IR 05000322/1982023
| ML20027D077 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/06/1982 |
| From: | Bordenick B NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Brenner L, Carpenter J, Morris P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8210280234 | |
| Download: ML20027D077 (4) | |
Text
..
.
October 6, 1982 In the Matter of Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322 (0L)
NOTE TO ATTACHED SERVICE LIST Attached is a copy of NRC Region I Inspection Report No. 50-322/82-23.
Sincerely,
,
Bernard M. Bordenick Counsel for NRC Staff Enclosure:
As Stated Distribution:
Bordenick/Dewey/Repka J. Norris-AR_5008
Black /Perlis A. Schwencer_116C Reis/Lessy F. Weinkam/R. Gilbert-330 i
Murray J. Higgins Christenbury/Scinto OELD Formal Files (2)
Chron(2)
Docket Files /PDR/LPDR DS07
! 0FC :0 ELD @
- 0 ELD
_____:____..I _. __:__________
- ____________:____________:____________:____________:___________
NAME :BBordenick :EReis/sb ~ -
_____:____________:____7______:____________:____________:____________:____________:___________
DATE :10/06/82
- 10/(7/82
"
8210280234 821006 PDR ADOCK 05000322 O
-. _ _ _ -
-
-
-
-_
_
.-
.-
,
.
-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of LONG ISLAllD LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322
)
(0L)
(ShorehamNuclearPowerStation, Unit 1)
L Lawrence Brenner, Esq.
Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Administrative Judge Cammer and Shapiro Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 9 East 40th Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York, NY 10016 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. James L. Carpenter Administrative Judge Howard L. Blau, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 217 Newbridge Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hicksville, NY 11801 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Peter A. Morris W. Taylor Reveley III, Esq.
Administrative Judge Hunton & Williams Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P.O. Box 1535 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Richmond, VA 23212 Washington, DC 20555 Cherif Sedkey, Esq.
Matthew J. Kelly, Esq.
Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Johnson Staff Counsel
& Hutchison New York Public Service Commission 1500 Oliver Building 3 Rockefeller Plaza Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Albany, NY 12223
- -
.
.
_.
. _
.
.
.
-2-
.
Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
John F. Shea, III, Esq.
Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
Twomey, Latham & Shea Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Attorneys at Law Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
P.O. Box 398 Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, 33 West Second Street Christopher & Phillips Riverhead, NY 11901 1900 M Street, N.W.
8th Floor Washington, D.C.
20036 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary
'
Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Daniel F. Brown, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attorney, Atomic Safety and Washington, DC 20555 Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 l
. _ -
_
., _ _ - _.
-
._.
. _ _. -.. - _ _ _ -
.
. -
_,.
.. -
.
.
.
-3-
-
CollRTESY COPY LIST Edward M. Barrett, Esq.
Mr. Jeff Smith General Counsel Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Long Island Lighting Company P.O. Box 618 250 Old County Road North Country Road Mineola, NY 11501 Wading River, NY 11792 Mr. Brian McCaffrey MHB Technical Associates Long Island Lighting Company 1723 Hamilton Avenue 175 East Old Country Road Suite K Hicksville, New York 11801 San Jose, CA 95125 Marc W. Goldsmith Hon. Peter Cohalan Energy Research Group, Inc.
Suffolk County Executive 400-1 Totten Pond Road County Executive / Legislative Bldg.
Waltham, MA 02154 Veteran's Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11788 David H. Gilmartin, Esq.
Suffolk County Attorney Mr. Jay Dunkleberger County Executive / Legislative Bldg.
New York State Energy Office Veteran's Memorial Highway Agency Building 2 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 l
,
s o
.
.
f' '
.
- .
..
.
SEP 161982
-
,
Docket No. 50-322 Long Island Lighting Company
ATTN: Mr. M. S. Pollock Vice President - Nuclear 175 East Old Countn Road
Hicksville, New York 11801 Gentlemen:
Subject: Inspection 50-322/82-23 This transmits the August 1 - September 8,1982 routine msident safety
'
inspection findings by Mr. J. C. Higgins and Mr. P. Hannes at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Shoreham, New York. These findings were based on observations of activities, interviews, and doctanent reviews, and have been discussed with Mr. J. Smith and other members of your staff.
No violations of NRC mquirements were found. No reply is required.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Doctanent Room unless you notify this office, by telephone, within ten days of the date of this letter and submit written application to withhold infomation contained therein within thirty days of the date of this letter. Such application must be consistent with the requirements of 2.790(b)(1). The telephone notification of your intent to request withholding, or any request for an extension of the 10 day period which you believe necessary, should be made to the Supervisor, Files, Mail and Records USNRC Region I, at (215) 337-5223.
