IR 05000322/1985032

Insp Rept 50-322/85-32 on 850812-30.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Startup Test Program During Test Condition Heatup,Including Startup Test Witnessing,Results Evaluation,Procedure Review & Technical Review Committee

ML20133K365
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	10/04/1985
From:	Caphton D, Eselgroth P, Florek D, Petrone C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20133K358	List: IR 05000322/1985032 ML20133K356
References
50-322-85-32, NUDOCS 8510210228
Download: ML20133K365 (9)

Text

.

~

!

!

t U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i-

REGION I

Report No. 50-322/85-32 i

Docket N l License No. NPF-19 Priority -

Category C Licensee: Long Island Lighting Co  ;

175 East Old Country R Hicksville, N.Y. 11801

Facility Name: Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Inspection At: Shoreham, New York r

>

'

Inspection Conducted: August 12 - 30, 1985 C i Inspectors: . x 81 M [ Seni r Technical Reviewer '

d4 (phM C l l $ 2

'b lorek Lea Reactor Engineer Ollk I / .ddt C'.

V, . Al$ h Petrone Lead Reactor Engineer / dite

{

Approved by: e uupx?/ /8' da'te

/ /fD

/g/ P: Eselgroth, 08, DRS Abief, Test Program Section ,

Inspection Summary: *

Inspection on August 12-30, 1985 (Inspection Report No. 50-322/85-32)-

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the startup test program during test cortdition heatup including startup test witnessing, startup test results evaluation, startup test procedure review, startup test technical -

review committee, startup test personnel performance; assessment of feedwater ;

minimum flow valve failure, initial turbine roll activities, indepandent measurements, tours of the facility and QA/QC interface The inspection involved 107 hours0.00124 days <br />0.0297 hours <br />1.76918e-4 weeks <br />4.07135e-5 months <br /> onsite by 3 region based inspector ,

Results: No violations were identifie B510101 PDR ADOCK O$000322 ,

G PDR '

h r

T

- -

._

,,

- -. . .-

I -

..

F DETAILS

1.0 Persons _ Contacted

,

Long Island Lighting Company and Contractors  !

+ B. Beytin, Systems Engineer D. Bouchie, Lead STD and A. Engineer W. Charvat, Watch' Supervisor

G. Cocuzzo, QC Inspector R. Coulombe, Assistant Test Coordinator

+ J. Devlin, Security Administrator Supervisor M. Dick, Shift Test Engineer

+ R. Grunseich, Supervisor Nuclear Licensing M. Holland, Watch Supervisor

+ A. Himle, PATP Test Coordinator L. Klan, ISEG Group Supervisor

+ A. Fugerason, Assistant Project Engineer

• + R. Macina, Reactor Engineer

!

'

M. Milligan, Division Manager Power Engineer

+ J. Morin, Manager Nuclear Services W. Nazzaro, Watch Engineer

+ S. Petty, QC Supervisor

+ R. Reen, Site Security Supervisor ,

+ G. Rhodes, Operations Compliance Engineer G. Riggio, Systems Engineer J. Scalice, Operations Manager  ;

, A. Somma, Nuclear Engineer

• + W. Steiger, Plart Manager '

D. Terry, Maintenance Engineer  !

M. Villaran, Compliance Engineer

+ E. Youngling, Manager Nuclear Engineering Department U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission  ;

• + J. Berry, Senior Resident Inspector Designee

T. Kim, Reactor Engineer

<

+ Denotes those persons in attendance at an exit meeting on August'15, 1985 '

Denotes those persons in attendance at the exit meeting on August 30, 1985 2.0 Startup Test Program References: '

• ~

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

'

.

I i

i f

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

.

,

. 3 a

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 Test Witnessing Scope On August 21, 1985 the inspector witnessed portions of STP-15, "High Pres-sur e Coolant Injection System Testing", Section 8.2, and verified that it had been performed in accordance with the test procedure steps, prerequsites had been verified; procedure steps had been signed off; and QC personnel had witnessed the test activities. This portion of the test was performed at a reactor pressure of 1000 PSIG and involved pumping the condensate back to the Condensate Storage Tank (CST). Adequate precautions were taken to prevent the suppression pool temperature from exceeding the 105 F tem-perature limi On August 23, 1985, the inspector witnessed the activities in the control room as control rods were inserted and power reduced in preparation for the STP-14 (RCIC) and STP-15 (HPCI) tests to be performed at 150 PSI Following completion of these tests, the reactor was brought to cold shut-down at 7:55 am on August 24, 1985 for a scheduled 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> outag Inspections made by the licensee's startup testing program identified an interference at the +95 elevation between a pipe support and the lagging on the "D" main steam line. The lagging was removed to verify that clear-ance existed between the actual pipe and the support. The inspector visually examined the pipe and support and verified that clearance existed while at operating temperature and pressure (the worst case condition).

Based upon the inspection, the inspector had no further questions regard-ing the adequacy of the clearanc The general housekeeping conditions in the drywell were acceptable. Other equipment inspected appeared to be in good condition. There were no leaks ocserve Findings No violations were identifie ..

, _ _ .

.

