IR 05000322/1983020
| ML20024D805 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/15/1983 |
| From: | Bettenhausen L, Nicholas H, Pullani S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024D802 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-322-83-20, NUDOCS 8308080240 | |
| Download: ML20024D805 (9) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No. 50-322/83-20 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: June 14 - 17, 1983 Inspectors: W.7I.
[3 H. H.-Nicholas, eactor Inspector d4te signed
%.%. %
L~
9/WP3 S. V. Pullani, Reactor Insp(ctor dat.e signed Approved by:
M/
M L. H. Be~ttenhausen, Chief, Test Programs date signed Section Inspection Summary:
Inspection on June 14 - 17, 1983 (Report No. 50-322/83-20)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of licensee's action on previous inspection findings; preoperational test program including diesel generator test witnessing,-. diesel generator problem followup, diesel generator operational review program; and tours of the facility. The inspection involved.32 inspector-hours on site by one region-based inspector, and 16 inspector-hours in office by one region-based inspector reviewing the summary report on leakage rate testing.
Results: No violations were identified.
8300000240 830725 PDR ADOCK 05000322 O
____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -..
,
.
.
Details 1.
Persons' Contacted Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO)
J. Kelly, Field QA Manager
- R. Purcell, Assistant Startup Manager A. Todoro, QA Inspector E. Youngling, Startup Manager
- R. Wittschen, Licensing
W. Cook, Startup Engineer
- J. Kammeyer, Assistant Chief Site Engineering
- W. Matejek, Project Advisory Engineer T. McCarthy, Startup Engineer
- T. Paulantonio, lead Startup Engineer N. Rudikoff, Senior Power Engineer
- General Electric Corporation (GE)
,
,
K. Nicholas, Lead Startup Engineer J. Reilly, Operations Manager Transamerica Delaval Corporation (TAD)
.
M. McHugh, Customer Service Engineer R. Gioranelli, Parts Sales Coordinator R. D. Jacobs and Associates (JA)
R. Jacobs, Consulting Engineer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
- C. Petrone, Resident Inspector
- denotes those present at exit interview on June 17, 1983.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved Item (50-322/82-17-02) Venting of Containment Liner Weld Channels NRC:NRR reviewed the licensee submittals on this item and found that the licensee's proposal for not venting the channels during ILRT acceptable subject to the condition that the plant Technical Specifications include
.
.
.
provisions to require periodic verification that the plugs on the channels are installed during the life of the plant (see NRR to Region I letter, Novak'to Starostecki, Subject: Shoreham Operating License Review, May 9, 1983, Attachment 1, Item 15).
This item is now resolved.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-322/82-32-01) Test Result Modifications for the LLRT Results The licensee completed the following actions to resolve this item:
1.
Penetrations X-108, X-11, and X-21A not Type C tested prior to the ILRT were tested subsequently and the test results were reported in Attachment 4A of the Summary Technical Report (STR) submitted to the Commission.
2.
The licensee performed an LLRT instrument error analysis and included it in Section 3.3.2 of the STR.
3.
The licensee applied appropriate correction for LLRTs conducted at pressures lower than the nominal value and reported in Section 4 of the STR.
The inspector reviewed the test result modifications for the LLRT results and found them to be acceptable. This item is resolved.
(Cicsed) Unresolved Item (50-322/82-32-02) Test Result Modifications for the ILRT Results The licensee applied the following corrections and modifications to the preliminary ILRT results and reported these corrections in the STR as described below:
f 1.
Corrections for systems not vented and drained during the ILRT (see l
Sections 3.3.2 and 4 and Attachment 48 of the STR).
2.
Corrections for systems not in proper lineup during the ILRT (see Sections 3.3.2 and 4 and Attachment 4B of the STR).
3.
The licensee determined that the water levels inside the containment did not change during the ILRT and therefore, no corrections were required for changes in free containment air volume during the test (see Section 3.3.2, Item 3i11 of the STR).
4.
The licensee revised the initial Instrument Selection Guide (ISG)
calculation to account for the instrument failures during the ILRT.
The inspector reviewed these items and found them to be acceptable. This item is resolved.
$;
.
.
l
.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-322/82-32-03) Valve Packing Leaks Not Identi-fied During LLRT
'The licensee. identified air-operated butterfly valves IT46-A0V-38D and 390 located on the suppression pool purge lines to be in this category. The licensee's corrective action plan is to modify the LLRT procedure for these valves, which are currently reverse tested, to require pressurization from the containment side of the valves.
Such revised LLRT procedure will de-tect packing leaks as observed during the ILRT. This is described in Sec-tion 2.1.3 of STR. The inspector reviewed the corrective action plan and found it acceptable. This item is resolved.
- 3.
. Review of ILRT Summary Technical Report 3.1 -Discussion During December 7 through 10, 1982, Shoreham Nuclear Power "i.ation performed a preoperational' containment ILRT as required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix J.
A region-based inspector witnessed this test, as documented in Inspection Report 50-322/82-32. As required by Ap-pendix J,-the licensee submitted a Summary Technical Report (STR)
on March 10, 1983. The inspector review the STR.