Your cooperation is appreciated.
,.
'
Sincerely,
!
Ori ing siane Syl l
{
k LAW (W
,
'
RT W.
rostecki, Di r
.Divuion of Project and Res dent Pmprams
/
f Enclosure: NRC Region I Inspection Report Number 50-322/82-23
,
,
'
__
. - _ _
_..
l-CM hI S2093OO11!r7-820916
)
!
'
PDR ADOCK 05000322 O
. _ _.
---__ ___ -- _- _
-- - - - -
..
.
.
.
~
.
.<
.
.
Long Island Lighting Company
SEP I 61932 cc w/ enc 1:
J. L. Smith, Manager of Special Projects T. F. Gerecke, Manager, QA Department Edward M. Barrett Esquire Jeffrey L. Futter, Esquire
.
J. Rivello, Plant Manager PublicDocumentRoom(POR)(LPDR)
Local Public Document Room Nuclear Safety Infomation Center (NSIC)
HRC Resident Inspector State of New York Shoreham Hearing Service List
.
bec w/ encl:
Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)
Chief, Operational Support Section (w/o enc 1)
R. Gilbert. DOL, NRR E. Weinkam. DOL, NRR
.
-, - - < - - - - - - - - - -, - - - - -, -, -, -,, - -., -,,. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. - -. -,,,, -,,,
,c
-
- - - -, - -
- - -
n
, ---, - - - - -
-
.
.
.
'
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
Region I
,
Report No. 50-322 /82-23
.
Docket No. 50-322 License No. CPPR-95 Priority
--
Category B
Licensee:
Long Island Lighting Company
-
175 East Old Country Road e
Hicksville, New York 11801
.
Facility Name:
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 Inspection at:
Shoreham, New York Inspection conducted: August 1 - September 8,1982 f J!fL Inspectors:
e J/C Hi Os,SeniorResidentInspector date signed 09/ w x>a M3/tt.
.
date signed P/H. Hggs, Resident Inspector date signed f//3 /Sv-N Approved by:
.
R M( fallo, Chief, Reactor Projects Section IA date signed rojects Branch #1, DPRP j
.
Inspection Summary:
Inspections on:
August 1 - September 8,1982 (Inspection Report No. 50-322/82-23)
,
l Areas Inspected: Routine onsite regular, backshift and weekend inspections by the i
resident inspectors (147 inspection hours) of work activities, preoperational testing, and plant staff activities includino: tours of the facility, procedure review, test program implementation, review of NRC Bulletins, test results review, nyiew of construction deficiency reports, review of Three Mile Island modifications, and followup on previously identified items.
Results: No violations were identified.
SEO9300RS-820916 PDR ADOCK 05000322 G
-. _ - - -
.- _
__
- - -
-.
..
. _ _ _ _
___
_
.
.
'
DETAILS
.
1.
Persons Contacted
.
R. Gutman, Maintenance Engineer (L)
R. Jongeblood, Nuclear Engineer (L)
J. Kelly, Field QA Manager (L)
W. Matejek, Lead Advisory Engineer (S&W)
J. McCarthy, Section Supervisor - FQA (L)
M. Milligan, Project Engineer (L)
W. Museler, Manager, Construction and Engineering (L)
K. Nicholas, Lead Startup Engineer (GE)
R. Perra, Assistant Superintendent FQC (S&W)
R. Reen, Security Supervisor (L)
J. Ricardo, Lead Startup Engineer (S&W)
J. Riley, Operations Manager (GE)
J. Rivello, Plant Manager (L)
C. Seaman, Senior Asst. Project Engineer (L)
J. Smith, Manager, Special Projects (L)
R. Werner, OQA Engineer (L)
E. Youngling, Startup Manager (L)
GE - General Electric L
- Long Island Lighting Company S&W - Stone and iebster The inspector also held discussions with other licensee and contractor personnel during the course of the inspection including management, clerical, maintenance, operations, engineering, testing, health physics, security, quality assurance, and construction personnel.
2.
Previous Inspection Item Update 2.1 Items Closed 2.1.1 (closed) Unresolved Item No. (322/80-09-01): Containment Systers Technical Specifications Items: The inspector reviewed the latest NRC draft of the Shoreham Technical Specifications and noted that section 3/4.6.2 contains a limiting condition for operation and surveillance requirements for the Drywell Floor Seal Pressurization System. Also in this same specification the 4.91 inches of water per minute acceptance criteria has been deleted and the wording now reads that leakage must be within the specified limit. This is acceptable since the acceptable limits are defined in correspondence between the licensee and the NRC relative to the Safety Evaluation Report open item number 26.
