IR 05000322/1983019
| ML20024B732 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/22/1983 |
| From: | Nimitz R, Shanbaky M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024B725 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-322-83-19, IEB-83-10, NUDOCS 8307110287 | |
| Download: ML20024B732 (10) | |
Text
.
-.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No. 50-322/83-19 Docket No. 50-322 License No. CPPR-95 Priority
-
Category B
Licensee:
Long Island Lighting Company 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville, New York 11801 Facility Name: Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Inspection At:
Shoreham, New York Inspection Conducted: May 31 - June 3, 1983 Inspectors:
hlI b\\72k83_
R. L. Nimitz, Senior Wadiation Specialist date
[ 42 h Approved by:
,M. f. Sh'ahtfaky',~Chigf, Facilities date- ' ' ~
,,
,2,
fadiation Protection Section Inspection Summary:
Inspection on May 31 - June 3,1983 (Report No. 50-322/83-19 Areas Inspected: Routine announced inspection of the licensee's preoperational testing of area, process and effluent radiation monitors; solid, liquid and gaseous radioactive waste systems; and the licensee's action on IE Bulletin 80-10. The inspection involvt.d 26 inspector-hours on site by one region-based inspector.
I Results: No violations were identified.
!
!
l 8307110287 830624 PDR ADOCK 05000322 C
,
-
.
. _.
- -
...
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted 1.1 Long Island Lighting
- L. Calone, Chief Technical Engineer
- J.
Curtis, Project Office
- N. DiMascio, Health Physics Engineer
- T. Gerecke, QA Manager
- M._Giannattasio,. Assistant Superintendent - Construction
- G. Gogates, Technical Support - Compliance
- J. Kelly, _ Field QA Manager
- R. Lawrence, Startup I&E Coordinator
- M. Miele, Corporate Health Physicist
- J. Morin, Supervisor, Regulatory Compliance
- A. Muller, Operations QA Engineer
- R. Purcell, Assistant Start-up Manager
- J. Rivello, Plant Manager
- J. Schmitt, Radiochemistry Engineer
- J. Smith, Manager - Special Projects
- R. Wittschen, Licensing Engineer 1.2 NRC
- J.Higgins, Senior Resident Inspector
- C. Petrone, Resident Inspector
- S. Richards, Reactor Inspector
- Denotes those present at the exit interview on June 3, 1983.
The inspector also contacted other personnel during the inspection.
2.
Purpose and Scope of Evaluation The purpose of this inspection was to verify that the licensee has con-ducted preoperational testing of the solid, liquid and gaseous waste systems to verify their operability and that the area radiation and effluent and process monitoring systems have been tested and calibrated.
Licensee test procedures were reviewed for technical adequacy to ensure adequate testing was performed and/or planned to satisfy licensee commitments and regulatory requirements. The implementation of licensee administrative controls for the tests was also reviewed.
Also reviewed was the licensee's action on certain previous inspection findings in the area of Radiation Protection and the licensee's actions on IE Bulletin No. 80-1..
.
3.
Licensee Action On Previous Inspection Findings 3.1 (Closed) Unresolved Item (50-322/80-10-03)
Documentation not available to indicate that the process monitoring system was capable of collecting representative samples. The licensee is estab-lishing a program.to determine the ability of the monitor to collect representative samples (details section 5.3).
3.2 (Closed) Follow-up Item (50-322/81-19-15)
Licensee to review procedures for making notifications required by 10 CFR 50.72 and to review the need to monitor pocket dosimeter and/or TLD badge loss rates. The inspector review of licensee p'rocedure SP No. 62.004.01, Revision 4, " Station Personnel Monitoring Program", dated April 8, 1983 indicated the procedure was revised to include adequate guidance for making the 10 CFR 20.403 notifications required by 10 CFR 50.72. The inspector review of licensee procedure SP No. 62.004.23', Revision 2,
" Investigation of Lost, Damaged, or Offscale Dosimetry", dated June 1, 1983, indicated the procedure was revised to provide for review of indi-vidual exposure records for identification of anomalies.
3.3 (Closed) Follow-up Item (50-322/81-19-16)
Licensee procedures for collection of previous personnel exposure data, preparation of personnel exposure records, and submittal of reports were, in certain areas, not consistent with 10 CFR 20. The licensee revised certain procedures and included guidance in other procedures to provide guidance consistent with 10 CFR 20 requirements. The inspector review indicated the procedures provided guidance consistent with 10 CFR 20 requirements.
