IR 05000322/1985029

Insp Rept 50-322/85-29 on 850706-26.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Startup Test Program,Including Startup Test Witnessing & Startup Test Results Evaluation & Licensee Action on Previous Insp Findings

ML20137M030
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	08/27/1985
From:	Eselgroth P, Florek D, Petrone C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20137L970	List: IR 05000322/1985029 ML20137L965
References
50-322-85-29, NUDOCS 8509130120
Download: ML20137M030 (11)

Text

- , . . - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ - -_

.

.

!

, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report No. 50-322/85-29 Docket N License N NPF-36 Category C

! Licensee: Long Island Lighting C East Old Country Road Hicksville, New York 11801

,

Facility Name: Shoreham Nuclear Power Station

, Inspection At: Shoreham, New York i

Inspection Conducted: July 6-26, 1985 Inspectors: [ wM 7 8T

D.Florek,LeadRg4ctorEngineer date

!

St & Yda t'e SC C. Petrone, eadReaftorEngineer Approved by:

P. Eselg , - Chief, Test Programs 7[8[

date Section B, DRS Inspection Summary: Inspection on July 6-26, 1985 (Inspection Report No. 50-322/85-29)

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the startup test program; including startup test witnessing, startup test results evaluation; licensee action on previous inspection findings; licensee actions on July 13, 1985 reactor scram; licensee actions regarding the reactor water level indication divergence; QA/QC interfaces; independent measurements / calculations; and tours

.

of the facility. The inspection involved 192 hours0.00222 days <br />0.0533 hours <br />3.174603e-4 weeks <br />7.3056e-5 months <br /> onsite by-two region based inspector Results: No violations were identified.

!

!

l 8509130120 850906 gDR ADOCM 05000322'

PDR

__

-e- - - --- a - + - er- = p% - ---- 1_m.g, y -,,y g -w mm + p *-m-e v 9-? -----w-

- . - . - _ . . - - _- - -. --

.

.

DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted Long Island Lighting Company and Contractors D. Bouchie, Lead STD and A Engineer

• R. Grunseich, Supervisor Nuclear Licensing

• • A. Himle, PATP Test Coordinator

,

R. Lawrence, Project Advisory _ Engineer

• L. Lewin, Modifications and Outage Manager

• • R. Macina, Reactor Engineer

• A. Mullen, QC Division Manager

• J. Notaro, QA Department Manager S. Petty, QC Supervisor

• =G. Rhodes, Compliance Engineer

• J. Riley, GE Ops Manager

• C, Rowe, QA Supervisor

• • J. Scalice, Operations Manager W. Steiger, Plant Manager

..* = Sutor, Compliance Engineer

• D. Terry, Maintenance Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• Conner, Project Engineer l * Denotes those present at management meeting on July 15, 1985

• Denotes those present at exit meeting on July 26, 1985

The inspector also contacted several other licensee personnel in the course of the inspection including Watch Engineers, other shift operations personnel, startup test shift personnel and members of the technical staff.

4 Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings

(0 pen) Unresolved Item (322/85-28-01) Completion of open vessel testing

results review, definition of plateau review activities prior to proceed-i ing into the next test condition and, activities for removal _of a plant hold following a Level I startup test exceptio The inspector' reviewed a draft of the proposed change to SP-12.075.01

" Administration of Startup Testing" Revision 10. This draft requires

<

independent review of startup test sections, technical review committee (TRC) review of completed test sections and defines the plateau review

'

activitie It also defines the activities necessary to remove a plant-hold due to a Level _1 startup test exception. The licensee has imple-mented the draft procedure while the formal change is being processe The licensee had completed the reviews, as defined in the draft procedure,

}

_- ~ - . . ,, _

. . - . . . - _ . . .- - . . = - . . - . ., . - - _ . - . = _ _ . _-

.

