IR 05000322/1981007
| ML20004E879 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/14/1981 |
| From: | Caphton D, Rekito W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20004E878 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-322-81-07, 50-322-81-7, NUDOCS 8106160039 | |
| Download: ML20004E879 (6) | |
Text
. _. -
.-.
,
.
.
.
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
%,
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT J
.;egion I Report No. 50-322/81-07 Occket No. 50-322 Category B
License No. CPPR-95 Priority
--
Licensee:
Long Island Lighting Company
~
175 East Old Country Road Hicksville, New-York 11801 Facility Name:
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 Inspection at:
Shoreham, New York Inspection conducted:
April 21-
,
LI/
.1
/
Inspectors:
W. A. Rekito, Reactor Inspector
-
cate signed m
A ca:e signed
_
,
f/
8/
._
Approved by:
42, /
-
a' ate signed
'
'/-
-t D.L. Caphton, Acting Chief, Test Programs
I Section, Engineer,ing Inspection Branch Insoection Summary:
Insoection on Aoril 21-24, 1981 (Recort No. 50-322/81-07)
Areas Insoecteo: Routine, unannounced inspection of the preoperational test program implementation including review of program status, personnel training, test procedure review, and test witnessing; tours of the
,
l facility; and follow-up on previous inspection findings.
The inspection involved 25 inspector-hours on site by one region based NRC inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance were identified.
Region I Form 12
,
(Rev. April 77)
8106160 0 %
..
-
- -
- -..
--
-
.
..-
_.
.-
_
__
_
-
]
.
.
.
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted S.
Aitken, Test Engineer (S&W)
-
B.
Beytin, Test Engineer (L)
J.
Dowd, Test Engineer (L)
- 0.
Durand, OQA Engineer (L)
W.
Maloney, Test Engineer (L)
W.
Matejek, Advisory Engineer (S&W)
K.
Nicholas, Senior Test Engineer (GE)
- E.
Nicholus, Section Supervisor, FQA (L)
J.
Riley, Lead Startup Engineer (GE)
"J.
Rivello, Plant Manager (L)
D.
Terry, Lead Startup Engineer (L)
- E.
Youngling, Startup Manager (L)
L - Long Island Light Company S&W - Stone and Webster GE - General Electric US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-
- J.
Higgins, Senior Resident Inspector The inspector also talked with and interviewed other licensee and contractor employees during the course of the inspection including
'
maintenance, testing, electrical, and construction personnel.
' Denotes those present at the exit interview.
,
2.
Licensee Action on previous Insoection Findings (0 pen) Unresolved Items (322/80-14-05 thru 08) Various discrepancies and inadequacies of the planned containment penetration local leak rate testing. The licensee is preparing a revision of Procedure PT.654.003, " Primary Containment Leak Rate Test, Type C," which is expected to resolve these items as well as similar problems dis-covered by the licensee. The proposed changes to the procedure were described to the inspector and they appeared to be satisfactory.
These items will remain open pending further NRC review after approval of the revisea test procedure.
3.
Preecerational Test Program Imolementation a.
Test Program Status The inspector met wi h startup department staff memcers including t
the Lead Advisory Ent neer, L J Start-up Engineers and Test i
Engineers and held discussions on the following items and subjects:
O
.
,
-
--
-. - -
- -
.-
--.-
.
.
.
.
.
..
System turnovers and delays;
--
Test procedure status;
--
Test completion status and delays;
--
Test sequencing;
--
Test schedules;
--
Test program milestones;
--
System Integrated Flush Status; and,
--
Containment penetration leak rate testing.
--
The licensee was in the process of a major rescheduling effort and expects to issue new testing senedules in May.
The licensee representative explained that these new schedules will be more detailed than previous ones and depict individual precoerational tests and turnovers.
Plans to perform gross leak checks on all containment isolation valves prior to performing the official containment local leak rate tests was explained to the inspector.
No discrepancies or unacceptable conditions were identified during this review.
b.
persennel Training and Qualifications
-
The inspector reviewed personnel records and conducted direct interviews of three test engineers to ascertain that personnel training and qualification requirements were consistent with ANSI N45.2.6 and other licensee commitments particularly in the following areas:
Administrative controls for testing;
--
QA/QC indoctrination; and,
--
Appropriate technical training received.
--
The inspector found that much of the above required training was documented on a form "LILCO Start-up Indoctrination and Training Check Sheet."
On April 23, the inspector observed a demonstration of the proper method for disassembly, disc seat check, and re-assembly of safety related valves. This demonstration was conducted as a
.
,
.
,,
-
-
--
-
-
. -.
.
~,
.
technical training session for test engineers, maintenance and contractor personnel in preparation for repairing containment isolation valves during the local leak rate test program.
As a result of these observations, record reviews, and interviews, no discrepancies were noted by the inspector.
c.
