector also held discussions with other licensee and contractor personnel during the ct,urse of the inspection including management, clerical, maintenance, operations, engineering, testing, quality assurance and construction personnel.
2.
Previous Insoection Item Update The inspector discussed the status of various items previously identified in past inspection reports with licensee personnel, howev'r no items are closed e
in this report. The inspector also reviewed the licensee's recently established systems for tracking NRC findings and discussed their functioning with licensee management.
The systems establish responsibility within the licensee's organization and set a date by which action should be completed.
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 Equipment: Operability and evidence of periodic inspection of fire suppression equipment.
Inspections and identified discrepancies of the fire insurance inspector.
Housekeepino: 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.
__
-3-
.
-
-- Compon:nt Tagging:
Implementation and obssrvance of equipment tagqing for safety, equipment protection, and jurisdiction.
-- Instrumentation:
Adequate protection for installed instrumentation.
-- Logs: Completeness of logs maintained.
-- Security: Adequate site construction security.
-- Prohibited Items:
Observations to dete>mine no smoking in restricted areas and no alcoholic beverages on site.
-- Weld Rod Control:
Observations tn determine weld rod was being controlled in accordance with site procedures.
No violations were identified.
4.
Program Imolementation The inspectcr reviewed various aspects of the preoperational testing program and operational Quality Assurance (00A) Procram to determine if requirements specified in the Startup Manual, Quality Assurance Manuals and in approved procedures were being satisfactorily implemented.
Specific areas reviewed included:
- System and subsystem release packages and Quality Assurance review of same;
- Jurisdictional tagging systeins, both startup control tags (Blue) and permanent plant staff control tags (Green);
- Operational Quality Assurance (00A) surveillance and witnessing of testing and maintenance;
- Maintenance on various con'ponents as performed using the Repair / Rework request system;
- Schedules maintained and current for preoperational testing; and
- 00A audit schedules, checklists, findings, and corrective actions.
No violations were identified.
5.
IE Bulletins Bulletin 76-04: Bulletin 76-04, Cracks in Cold Worked Piping at BWR's, describes a cracking problem in stainless steel piping caused by stress corrosion.
Since the time of issuance of this Bulletin additional problems with stress corrosion cracking have occurred at various facilities.' The topic was designated as an NRC generic technical activity (Task A-42) and as an Unresolved Safety Issue.
Resolutions for the identified problems have been outlined in two documents:
NUREG-0619, BWR Feedwater Nozzle and hntrol Rod Drive Return Line Nozzle Cracking and NUREG-0313, Technical Report on Material Selection and Processing Guidelines for BWR Coolant Pressure Boundary Piping.
Letters addressing the applicability of these NUREG's to Shoreham have been sent~
and are dated 3/11/80, 2/20/81 and 2/26/81.
Thus the concerns raised in the Bulletin are covered elsewhere in the licensing process and the Bulletin is considered close.
-4-6.
Training Due to the number of new Startup Personnel and newly issued Startup Documents the licensee held a comprehensive Startuo Orientation Program for all personnel associated with Startup activities.
The Program consisted of about ten one hour pr esentations and was taped for future use.
The inspector reviewed the overall program and attended several of the training sessions.
The program appeared to be effective and meet the inter.t of the training.
The licensee is also currently conducting the onsite training portion of the basic operator training program.
This portion consists of thirteen weeks of detailed lectures, system walkdowns and examinations on the various plant systems.
The inspector reviewed the lecturc schedule and attended several selected presentations.
Inspector comments on the presentations were discussed with licensee's training coordinator. The objectives of the individual system lesson plans appeared to be met in each session attended.
7.
Demineralized Water System a.
Documents Reviewed
-- Shoreham FSAR sections 14.1.3.7.54 and 9.2.3.
-- System Description, S.D.1020.107'
" Demineralized Water", Rev.1,1978.
,
-- PT.107.001-3, " Makeup Dcmineralizer and Transfer System".
-- Various Alarm Response Procedures associated with Demineralized Water System.
-- Pertinent System piping and instrumentation drawings (P&ID's).
-- Completed C&IO test procedures and data packages for P21 system.
b.
Scope The inspector toured the plant both alone and in company with the system test engineer and observed th% installation of va'rious system components, piping and instrumentation. Hz inspector also witnessed portions of the
,
preoperational test performed on the system.
Based on the document review, the inspe; tor compared the as-built system and the approved test procedure to the er nmitments and design objectivas of the FSAR. With the exception of the below items, the inspector identified no discrepancies.
c.
Findings (1) Procedure Items The inspector noted that the following design characteristics described in the FSAR are not tested in the preoperational test:
-- All flow paths and process streams from the Demineralizers to the Demineralized Water Storage Tank (DWST) to the Demineralized Water
!
T-ansfer Pumps to the various supplies and services are not verified; l
l l
l
-5-
.
,
-- The Demineraliz;d Water Transfer Pumps are not tested; and
-- The Demineralizers are checked to produce water to their design effluent specifications, but not at the end of their design 144,000 gallon capacity between regeneration cycles.
This item is unresolved and is designated as Item No. (322/81-04-01).
j (2) FSAR Description Paragraph 9.2.3.2 of the FSAR lists the services tc which demineralized water is or can be supplied.
However, this listing only includes eleven of the actual nineteen demineralized water services. This item is unresolved pending actions to make the plant and the FSAR agree and is designated Item No. (322/81-04-02).
8.
Offsite Power System a.
Documents Reviewed 10 CFR 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria 17 and 18.
Shoreham FSAR sections 8.1.8.2 and 8.3.
Regulatory Guides 1.6, 1.32, 1.41 and 1.68.