3.4 (Closed) Follow-up Item (50-322/81-19-19)
NRC to review supplies of licensee portable and laboratory instrumentation
'
to determine if the instrumentation described in the Final Safety Analysis
.
I Report (FSAR) had been acquired.
The review indicated the licensee l
performed a comprehensive inventory of instrumentation and acquired i
additional instrumentation as needed to fullfill FSAR commitments.
3.5 (Closed) Follow-up Item (50-322/82-33-07)
NRC to review additional radiation survey and monitoring equipment acquired. This matter was reviewed in conjunction with Item No.
50-322/81-19-19 and is closed for administrative purposes.
l l
l
-
.
.
4-3.6 (Closed) Follow-up Item (50-322/82-33-08)
Licensee to revise High Radiation Area controls to be consistent with Technical Specifications. This item had been incorrectly numbered as item 50-322/82-33-02 in section 8.2 of report No. 82-33. The_ review indicated the licensee's High Radiation Area Control procedures h ve been revised to'be consistent with the latest draft Technical Specification 6.12, "High Radiation Area".
3.7 (Closed) Follow-up Item (50-322/82-20-02)
NRC to review process and effluent monitor testing, calibration, and range. determination. The licensee had not completed all testing at the time of Inspection 50-322/82-20. The review of these matters is discussed ir. section 5.3 of this report.
3.8 (Closed) Follow-up Item (50-322/82-20-08)
NRC to' review licensee preoperational testing of the liquid radioactive waste system. The licensee had not completed all testing at the time of Inspection 50-322/82-20. The review of this area is discussed in section 6.3 of this report.
3.9 (Closed) Follow-up Item (50-322/82-20-06)
The licensee's solid radioactive waste preoperational testing procedure did not contain all applicable acceptance criteria for solidification of radioactive waste. The licensee is currently reviewing and revising waste solidification test procedures to include applicable acceptance criteria (details section 6.2).
3.10 (Closed) Follow-up Item (50-322/82-20-07)
NRC to review licensee preoperational testing of the solid radioactive waste system. The licensee had not completed all testing at the item of Inspection No. 50-322/82-20. The review of this item is discussed in section 6.2 of this report.
3.11 (Closed) Follow-up Item (50-322/82-20-09)
NRC to review licensee preoperational testing of the gaseous waste system.
The licensee had not completed all testing at the time of Inspection 50-322/82-20.
The review of this item is discussed in section 6.4 of this report.
3.12 (Closed) Follow-up Item (50-322/82-20-01)
NRC to review preoperational testing of Area Radiation Monitors (ARMS).
The licensee had not established procedures for calibration of certain ARMS and had not completed calibration of others. The review of this area is discussed in section 5.2 of this repor.
.
'
3.13 (Closed) Follow-up Item (50-322/81-19-24)
The licensee'saliquid radioactive waste monitor system logic did not
' isolate the liquid effluent line on detector failure, The licensee issued a Repair / Rework Request on December 30, 1982. Review of the Rework Supervisory Work Review Summary indicated the logic was modified to provide closure on' detector failure. The isolation was tested and found acceptable on January 7, 1983.
4.
IE Bulletin 80-10 The inspector reviewed the status of licensee action on IE Bulletin
<
80-10 " Contamination of Nonradioactivi System and Resulting Potential for Unmonitored, Uncontrolled Release of Radioactivity to the Environment", dated May 6, 1980.
The review indicated the licensee is 'i,n the process of performing the
.
reviews and other actions required by the bulletin.
- The licensee's action on IE Bulletin 80-10 will be reviewed during a
.
subsequent inspection (50-322/83-19-01).
5.
. Area, Process and Effluent Radiation Monitor System Testing 5.1 General
'
'
,
The inspector reviewed area, process and effluent radiation monitor testing with respect to criteria contained in the following documents:
-
'FSAR Section 11.4, " Process and Area Radiation Monitoring System"
-
'FSAR Section 14, " Initial Tests and Operations" RegulatoryGuide1.68, Revision [0,"PreoperationalandInitial
-
Startup Test Programs for Water-Cooled Power Reactors"
ANSI-N13.10
.1974Property "ANSI code" (as page type) with input value "ANSI-N13.10</br></br>.1974" contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process., " Specification and Performance of On-Site
-
Instrumentation for Continuously Monitoring Radioactivity in Effluents" Shoreham Start-Up Manual
-
The licensee's performance relative to these criteria was determined by
-
review of test procedures, review of test data, review of systems, and discussions with cognizant licensee rep'resen'tatives.
-
.