,

,

i

. 3 i

i for the open vessel testing. STP-17 Section 8.4 and STP-811 Section which obtain data at both open vessel and heatup test condition will be assessed by the licensee in the heatup phase. The licensee was observed

to have followed their defined actions when they encountered a Level 1 i test exception during the thermal expansion startup test. The licensee

, action was disciplined and controlled and the test exception resolution i was technically adequate to remove the plant from the established hol Licensee QA personnel review of the draft changes to the administrative program identified a concern regarding timeliness of QA review of com-pleted test sections. The startup organization will provide completed ,

test section packages to QA as they are completed. Based on the above,  ;

, the proposed draft was acceptable. However, pending approval of the changes to the administrative procedure, this item will remain ope .0 Startup Test Program References:

'

Shoreham Nuclear Power Station (SNPS), Final Safety Analysis Report

• SNPS Safety Evaluation Report

Regulatory Guide 1.68 " Initial Test Programs" for Water Cooled Reactor Power Plants"

SNPS Power Ascension Phase Planning Schedule

!

SP-12.075.01 " Administration of Startup Testing"

ANSI N18.7-1976 " Administrative Controls and Quality Assurance for the Operational Phase of Nuclear Power Plants 3.1 Startup & Surveillance Test Witnessing

,

The inspector witnessed a portion of STP-6 "SRM Performance", STP-12

"ARPM Calibration", STP-14 "RCIC", and HPCI Surveillance testin The inspector also witnessed operational activities being per-formed in support of the startup test The ' tests were witnessed to assess: procedure of appropriate revision is available and in use by all crew members; minimum crew requirements were met; prerequisites and initial conditions were met; test equipment was calibrated and operable per procedure; pro-cedures were technically correct; crew actions were correct and timely; coordination was adequate; and, there was'a quick summary 1 analysis of all data collected subsequent to the tes Discussion:

An official test copy was available in the control room for the

tests. The licensee had an adequate number of personnel in the control room to conduct the startup test and monitor plant perform-r

.

.. -

_ - . . _ -

.

.

ance. The inspector observed on several occasions that the licensee did not attempt to perform a startup test until they were certain they had the adequate number of personnel. The tests witnessed were performed at the proper initial condition Test equipment was i operable.

?

The inspector observed that plant operation and startup activities at the beginning of the inspection period would frequently encounter a procedure step that was not capable of being performed at the I current plant conditions and as such a procedure change was required to proceed. Based on this, the licensee instituted a review of the upcoming startup and operation procedures, prior to use, to assure that the procedures were technically compatible for_the current plant condition. Since the licensee has instituted this review, the in-spector has not observed a need to make a procedure change in the middle of an activity.

l In the beginning of the inspection period, the licensee management and inspector jointly observed that coordination between the startup and operations personnel needed improvement. The licensee instituted additional shift briefings between startup and operations personnel to discuss completed testing, current plant status; current plant problems and the proposed testing on shift. This briefing was to take place prior to the personnel assuming shift duty and was con-ducted by selected shift personnel. Following institution of the briefing, coordination between startup and operations was effectiv The inspector also observed the startup personnel conductirig specific briefings for the operation personnel for a specific startup tes The shift test personnel were observed collecting the test data and performing the analysis of the data as required by the procecur For the tests witnessed the inspector observed that the data was

!

collected and the tests satisfied the acceptance criteria.

!' Findings:

No violations were identifie .2 Test Results Evaluation

i Scope Each completed startup test listed in the discussion section was reviewed to assess that

i Each was approved in accordance with administrative procedures; test changes were annotated and completed if appropriate; basic test ob-

i

. - . _ , , - - - . . - - -- - . . - - -

, . . - _ _ - . . . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

'

l

'

-

,-

r jectives were met; changes and test exceptions were noted; test

exceptions were resolved and accepted by management; retests were completed if required; system or process change necessitated by a test deficiency were properly documented and reviewed; prope reporting of deficiencies; data sheets were completed; data was within tolerances; test steps' and data sheets were properly signed and dated; engineering evaluation of test data; test results were compared with established acceptance criteria; documented review and acceptance of test results; offsite review committee and followup if audited; QA or independent review of test results; and test results

,

have been approved by appropriate managemen Discussion

.