General Electric Standard Technical Specifications (T.S.),1979 and 1980, sections 3.8.1.1 and 4.d.1.1.
Offsite Power System acceptance tests: AT.301.001, AT.302.001, AT.304.001 and AT.305.001.
System Descriptions for Offsite Power Systems.
Pertinent System Electrical one-line wiring diagrams.
Completed selected C&IO test procedures and data packages.
Selected plant system test and operating procedures and alarm response procedures.
Turnover package for 69KV system.
b.
Scope The inspector toured the switchyards, power lines and transformers, and observed the installation and operation of the offsite power system, both alone and in company with the system test engineer.
Based on the document review and the system t.our the inspector compared the as-built system and approved procedures to regulatory requirements and FSAR commitments.
Included in the review was an evaluation of:
installation quality, indeper.dence
between the two offsite power sources, system design, control room indications, acceptance testing, testing to satisfy T.S. requirements and
.
system operation. With the exception of the below items, the inspector j
identified no discrepancies.
.
l i
i
-
~
-6-c.
Findings (1) FSAR Desiotions Figure 8.2.1-1 of the FSAR illustrates a fused disconnect (62F) in line from tne 69XV system to the Reserve Station Service Transformer (RSST).
This disconnect is referenced on some of the plant drawings but not on others and is physically not installed. This item is unresolved pending resolution of the discrepancies and is designated Item No. (322/81-04-03).
(2) Documentation Between the offsite transmission network and the station service transformer there are disconnects, wiring, switchyard. equipment, etc. located onsite.
Some of this equipment is newly installed with the construction of the plant.
Documentation to verify operability of the manual disconnects was not available onsite.
The licensee's representative stated that it was maintained offsite and would be provided for review.
This item is designated as Inspector Follow Item (322/81-04-04).
The Normal Station Service Transformer (NSST) and Reserve Station Service Transformer (RSST), which bring on offsite power to the plant and trans-former it down to a nominal 4160 volts, have five manually adjustable tap settings.
Currently (and for the transformer acceptance tests) the trane formers are set on Tap #3, which provides an output voltage of 4300 to 4400 vol ts. The inspector asked for information or analyses to justify the Tap settings.
This information was not available onsite but the licr.nsee stated that it would be obtained.
This is designat?d as Inspec'.or Follow Item No. (322/81-04-05).
(3) NSST Test Results Procedure AT.304.001-1, tests the NSST to yerify that it can produce an output voltage to the plant of 4160 volts - 2%.
The test makes allowance and corrections for transformer tap setting and for variations in offsite power voltage from the nominal 138 Kilovolts (KV).
Even with these corrections, the test results did not meet the acceptance criteria.
As a result, a second set of data was taken, which also did not meet the acceptance criteria. A third set of data fell within the ! 2%. The inspector noted that the potential transformers used to determine the actual voltage on the 138 KV lines, for computing the correction factor had not been ratio-checked.
Despite these discrepancies the test results were accepted.
This item is considered unresolved pending a re-review by the licensee and a determination of the acceptability of the NSST output voltage.
The item is designated No.
(322/81-04-06).
,
%
-7-9.
Alarm Response Procedures (ARP's)
For each annunciator panel in the control room and on local control panels the licensee has established an Alarm Response Procedure.
Regulatory Guide 1.33, Appendix A, paragraph E and ANSI N18.7-1972 specify that emergency,
,
off-normal or alarm response procedures will contain alarms and alarm set-points.
Regulatory Guide 1.68 and the LILCO Startup Manual call for testing /
review of plant procedures during the preoperational test phase.
Currently after an alarm circuit complates its initial testing, the annunciator receives a blue dot and the ARP is placed in a book for the operators to use in response
'
to the alarm.
The inspector noted that many blue dotted alarms had ARP's which still contained the word "LATER" in place of the alarm actuation and reset set-
~ Additionally, based on points or did not contain a provision for setpoints.
review of coiapleted and in-process turnover packages to the plant staff it did not appear that all ARP's are being reviewed by the Startup organization. This item is unresolved pending establishment of a review by Startup for ARP's to include specificatun of alarm actuation and reset setpoints and is designated Item No. (322/81-04-07).
10.
Drawing Control During witnessing of Checkout and Initial Operations Tests, the inspector noted that many Motor Control Center (MCC) cubicle doors have vendor-supplied wiring diagrams attached to the inside of the doors.
These diagrams represent the wiring inside that cubicle, typically for a motor-operated valve.
Review 4 latest revision of these drawings in the document control center revealed that many of the drawings are outdated revisions. The inspector observed technicians using these drawings for informational (not controlled) uses and noted that the potential exists for unauthorized use of superseded drawings.
1he licensee's representative stated that procedures required that personnel always obtain the latest revision of a drawing for use and that the drawings in the MCC's would be appropriately marked to indicate their status.
This item is unresolved and is designated Item No. (322/81-04-08).
11.
Control Room Review During the week of March 30 to April 3,1981 the NRC performed a detailed review of the Human Factors aspects of the Shoreham Control Room. The licensee had previously performed his own review and submitted the results along with proposed modifications to correct identified deficiencies to the NRC in a letter dated 3/12/81.
The onsite review was performed by members of the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, two NRC contractor organizations and the resident inspector.
Preliminary findings were presented to the licensee on April 3 and a formal report will follow.
12.
Unresolved Items Areas for which more information is required to determine acceptability are corsidered unresolved.
Unresolved items were contained in paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10 of this report.
13.
Management Meetinas At periodic intervals during the course of this inspection, meetings were held with plant management to discuss the scope and findings of this inspectioii.
The resident inspector also attended the entrance and exit meeting of a region-based inspector and the NRC control room human factors review team.
___.