,
%
~
-
c
-,m-g,=-
w
,
y
~*9
--
-
y
---:
,+
yn
'.'
.
~
,
The findings in this area are discussed below.
5.2 Area Radiation Monitors (ARMS)
The review of ARM preoperational testing and calibration indicated the licensee established additional-proceduresLfor performing these opera-tions. The review of test methodology, including dose rates used, in-dicated the system was adequately calibrated. Also, the system was functionally tested and found acceptable.
The review indicated the licensee has conducted preoperational testing of the ARMS in accordance with Final Safety Analysis Report commitments.
'
Because the calibrations and functional testing are becoming dated,
'
licensee representatives indicated the following:
the ARMS required to be in operation in accordance with Technical
.*
Specification requirements, will be retested in accordance with
_.
approved procedures by fuel load, to ensure compliance with
-
' Technical Specification surveillance requirements
.those ARMS not specifically listed in the Technical Specifications
will be retested in accordance with approved procedures, as neces-sary, by initial criticality to ensure their operability.
.
/
The inspector indicated the licensee's ARM calibration and testing with
.' respect to the above matters will be reviewed during a subsequent inspec-tion (50-322/83-19-02).
.
No violations'were idertified.
s 5.3 Process and Effluent Monitor Testing The review of process and effluent radiation monitor calibration and testing indicated the licensee has performed calibration of and tested the majority of the monitors in accordance ~with Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) commitments. The review however, indicated the licensee was recalibrating those process and effluent monitors with gamma scin-tillation detectors as a result of a change in the secondary calibration
' standard.
Inspector discussions with cognizant testing personnel in-dicated that the calibration methodology to be used appeared acceptable.
In.~ reviewing completed preoperational test procedures, the inspector
,
noted a number of open test-exceptions.
Some of the exceptions (e.g.
mounting of Main Steam Line Radiation Monitors) appeared to affect the
'
'
' ability of the process or effluent radiation monitor to peform its in-tended function.
Licensee representatives indicated that all open excep-
,
tions were being tracked and would be reviewed to ensure that those which affect the ability of the monitoring system to operate properly would be
.
cleared by fuel load.
- e i'i
)
A l
.
.
.
-Inspector discussions with cognizant testing personnel indicate that the range on some effluent monitors is slightly different than as described in the FSAR.
Licensee representatives indicated a change notice was being prepared and will be submitted to up date FSAR effluent monitor range data.
Inspector review of radiation monitor system (RMS) alarms and discussions with cognizant test personnel indicated the "re-flash" capability of certain RMS alarms had been defeated when the high-range post-accident monitoring system was tied into the alarm system. The licensee was aware of the matter and was taking steps to correct the situation by fuel load.
-
During_a previous inspection (50-322/82-19) it was determined that the licensee had not yet received data concerning charcoal collection effic-1ency for iodines at the respective relative humidity, temperature, and flow rate of the. sample steams.
Discussions with licensee representatives regarding this matter indicated this data had not yet been received but would be available by fuel load.
Discussions with licensee test representatives indicated some of the RMS calibration and test results were becoming dated and as a result may not meet the surveillance frequency specified in the Technical Specifications.
Licensee representatives indicated that the various process and effluent monitors of the RMS would be recalibrated and tested as necessary, using i'
approved procedures, to ensure compliance with Technical Specification requirements.
-During-review of effluent release paths from the station, the inspector noted that.the discharge of the Reactor Building Standby Ventilation Monitoring System did not exhaust to the station vent is indicated in Test Analysis Reports. The exhaust from the sampling system discharges
_
to the roof of the Control Building.
Inspector discussions with licensee representatives indicated the licensee was aware of the discharge location of the sample system and was in the process of performing a cost benefit analysis to determine if the discharge should be routed to the station t
"
vent to provide an elevated release.
Licensee representatives indicated that a change will be submitted to the FSAR to address the discharge location of the monitor and the Test Analysis Reports would be reviewed.
The inspector discussed the above with licensee representatives and indicated.that the licensee's action to resolve the following matters by fuel. load will be examined during a subsequent inspection (50-322/83-19-03):
- '
complete recalibration and retesting, as necessary, of process and
' effluent monitors equipped with gamma scintillation detectors y
--
.
.
clear open test exceptions for process and effluent monitors, as
+
necessary, to ensure ability of monitors to perform their intended function update FSAR to provide, as necessary, accurate description of
process and effluent monitor ranges
- ~
correct "re-flash" capability for Radiation Monitoring System obtain iodine collection efficiency data for iodine sample
cartridges used in process and effluent monitor sampling system complete.recalibration and retesting of affected process and
effluent monitors to ensure compliance with Technical Specification surveillance frequency requirements update FSAR to describe Reactor Building Standby Ventilation Moni-e toring System sample discharge.