The inspector verified that independent review and completion of technical review committee (TRC) review of the following open vessel i

test results sections was completed: STP-1 Section 8.1, STP-2 t

'

Section 8.1 pre and post fuel load, STP-5 Sections 8.1/8.2/8.3, STP-6 Section 8.1/8.2, STP-10 Section 8.1, STP-17 Section 8.1 and, STP-811 i

Sections 8.1/8.4. The inspector also verified that completed

] startup test procedures STP-3 and STP-4 had been reviewed by the 1 review of operations committee (ROC) and were currently being

reviewed by Quality Assurance prior to approval by the Plant Manager. Tne inspector also reviewed STP-817 " Rod Drive Piping

, Vibration" and noted that QC identified a concern regarding release j of the procedure for use. One test exception was identified and was i processed in accordance with the administrative procedure.

i The inspector reviewed the following completed heatup phase ,

l testing. The test result sections were' reviewed by the inspector

! prior to completion of.the specified licensee review.

l

---

STP-6 "SRM Performance and Control Room Sequence" Test implemented July 7,-1985

l All data was collected and found to be acceptabl STP-10 Section 8.2 "IRM Performance,"

i Test implemented July 7,1985 t

Range 6-7 Overlap satisfied acceptance criteria

---

STP-12 Section 8.1 "APRM Calibration"

! Test implemented July 8,1985 and July 15, 1985

The inspector reviewed the initial performance of STP-12 on July 8, i 1985. The inspector performed independent calculations using data recorded by the inspector during.the performance of STP-12 and l compared the licensee evaluation to the inspector's. The inspector

,

.

concluded that licensee "as left" APRM adjustments resulted in the

. .

,-c- g y ?-m++m,wc.-- -,, -3w+c +- %----J- t5--J - -+ tmi-1 -, -- M - - - - - -- w m- n+ -?

. . _ _ . - _ _ _ -__ _ _ _ _ _ _ .. _ __ - _ _ _

.

,

i

'

APRM conservatively indicating core thermal power. The initial settings resulted in APRM F having an extremely conservative APRM

"as left" setting and thus resulted in a reperformance of the APRM heatup rate calibratio The licensee repeated STP-12 on July 15, 1985 after performing maintenance on APRM The inspector again independently calculated the required APRM gain d

adjustment factors using the licensee data and concluded that the j APRM's are adjusted to read equal to or greater than actual core 1 thermal power. However, during the review the inspector observed

, that the calculations utilized data from a different time span than j was indicated in the test procedure. The independent evaluation by i the licensee also identified this in parallel with the inspector.

The inspector's independent calculations identified that the overall conclusion of the test was not affected by use of a different data set.

!

---

STP-14 "RCIC CST-CST at 150 psig" j Test implemented July 12, 1985  ;

_

i The test was conducted at a reactor pressure of 158 psig. No

instabilities were noted in the controller response as' required.

!

RCIC satisfied the test acceptance criteria for this test condition.

i The inspector noted that real time plots were contained in the test

! package. The inspector questioned the adequacy of using the real time plots for analysis of controller response in lieu of the more precise "off line" plots. The licensee acknowledged that."off line" plots should be used for this purpose and would do so. This did not have a direct effect of analysis of test results for this test con-ditio STP-26 Section 8.1 " Relief Valve Testing" Three test exceptions were identified and processed in accordance with the administrative procedure. The test exceptions resolutions j were acceptable and similar to other BWR plant startup test excep- ,

tions for relief valves at 150 psi '

The inspector also reviewed in process data collection of STP-17 and 811 relating to thermal expansion data for the Nuclear Steam Suppl System (NSSS) and Balance-of-Plant (80P). ,

Findings No violations were identifie '

4.0 July 13,1985 Reactor Scram

.The inspector was in the control room and witnessed the licensee-response to loss of a condensate booster pump and the resultant reactor scram on

,

.

m. 4 --e , -,w~- .-~,, . . ~ - . - - w - ,-- , - - - . , , , - - , , - m - +

.