2.1.2 (closed) Violation No. (322/81-13-01): Startup Manual Control: This violation cited discrepancies associated with the updating of the various controlled copies of the Startup Manual.
It was updated in inspection report 82-02 and then cited as a repeat violation in inspection report 82-08. The licensee stated that all manuals have been corrected and that the Administrative Aide to the Startup Manager is responsible for changes. All changes to controlled copies are to be made by Startup personnel. The inspector reviewed the following
.
,
..
_ _
_
_
___
-e
'
c
.
,
-3-
.
in selected copies of controlled Startup Manuals:
- Proper entry of Revision 17
- Proper entry of Revision 18
- Correct pages in place for selected earlier revisions
- Proper entry of the new Startup Instruction No. 9 into Appendix 4A of the Startup Manual
- Correct revisions of Startup Instructions No.1 through No. 8 in the manuals The inspector also reviewed the last two * quarterly surveillances by Operational Quality Assurance (00A) of the Startup Manual, No.82-113 dated March 29, 1982 and No.82-114 dated June 30, 1982. The inspector noted that the licensee had established adequate control of the Startup Manual and had no further questions. This violation is closed.
2.1.3 (closed) Unresolved Item No. (322/81-20-01): Hole in motor-operated
'
valve (MOV) casing: The licensee issued Repair / Rework Request No. P42-170 to replace the damaged MOV motor casing for valve P42*MOV-036.
This was completed June 14, 1982 and the valve was retested as appropriate.
.
The inspector reviewed the documentation and observed the new motor installed on the MOV. This item is closed.
2.1.4 (closed) Violation No. (322/82-08-01): Document Control: This violation had two parts, control of the Startup Manual and use of an improperly approved procedure. The resolution of the Startup Manual control is discussed above under Violation No. (322/81-13-01). With respect to the procedure approval, the licensee initially took exception to the findings in letter SNRC-720 dated June 25, 1982; and then agreed to specified controls and app.rovals, which were documented in the letter from the NRC to LILC0 dated August 9,1982. In reviews performed during this inspection period, no examples were identified where appropriate procedures and approvals were not executed..
Additionally, the Startup Manager has reviewed and approved the test results of the Inservice Reactor Pressure Boundary Leak Test performed between April 24 and May 3, 1982. This item is closed.
2.1.5 (closed) Violation No. (322/81-13-01): Startup Lifted Leads and Jumpers:
l The inspector ubserved the panels identified in this item and noted that
!
all discrepancies were corrected. The inspector conducted tours through-out the plant during the inspection period and did not identify any unauthorized startup lifted leads or jumpers. The inspector also reviewed the Startup Jumper Tag File and the Jumper Log Book. No discrepancies were identified. The Startup organization has placed
.....
_. __.
-
-
.
-
- - -
-
-_
.
-
- -
. _ _ -. _
_
-
-
.
-4-
_
plastic insulating end-caps on spare leads in control room and relay l
room panels in place of the tape previously used in order to quickly and easily distinguish between spare leads and tenporarily lifted leads.
Discussions and document review indicate that program requirements have been re-emphasized to Startup Personnel. The inspector reviewed Operational Quality Assurance (00A) 1982 documents associated with the lifted lead and jumper program including: the bi-monthly surveillances, corrective action requests, and LILCO deficiency reports (LDRs) and noted a decreasing number of identified
problems. The inspector noted that the Startup response to two LDRs stated that particular lifted leads without tags were acceptable
,
since the leads had not been lifted as part of a test procedure. The inspector did not agree with this narrow interpretation and discussed this with the-Startup Manager, who agreed that any lifted lead or
.
jumper in place overnight, should and would be tagged per the Startup Manual. Startup has initiated a weekly surveillance program to
'
survey control room, relay room, and remote shutdown room panels for improper lifted leads and jumpers. The inspector reviewed the records of this program and noted that it appeared effective in reducing the number of identified problems. This violation is closed.
2.1.6 (closed) Unresolved Item No. (322/82-13-05): Annunciator Data List:
The inspector reviewed the identified annunciators and a random selection of additional annunciators on the data list. All were-appropriately yellow-lined.
In addition the Startup Work Coordinator and the Startup technicians have been reinstructed in the proper updating of the annunciator data list. This item is closed.