In addition to.the above, the inspector noted that the licensee was in the process of establishing a program to determine the ability of the airborne radioactivity effluent monitoring systems to collect representative samples. The licensee also is including the Drywell Atmosphere Sampling System in this program. The inspector indicated that the licensee's efforts in determining the ability of the monitors to obtain representa-tive samples will be' reviewed during.a subsequent inspection (50-322/83-19-04).
No violations were identified.
6.-
Solid, Liquid, and Gaseous' Radioactive Waste System Testing 6.1 General The inspector reviewed Solid, Liquid, and Gaseous Radioactive Waste System Testing with respect to. criteria contained in the following documents:
-
FSAR Section ll, " Radioactive Waste Management" FSAR Section 14, Initial Tests and Operations"
-
Regulatory Guide.l.68, Revision 0, "Preoperational and Initial
-
Startup Test Programs for Water-Cooled Power Reactors" Shoreham Start-up Manual
-
The licensee's performance relative to these criteria was determined by review of test procedures, review of test data, review of systems, and
-
discussions with cognizant licensee representatives.
...
_
n
.
The findings in this area are discussed below.
6.2 Solid Radioactive Waste System Testing.
Inspector discussions with cognizant licensee testing representatives indicated solid radioactive waste system testing was on going. The licensee has completed functional testing of the system but remafns to complete a solidification test using_new acceptance criteria which is to be incorporated into the test procedure.
The inspector indicated that the licensee's solid radioactive waste system testing will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
(50-322/83-19-05).
No violations were identified.
6.3 Liquid Radioactive Waste System Testing Documents Reviewed i
PT 710.001, " Low Conductivity Liquid Radwaste", dated November 21,
1980 PT 711.001, "High Conductivity Liquid Radwaste System", dated August
26, 1980 PT 716.001, " Recovery Sample Tank Liquid Radwaste System", dated
November 25, 1980'
PT 717.001, " Liquid Radwaste Discharge Sample Tanks", dated November
25, 1980 PT 718.001, " Liquid Radwaste Spent Resin, dated December 31, 1982
PT 712.001, " Liquid Chemical Waste Preop Test", dated July 15, 1981
The inspector review indicated the licensee has performed preoperational testing of the major portion of the Liquid Radioactive Waste System to demonstrate that the system is ready for operation.
The review identified several matters which will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection. These matters are as follows (50-322/83-19-06):
The acceptance criteria of PT 710.001 were not consistent with test
objectives presented. The acceptance criteria identified a different tank and pump system than presented in the test objective.
.
., = -
--
__.
..
.
. - -
..
-
- o.
.
+
10
.
An osan test exeption exists for PT 717.001-dealing with High Alarm
isolation logic.
Moisture separators were not installed in the waste or regenerative
evaporators.
The separators are to be installed and the system.
<
retested.
An Engineering and Design Coordination Report, dealing with inadver-
tant releases from the Sample Tank Room, indicated the amount of liquid radioactive waste to be held up in the room would.not con,
stitute a health and safety hazard in the event of a' release.
The
. Sample Tank room is located.in such a manner that. liquid could be
,
released from the room in the event of a tank rupture.
The sccept-ability of the licensee's response for this matters will be discussed
'
with the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and will be
' reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
No violations were identified.
-6.4 Gaseous Radioactive Waste System Testing
' Documents Reviewed-
' CS 714.001, " Preliminary Leak Check and Purge of the Off-Gas System
Sacrifical Beds, Cyclic Dryer Beds, and Charcoal Tanks", dated January 11, 1983 CS.714.002, "Radwaste Off-Gas System - Helium Leak Check", dated
. March 1, 1983 PT 714.001, "Radwaste'Off-Gas System", dated April 19, 1983
The. inspector review of the Gaseous Radioactive Waste System testing indicates that the testing is on-hold due.to system back pressure The back pressure is causing loop-seals to be blown out.
The licensee
- is reviewing the problem and has initiated corrective. action for the back pressure problem.
The1 inspector stated that the licensee's actions to correct the problem and complete required testing will be reviewed during a subseqtmnt inspec-tion _(50-322/83-19-07).
.
Exit Meeting-The-inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in section 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on June 3, 1983.
The inspector sum-marized the purpose,-scope and findings of the. inspection.
.
.