.-

low water level. The following is a summary of post scram data and direct observations by the inspector:

Approx. 0950 hrs. % inch air line to condensate booster pump "A" minimum flow valve-ruptures and valve closes leaving the condensate booster pump without minimum flow protection. Condensate booster pump "B" was tagged out of service due to maintenance being performed on the "B" minimum flow valve. Other failures on the air supply to the minimum flow valves had occurred prior to this event apparently due to vibration caused by continued operation at low feedwater injection flows into the vessel. The condensate booster and feedwater systems are not safety relate hrs. 9 se In anticipation of. turning off the "A" condensate booster pump, power was reduced by inserting control rods. Reactor pressure was 159.9 psi hrs. 26 secs. Condensate booster pump "A" turned off. . Condensate pump alone cannot develop sufficient discharge press-ure to inject against reactor pressure. The CRD pump flows are tne only source of-water injecting onto the vesse hrs. 41 se Due to the reduction in power the turbine bypass valve closed. Other steam loads were being secured or transferred to other source hrs. 56 se h scram obtained, level stabilized at 20" on "A" side indicators. Operator increased CRD flow. Level appeared to be stabilize hrs. 1 se Reactor scram occurs. All rods inserted automatic--

all Lowest water level noted on the "A" chart Recorder was 14 inches following reactor scra (Based on the level divergence problem, see section 5, this is probably 6 inches).

1009 hrs. 12 se Operators close the main steam isolation valves to control the cool down rat Following the event the level was restored to normal and the scram rese The licensee corrective actions included a modification to the air supply to the "A" condensate booster pump minimum flow valve with a change of material plus additional flexibility'of the. air supply. The inspectors evaluation of.the operators response to the event concluded that the operator actions were proper. The inspector also evaluated the licensee post scram activities as described in SP-21.003.01 " Operations Reports",

Revision 4 dated March 21, 1985. The inspector concluded that the ac-

_

.

'

.

tivities were properly performed but noted that the Shift Technical Ad-visor role in the review of the scram report was not initially conducted at the necessary level of detail. Specifically, the Shift Technical Ad-visor (STA) did not thoroughly review the available chart recorders to establish if the event sequence was acceptable. The STA did re perform his assessment utilizing the available post scram documentation and con-clude the sequence of events was explainabl Findings No violations were identifie .0 Reactor Water Level The licensee had observed a divergence in the "A" and "B" side level in-dications during the plant heatup when reactor temperatures reached approximately 250*F. The inspector observed a major portion of the licensee actions and activities to resolve the divergence. The licensee had noted differences which ranged from 4-10 inches and appeared to in-crease as reactor pressure was increase Prior to the reactor scram that occurred on July 13, 1985, the licensee had begun an investigation of the divergence in level indications. The licensee utilized the technical expertise of various on site work groups plus General Electric personnel from San Jose, California. Following the reactor scram the licensee refilled the reference legs and monitored level performance on the subsequent heatu On July 19, 1985 the licensee shut down the reactor to determine the cause of the inconsistencies in the reactor vessel level indication between the "A" and the "B" side instrument lines. Evaluation by the licensee indicated that the level problems were most likely caused by air trapped in the vessel instrument line On July 19, 1985 the licensee issued temporary procedure TP 41.012.03,

" Reactor Vessel Instrument Line Flush", Revision 0, and temporary proced-ure changes TPC 85-548 and TPC 85-549. The inspector reviewed the pro-cedure and noted that it appeared to contain adequate instructions to flush the reactor vessel'"A" and "B" side instrument lines. Appropriate precautions, prerequisites, limitations, and procedure step signoffs were included. On July 20 the inspector observed portions of the flushing of the "A" reference leg and verified the preshift briefing was adequate, instruments were properly calibrated, and the procedure steps were being

.followed and signed off as required. The inspector also observed the use of an ultrasonic probe for detecting air bubbles in the stainless steel instrument lines and noted that the method appeared to give a clear in-dication of the presence of air in the instrument lines. The instrument line flush was complete . _ _ .. _ . _ _ - _ . - _ . . - _ _ _ . - . . -_ __

.

.'

'

9 i

!