2.2 Items Remaining Open 2.2.1 (open) Violation No. (322/81-14-01): Jumpers and Lifted Leads: This
item was previously reviewed in report 81-20.
Danger tagging and
!
jurisdictional.taggina were found acceptable then. No discrepancies have been identified in these areas during the current inspection i
either. The area of Startup jumpers and lifted leads was addressed
'
above in paragraph 2.1.5 and was found acceptable. The remaining area is the plant staff jumper and lifted lead program. During the inspection 81-20 update discrepancies were identified in this program.
During the current inspection, additional discrepancies were identified in this program as follows: Permits 81-11-4, 82-04-01, 82-08-03, and 82-08-06 had no expected duration; Permit 82-08-03 did not indicate the number of tags; several monthly audits performed since the issuance of be above permits did not identify the noted discrepancies; and in Panel WWP the lead to relay 3L-FW-VL was not tagged, three tags were attached to a terminal vice the lifted lead, and there were two lifted
'
leads (the white and green / black leads of cable M42-NNC046) with no i
tags on the right side of the panel. This item remains open.
(
.
- .
-
,
_
-5-
.
'
2.2.2(open)UnresolvedItemNo.(322/80-04-04): Vendor Procedures:
The licensee has revised the Startup Manual, paragraph 7.6.2 to require that the Joint Test Group review and approve any vendor procedure used for test activites. For the testing of the Carbon and HEPA filters the licensee has written and approved procedure CG.000.037 "In Place Testing of HEPA Filter and Carbon Adsorber Stage".
The inspector reviewed the procedure against the FSAR, ANSI N-510, and Re ulatory Guide (R.G.) 1.52, Rev. 2 and noted three minor discrepancies:
(1 an incorrect reference on enclosure 1, Table 1 to step 8.5; (2 a missing equation on enclosure 6, page 2; and (3) the procedure does not require that air flow be continued after the charcoal adsorber test till residual gas effluent is less than 0.01 ppm per R.G.1.52 paragraph C.5.d.
This item remains open.
2.2.3 (open) Violation No. (322/82-13-04): Test Program: Item 1 - The inspector reviewed Checkout & Initial Operations (C&IO) package number E11-254A dated August 5,1982, which perfomed the retests of relays E11*K45A and B and discussed the completeness of C&IO files with test engineers involved. No discrepancies were identified.
Item 2 -
The inspector reviewed C&IO package No. E11-254A which contained circuit a wiring checks in accordance with E&DCR P-363098. However, the inspector noted that as of September 7,1982 the Yellow Line Master drawing for 1.61-1361 had not yet been corrected.
Item 3 - Not reviewed yet.
This violation remains open.
3.
Plant Tour The inspector conducted periodic tours of accessible areas in the plant during nomal, backshift, and week-end 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 - Maintenance of required cleanness levels of systems under or following testing;
- Equipment Preservation - Maintenance of special precautionary measures for installed equipment, as applicablo;
- QA/QC surveillance - Pertinent construction and startup activities were being surveilled on a sampling basis by qualified QA/QC personnel;
- Security - Adequate site construction security;
- Weld Rod Control - Observations to detemine weld rod was being controlled per site procedures; and
- Component Tagging - Implementation of appropriate equipment tagging for safety, equipment protection, and jurisdiction.
Minor discrepancies identified were brought to the licensee's attention an,d were corrected.
i
-, _ - _ _
_ _ - _.
_
_
..
_ _ _ _ _.. _,
.
.
_. _ _.. _ _ __.__,
_
.-
.
-
.-
.
e
.
-6-
-
4.
Three Mile Island (TMI) Modifications 4.1 Reactor Core Isolation Coolino (RCIC) Automatic Restart This is item II.K.3.13 of NUREG-0737, " Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements".
In letter SNRC-744 dated July 29, 1982 the licensee stated that this item was ready for confirmatory review.
The inspector reviewed the completed RCIC Preoperational Test, PT.119.001-1, which verified the installation of the RCIC automatic
.
restart modification. The inspector also reviewed station operating i
and alarm response procedures for the RCIC system and noted that:
(1)SP.23.119.01, P.ev. O and ARP 1062, Rev. I were not revised after the modification, and (2) ARP 1248, Rev. O, Reactor High Water Level,
does not nention the HPCI or RCIC turbine trips. Additionally, the
inspector noted that prior to implementing this modification, all RCIC turbine trips gave the control room RCIC Turbire Tripped Alarm. This alarm scheme is still described in the FSAR, but has been degraded in the plant in that now a trip on high reactor water level (level 8)
i will not give the RCIC Turbine Tripped Alarm. The inspector stated that the intent of the TMI modification was not to remove existing alarm indications. This item remains open.