The scope and findings of the review are described below.
'3.2 Scope The scope of review was to ascertain that the information in the report was' technically adequate and satisfied the reporting require-ments of 10 CFR 50, Appendix J.
-
3.3 Findings Based on the above review, the inspector closed the Unresolved Items noted in Paragraph 2.
The information given in the STR was found to be technically adequate and satisfied the reporting requirements.
-The inspector did not identify any unacceptable conditions.
4.
.Preoperational Test Program References:
SNPS Final Safety Analysis Report
--
SNPS Startup Manual
--
--
SNPS Safety Evaluation Report, NUREG-0420, and Supplements 1, 2 and 3
--
SNPS Project Schedules SNPS Startup Procedure Status Listing
--
SNPS Startup Monthly Program Report
--
RG 1.68, Initial Test Programs for Water Cooled Reactor Power Plants
--
--
RG 1.6, Independence Between Redundant Standby (Onsite) Power Sources and Their Distribution System
-
-
..
.-.
. -.,
,
,
.
.
..
RG 1.9, Selection, Design, and Qualification of Diesel Generator
--
Units as Standby (0nsite) Electric Power Systems RG 1.30, Quality Assurance Requirements for the Installation,
--
Inspection, and Testing of Instrumentation and Electrical Equipment
--
RG 1.32, Criteria for Safety-Related Electric Power Systems for Nuclear Power Plants RG 1.41, Preoperational Testing of Redundant Onsite Electric Power
---
Systems to Verify Proper Load Group Assignments RG 1.75, Physical Independence of Electric Systems
--
--
RG 1.93, Availability of Electric Power Sources RG 1.100, Seismic Qualification of Electric Equipment for Nuclear
--
Power Plants RG 1.108, Periodic Testing of Diesel Generator Units Used as Onsite
--
Electric Power Systems
--
RG 1.118, Periodic testing of Electric Power and Protection Systems 4.1 Diesel Generator Set Test Witnessing 4.1.1 Scope:
During this inspection pericd, the inspector witnessed five emergency diesel generator (EDG) qualification test runs of EDG set 101. The purpose of this test is to verify the qualification of emergency diesel generator 101 with respect to starting and loading reliability.
It consists of starting and loading the diesel to at least 1,750 KW and operating the diesel at load for at least one hour, 23 consecutive times without a failure.
Witnessing by the inspector during these tests included review of overall crew performance as reflected in the following observations:
--
Approved procedures with' latest revision available and in use by test personnel,
--
Designated person in charge and conducting the test,
--
Minimum test personnel requirements met, Test prerequisites met,
--
--
Proper ple.nt supporting systems in service,
--
Special test equipment required by test procedure calibrated and in service, Testing performed as required by test procedure,
--
--
Test personnel actions appeared to be correct and timely during performance of test,
--
Data was collected for final analysis by proper personnel, and, Periodic observation and notation of generator loads and
--
parameters of the diesel engines and supporting systems including temperatures, times, and vibration was mad.
.
'4.1.2 Findings:
Through observations, records review, independent calculations and performance evaluation of licensee personnel involved in testing of the EDG's, the inspector verified that testing was conducted in accordance with approved procedures that included the licensee's test commitments and regulating requirements.
The inspector verified the acceptability of test results for these test runs witnessed.
During the period of witnessing EDG 101 test runs, the inspector observed that the exhaust lines leaving the exhaust header, and the housing of the exhaust driven turbo-charger, are offering an exposed hot area to surrounding oil lines. The inspector recorded surface temperatures on these exposed areas at 780 -
800 F during the test runs.
If this exposed hot area (which exists on all three engines) were to be sprayed by oil during operation, it could ignite the oil and is a fire hazard. This concern was brought to the attention of the licensee's repre-sentatives who acknowledged the finding and committed to cor-rect this condition. This is Unresolved Item 50-322/83-20-01 wilI be fo11 owed up on a subsequent inspection. The inspector had no further questions on these particular test runs.
4.2 Independent Measurements and EDG Vibration Followup 4.2.1 Scope:
One of the inspector's concerns on previous inspections was the vibration problem that might possibly exist with all three of the EDG sets. The licensee undertook a vibration
analysis and problem correction program to see if, and to what extent, vibration existed, and if failures experienced during testing were from vibration or other root causes.
This study is still in progress and the results of which, will be presented to the NRC at the end of June.
During this period of test witnessing, the inspector conducted independent measurements for various temperatures and vibra-tions.
For a sampling of temperatures, the inspector used a calibrated contact type precision platinum thermometer model 33-100 made by Wahl Instruments. Temperature readings were takc.. for lube oil to and from the engine, jacket water to and from the engine, service water in and out of cooler, inlet air from turbocharger driven air compressor to cooler, and, exhaust lines to, and housing of, exhaust driven turbocharger. All temperatures that were independently verified were within design limits and/or operating limit..
.