During the plant heatup which began on July 22, 1985, the divergence of the "A" and "B" side level indications of approximately 8 inches was again i

noted. The plant was placed on hold until the divergence was resolve Senior licensee management established the resolution of this divergence as the highest priority for the plant and dedicated the station resources,

-

corporate resources and the NSSS and Architect Engineer resources to re-solve the problem. The licensee utilized an integrated team approach to

resolve the problem. The licensee prepared a detailed package of all the i relevant data and established through the team approach the additional

'

data necessary to resolve the problem. Senior licensee management was

,

intimately involved in the directing of the effor The licensee insti-l tuted multiple parallel activities to define the real cause of the di-i vergence including in vessel and ex-vessel assessments. Additional ultra-1 sonic measurements were obtained. Physical walkdowns of the level sensing

!

lines were conducted. During the walkdowns, the licensee personnel ob-

served that the slope of a portion of pipe from the reactor vessel to the [

l "A" condensing pot was negative. This permitted condensate to collect in j the line and not drain into the vessel. When this was found, the licensee i i cleared the water collected, and the level indications were normal. The i I licensee reviewed the "as built" cold slopes for this line and confirmed I

+

that the "as built" slope was as designed, positive from the vessel to the i

condensate pot. The licensee utilized a survey team to get detailed hot i

' dimensions of the line. The licensee began a shutdown on July 25, 1985 '

and again utilized the survey team to obtain cold dimensions. The "as j found" cold slopes were similar to the hot slopes but different from the i cold "as built" slopes. The cause of the difference could not be deter-mined. The licensee in parallel with the dimensional check had developed i various solutions depending on the potential outcome of the dimensional -

4 checks. The licensee evaluation of the pipe movement concluded that the

negative slope was not caused by binding of the supports on the pipe since

'

all were observed to be free to move and moved freely during the cooldow The licensee also developed additional test instrumentation to monitor

) differences between the "A" and "B" side level indications. Subsequent to i this inspection the licensee installed an additional pipe support on this i line to assure a positive slope in the line. The adequacy of the correc-

tive actions will be assessed in a subsequent heatup.

,

The inspector evaluation of the licensee actions concluded that the l - licensee utilized the available resources effectively, established _the

! -necessary priority, focused on a broad spectrum of possible causes, when

,

~

the problem was narrowed executed the proper actions to resolve, and exercised a conservative approach in the resolution of the proble !

l Findings

, No violations were identifie !

>

,

.

,

l

)

!

. :w *

- - _ . - -- - .- _ _ _. _ - . - .- -- - . - .

.

.

a

!

i 4 QA/QC Interfaces

i

The inspector observed QC conducting surveillances of startup tests being conducted. The inspector observed a QC :nspector identifying a concern on

the back shift regarding the startup test director verification of startup l test initial conditions. QC management was notified and arrived on site ,

to evaluate the QC inspector finding. QC action was prompt and the

'

licensee took action to resolve the QC finding. The inspector will review the documentation of the QC finding and licensee corrective action in a subsequent inspectio QA audit of completed startup test procedures STP-3 and 4 is in process I

prior to olant Manager approval of the test procedures. QA audit of a

.

completed test procedure is required per the FSA ,

No unacceptable conditions were noted in the QA/QC coverage of the j startup test program.

,

7.0 Independent Measurements / Calculations 1,

.he inspector conducted independent calculations of the APRM calibra-

tions as described in section .0 Tours of the Facility i

The inspecto'r made several tours of the facility during the course of the t

inspection including the turbine building, reactor building, control structure, and control roo In the beginning of the inspection period the inspector observed that in the reactor building there were a few ex-j amples which reflected on poor housekeeping practices. These included an J

unsecured unattended welding machine plugged in and located in an aisle-way, a compressed gas bottle cart unattended and not secured and ques-

tionable locations for securing compressed gas bottles and storage of test equipment. The inspector brought this to the attention of licensee man-agement. The inspector made several tours of the reactor building and noted that these items were immediately corrected and noted that through the remainder of the inspection, the reactor building housekeeping prac-

-

tices were adequate. No other unacceptable conditions were note . Unresolved Items

Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to i ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance or deviations. Unresolved items disclosed during the inspection are dis-

cussed in Section 2.

J i

.

j

.

v.- ------ny,, ,,- --- 2 ,, ,- , . - , .,--,,-,~,r -y_.'

- -

,

.

'

.

10. Exit Interview At the conclusion of the site inspection on July 26, 1985, an exit meeting was conducted with the licensee's senior site representatives (denoted in paragraph 1). The findings were identified and discusse During the inspection period a meeting was held on July 15, 1985 where findings were also discussed. At no time during the inspection did the inspector provide written inspection findings to the licensee. The licensee indicated that no proprietary information was contained in the

,

scope of this inspectio :

i r

i m

.--