5.
Containment Purge Valve Operability Test
'
In letter SNRC-636 to the NRC the licensee committed to the performance of an In-Situ operability test of a six inch containment purge valve. These
,
!
valves are air-opened and spring-closed. This test was performed during the Structural Acceptance Test at a containment pressure of greater than 55 psig and demonstrated that the valve will close within 5 seconds as
!
required by SER Open Item No. 36 and II.E.4.2.
The insoector reviewed the test data, observed the valves in the plant (including the new debris screen I
at the inlet from the drywell), and discussed the test and valve arrangement with cognizant licensee personnel.
During the test, difficulty was experienced with the opening of one purge valve located inside the drywell due to
'
insufficient differential pressure. The test was performed satisfactorily using a valve physically located outside of the primary containment and it was determined that, had the inside valve been opened, it would close also.
This is because both sides of the valve diaphragm are vented during closure and the spring is the only closing force.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
6.
Construction Deficiency Reports In letters to the NRC dated November 30, 1981 and July 23, 1982 the licensee described a reportable deficiency involvingw(ater hammer loads affecting the Control Rod Drive (CRD) System at Shoreham Item No. 81-00-09). The inspector discussed various aspects of this problem with NRC regional management and with licensee representatives as follows. All design loads are to be specified by Stone & Webster (S&W), the licensee's Architect-Engineer. Also, the pipe stress analysis is to be performed by Stone & Webster. Pipe support design
.. _ _ _ - _..
.
.__
_
_
_ - _.
..
_
lO
.
.
.
-7-
_
will be performed by Reactor Controls, Inc. (RCI) using the S&W supplied loads. Both the licensee and S&W have sent design / engineering personnel to RCI to review the design process to be utilized for the CRD pipe supports.
Finally, the licensee has committed to performing an onsite design review of four CRD pipe supports: one modified support inside and one outside primary containment; and one unmodified support inside and one outside containment.
This item will receive further review and remains open.
7.
New Fuel Inspections The inspector observe'd the uncrating of new fuel from the metal shipping containers, the inspection of the new fuel, and the dry storage of the fuel in the fuel pool area.
During the witnessing the inspector noted that:
- License requirements were being met.
- Security measures were in place.
- Health physics controls were in place.
- Fire protection measures were being observed.
- Personnel were qualified.
- Inspections were performed per procedures and results were documented.
- Fuel assemblies were carefully handled.
A few discrepancies were identified by the new fuel inspectors which were typical of new fuel. These are scheduled for correction prior to use of the new fuel. Discussions with responsible personnel indicated that no mishaps had occurred during fuel handling and inspections. During the placement of the initial bundles in the fuel pool area, the inspector noted that the tag board already indicated the final position with all fuel assemblies in the pool. The licensee's representative agreed that the tag board should be i
maintained current as each fuel assembly was moved and changed the method j
of handling the tag board. Further inspections revealed no discrepancies.
l The inspector had no additional questions on inspection of new fuel at this tire.
!
8.
NRC Bulletins l
l Bulletin 80-04: This Bulletin, " Analysis of a PWR Main Steam Line Break with continued Feedwater Addition" involved an analysis discrepancy at a Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR). The licensee has reviewed this Bulletin and determined that it is not applicable to Shoreham, a Boiling Water Reactor.
This Bulletin is closed.
'
9.
Preoperational Test Program Implementation l
l During the inspection period the inspector observed portions of system and component testing, reviewed test documentation, held discussions with test engineers and startup management, observed equipment operation, reviewed the i
use and updating of controlled test procedures, and reviewed test organization and scheduling. No discrepancies were identified.
_ - -. _ _ _
_
.
..
_ __ _
..
__.
.
_
.
'
.
.
~
,
l-8-
.
10. Management Meetings At periodic intervals during the course of this inspection, meetings were held with licensee management to discuss the scope and findings of this inspection.
The resident inspector also attended selected entrance and exit interviews for four region-based inspections conducted during the inspection period.
Additionally, the inspector participated in the following meetings / reviews conducted with the licensee:
- Caseload Forecast Panel to review the licensee's current schedule.
- Meeting with LILCO President W. Uhl, et al. in Region I to discuss l
prerequisites for an operating license and other topics.
'
- NRR site visit to discuss post-accident discharge of radioactive material and secondary containment flooding.
l l
.
- - _., -.
_
__
-
.
.-
.
.
.
-
-
-.