In the area of vibration, the inspector conducted independent measurements for vibration at specific points on the engine and generator. The inspector used a calibrated portable hand held vibration meter model 306 made by IRD Mechanalysis. The vibration measurements taken were overall vibration readings which are the vector sum of all the vibrations at the point the pickup is applied. Two terms used to describe vibration measurements are displacement and velocity. Displacement is the term used when measuring vibration in terms of how far the-part moves back and forth, and is measured in mils. Velocity is the term used when measuring vibration in terms of how fast the part moves, and is measured in inches per second.
The points of contact for the vibration readings taken on EDG 101 were at the top of each of the eight cylinder heads; at the upper foundation near the bottom of each cylinder block and at the lower foundation below each cylinder block on both the right and left sides of the engine; and, on the generator bearing in the right, left, and top radial direction including
_
the end of the generator bearing in the axial direction.
4.2.2 Findings:
In the area of the cylinder heads, the average displacement reading was four mils; on the right and left hand side upper foundation near bottom of cylinder block, the average displace-ment reading was two mils; on the right and left hand side lower foundation below each cylinder block, the average dis-placement reading was one' mil; and, on the generator bearing the average displacement reading in the radial direction was-three mils, while in the axial direction it was seven mils.
All ancilliary system lines, component instrument lines, instru-l ments, supports and attachments were relatively vibration free i
for the test runs witnessed..~The inspector verified'the perfor-l mance of EDG 101 by reviewing data being taken, observation of
!
operating parameters being within normal tolerance bands, the l
starts and stops of each run, and, vibration being well below l
any allowable limits of' concern. The inspector verified the i
acceptability of test results of the ' completed qualification i
test runs of EDG 101 that were witnessed. The inspector had no further questions on this particular set of test runs.
'
4.3 EDG Operational Review Program l
4.3.1 Scope:
The inspector met with the licensee's representatives and
,
discussed the status of their task group compilation of the
'
problems and occurrences that have beset the emergency diesel
!
l
-.
..
.
generators, 'some of which are documented in NRC Inspection Report 50-322/83-07. The EDG operational review program has analyzed the following areas for presentation to the NRC.
(1) Identification.
This area identifies the major system designation for the particular item.
(2) Classification This area classifies the item as a normal or maintenance item, previously reported item, product improvement item, problem with equipment item or a problem with ancilliary system item.
(3) Categorization This area categorizes items as design or design control, QC/QA, physical differences, technical document defi-ciency, product improvement change, field modification, operator induced, or installation maintenance activity.
(4) Solutions This area. identifies solution as repair-rework, repair part, replacement part (same), add new or additional part (different), or construction related by maintenance, inspection or voided item.
(5) Vibration
This area identifies vibration related failure or occurrence.
The inspector also discussed this area of problems, occur-rences, solutions, and the operation of the EDG sets with the two Transamerica Delaval representatives, and the Jacobs Associates consultant for LILCO, who were on site during this inspection.
4.3.2 Findings:
This presentation made to the inspector on June 16, 1983, was preliminary in' nature and included corrective actions taken to date.
The formal presentation of documented findings will be'made to the NRC on. June 30, 1983, in Region I.
Based upon discussions, observations and preliminary reviews of documents by the NRC of the licensee's repair program of the EDG's, and the continued testing of the EDG's such as the
-
.
=
r
-
m
, u
.
e
-
- "
,#
-
<
4.
successful completion of the EDG qualification tests, it
appears that most of the-EDG problems have been. solved.
The additional testing and accumulation of successful
-
. running hours on the EDG sets are gradually confirming the reliability of the EDG's, although the EDG qualification tests are at relatively low electrical loads.
A~ final-review and assessment will be made by the NRC staff,
.when the licensee completes all EDG testing and presents the
-
- --
final documented summary of the task group findings to the NRC.
.
5..
Plant Tours
- The inspector made several tours of the facility during the course of the
' inspection.. The. tours included the containment drywell, reacter building, turbinef building, control room, emergency switch gear rooms, battery rooms,
.i^
diesel generator rooms,-fuel oil transfer pump room, recirculation pump MG set. rooms, auxiliary boiler room, screen well house and circulating water pump area.
.
'The inspector followed up on discussion items, witnessed testing in pro-gress, observed work in progress, housekeeping and cleanliness, storage
_
and. protection of. components and equipment, and included inspection of previous observations and concerns.
No items of noncompliance were ob-served during these: tours.
,
6.
Unresolved Items Unresolved 11tems are matters about which more information is required to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, violations or deviations.
'
- An unresolved. item resulting from the inspection is discussed in Section 4.
-
.
t
'
,
7..
Exit. Interview.
d
,
,m At the. conclusion.of the site inspection on June 17, 1983, an exit meeting
, as, conducted ~with the licensee's senior site representatives (denoted in w
~ Paragraph 1). The. inspector sunnarized the scope and findings of the
'
inspection. " Previous inspections in this area were also discussed.
<
,
?
<
A I
-
~b_,.,
- 1
.~.
..
_ _. _, _ _ _ _ _
.__m.__,
.
.
.
.
. ~.
.
._,
'
-