Documentation Control The inspector selected three procedures and drawings (System piping flow diagrams) which were being used by test personnel and verified that they were the latest revision and were properly identified as " Controlled Copy" in accordance with the Start-up Manual Administrative requirements.
No problems were identified.
4.
Test Procedure Review The inspector reviewed Core Spray System preoperational test procedure PT.203.001, dated February 21, 1979 for technical and administrative adequacy.
In addition to tne standard procedure content requirements listed below, the procedure detail was examined to insure that design requirements and important system performance functions, as described in applicable sections of the FSAR and Technical Specifications are being demonstrated adequately.
Management review and approval;
--
--
Procedure format; Test objectives clearly stated;
._
--
Prerequisites;
--
Environmental conditions;
--
Acceptance criteria;
--
--
References; Initial conditions;
--
Test objectives are met;
--
Performance verification;
--
Recording conduct of test;
--
--
Restoration of systems to normal after test;
.
Ide-tification of personnel conducting and evaluating test data;
_
--
anu.
--
Independent verification of critical steps or parameters.
.
.. -,. -. - - -... _ _ - -., - -.
.
-
.-.
..--
--
--
.
. -.
..
.
a
-
..
'
The inspector identified the following concerns as possible procedure inadequacies:
.
a.
It appeared that not all computer points and annunciators which form part of the system logic were being verified and documented as required by Start-up Manual section 8.4.1.4.
b.
Section 8.9 and 8.10 "Line Fill Pump Operation" lacks specific pump performance acceptance criteria and does not appear to verify pump performance to the extend practicable as required by Startup Manual section 8.4.1.(7).
c.
Section 10.5 " Summary of Acceptance Criteria" lists several principal instruments and their specified setpoints but lacks correlation to specific procedure steos or guidance on how acceptance data is to be acquired.
Due to constraints on time and availability of the system test engineer, during the inspection period, these concerns were not adequately ad-dressed and dispositioned. However, the Startup Manager stated that they would be addressed as part of the procedure's final review prior to release for performance.
The inspector stated that these concerns would receive further review during a subsequent inscection and are collectively designated as inspector follow item (322/81-07-01).
5.
Test Witnessing The inspector witnessed various portions of the " Integrated Flush of
. _
Systems" and the Reactor Water Cleanup System flush conducted in accordance with procedures CF.109.001 and CF 709.001-1 respectively.
As part of his observations, the inspector verified that:
Test procedures in use were properly approved and the latest
--
revision; Reference drawing in use were the latest revision;
--
. Test personnel were suitably qualified and knowledgeable of the
--
procedure requirements; Test equipment was properly installed, calibrated, and in use;
--
Water samples for cleanliness verification were properly obtained
--
and analyzed; Quality Assurance participation was as required;
--
--
_ Data was recorded and procedural progress documented properly; and,
--
Test exceptions were documented in the approved manner.
.
, -, -
-..,, - - - - -.
,
,
. ~ -
..
v--
-
.,--n
,n-,,
-,,-- -~ -
- -. -
-
--
..
-
..-.
-
-
- -..
...
.
.
.
.
t
With the exception of the item below the inspector identified no items of noncompliance or unacceptable conditions.
Step 3.16 of procedure CF.109.001 required that the Main Steam safety / relief valve discharge lines be hand and/or hydro-laser cleaned by construction to cleanness class C criteria and documented on Cleaning ;/ Flushing Reports.
Exception #5 to the procedure documented the fact that a memorandum from the Chief Piping Supervisor was offered in lieu of the required Cleaning Reports.
The memorandum stated that, "the 11 SRVD lines were clean of debris and foreign matter just prior to the final
,
weld of the Suppression Pool Quencher." The inspector questioned the acceptability of this exception and the Startup Manager stated that the JTG would not approve it and that some means would be developed to verify the cleanliness requirements of these lines. This item is unresolved pending official disposition of the test exception and verification that the subject lines meet the cleanliness reouf rements of Stone & Webster Specification SH1-224, Revision 1, September 27, 1979. This item is designated (322/31-07-02).
6.
plant Tour The inspector made several tours of the facility including the primary containment, refueling deck, reactor building, control room, remote shutdown panel outside of control room, turbine building and the circulating and service water intake structure.
During these tours, the inspector observed and evaluated work in progress, housekeeping and cleanliness controls, storage and pro-tection of equipment, component tagging for safety and jurisdictional purposes, and operation of equipment in the Core Spray ar.d Reactor
-
Water Cleanup Systems to support system piping flush activities.
No unacceptable conditions were found.
7.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance or deviations. An unresolved item is identified in paragraph 5 of this report.
8.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (see Detail 1 for attendees) at the conclusion of the inspection on April 24, 1981. The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection at that time.
.
_.
,
-
_-.