'

3.2 Test Results Evaluation

'

Scope The inspector reviewed the test results listed in the discussion section prior to completion of the licensee review process. The inspector util-

'

ized the attributes identified in inspection report 50-322/85-29. In-ad-dition the test exception reports listed in the discussion section were reviewed for technical and administrative accurac ,

'

Discussion i Except as noted below, and considering that the test results were still in  ;

the licensee review process, the appropriate attributes reference above were satisfied. A summary of each startup test follow i

, STP-5 " Control Rod Drive" Sections 8.1, 8.2, :

t This test package includes the insert, withdraw and friction testing i

) of selected rods at rated and scram time testing of all the "B" sequence ,

a control rods. Test exceptions were identified and processed in accordance .

with the administrative procedure. The scram times of all rods satisfied ,

i the acceptance criteri !

!

STP-6 "SRM Performance and Control Rod Sequencing," Section 8.3, Test -

Implemented July 7, 198 i j The test section package was prepared an1 independent review was

completed. Acceptance criteria were satisfie >

!

j STP-12 "APRM Calibration", Section 8.1, Test' implemented July 15, 1985 ,

The test section package was prepare Data was previously assessed in inspection report 50-322/85-2 !

STP-14 "RCIC" Section 8.1 RCIC Condensate Storage Tank (CST) to CST at 150 psig, Test performed July 12, 1985 i

,

The test section package was prepared and independent review was complete No divergent oscillation were noted in the transient traces and RCIC achieved rated flow on 7.2 sec. thus satisfying the acceptance criteri '

,

STP-14 "RCIC", Section.8.2 RCIC-CST to CST at rated pressure, Test '

implemented August 16, 198 i

!

RCIC achieved rated flow in 16 seconds with no divergent oscillations and ~

thus' satisfied the acceptance criteri h'

STP-15 "HPCI" Section 8.1 HPCI at 150 psig, test performed July 31, 1985.

r

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

.

The test section package was prepared. No divergent oscillation were

'

noted and HPCI achieved -rated flow in 24 seconds thus satisfying the acceptance criteri STP-15 "HPCI" Section 8.1.2.4 and 8.2 HPCI at rated pressure and HPCI at 150 psig after tuneup at rated pressure, test implemented August 23, 198 No divergent oscillations were noted. At rated reactor pressure HPCI achieved rated discharge pressure and flow in 24 seconds and achieved rated flow in 13 seconds at 150 psig reactor pressure thus satisfying this acceptance criteri ,

STP-17 " System Expansion" Sections 8.1 and 8.4 test implemented in the period July 5 - August 15, 198 Independent review of this test was completed. During review of this start-up test the inspector noted that analysis step 8.2.4.2 appeared to be in-correctly signed off. This step required that the test personnel evaluate the snubber data in form 8.1.2-2 and verify that all the mechanical shock s

and sway arresters'were within the operating range and were at the mid point of their travel at rated temperature. Inspector review of the form indicated that 57 snubbers were not at the mid point of their travel at i

rated temperature, three were, and two were. inaccessible. No test excsp-tion report or test procedure change was prepared to clarify the analysis-ste Further investigation uncovered that the test personnel had utilized memo P. Binesh to D. Copinger dated July 14, 1983 which' indicated that

-

snubber shall have at least 1" of travel remaining on either ends of the stroke in cold and hot conditions. This interpretation was not specified in the startup tes The inspector expressed concern regarding the test personnel not following the analysis step as written. The inspector noted that the licensee had several administrative methods such as a test excep-tion report or test procedure change, so that areas of interpretation can be handled in a controlled manner within the startup test procedure. The inspector also noted that previous inspections of the startup program activities had expressed similar concerns. The licensee did prepare a test procedure change TPC-85-632 dated August 29, 1985 to clarify this issue. The inspector noted that the analysis step in question did not affect test acceptance criteria analysi '

STP-26 " Safety. Relief Valves", Section 8.1, Test Implemented July 9-12, 198 The test section package was prepared and independent review was i complete STP-33 " Vibration Measurements", Section 8.1, Test implemented July 9,1985.

1 -1 f

ll C

- -- . -- . - . . - ___ . .-.

.

-

The test section package was prepared and independent review complete All acceptance criteria were satisfie The inspector reviewed the following closed test exception reports: TER 5-9, 26-1, 14-1, 26-2, 17-1, 811-1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. The following test exception reports 12-1, 26-3, 821-1 through I, which were awaiting the plant manager final signature, were also reviewed. All were found to be technically acceptabl Findings i No violations were note .3 Startup Test Procedure Review The inspector reviewed startup test procedure STP-25 "MSIV", Revision 4, dated June 24, 1985 to assess whether: the procedure was technically cor-rect, the MSIV stroke time acceptance criteria were specified; the proce-dure was properly reviewed; test objective was clearly stated; prerequi-sites were defined; and the procedure satisfied FSAR commitments for heat-up phase testings. The procedure was found to be acceptabl .4 Startup Test Technical Review Committee Scop The inspector witnessed portions of licensee technical review committee (TRC) meeting 85-19 on August 29, 1985 to ascertain whether the licensee is performing an adequate evaluation of test results, evaluate the adequacy of the licensee's administrative practices in maintaining proper test discipline concerning test execution, test alteration, and test records and to ascertain whether the licensee is following its procedures for review, evaluation, and acceptance of test result Discussion The TRC meeting reviewed several test exception reports. The licensee evaluation was comprehensive and thorough. The licensee was observed to follow the administrative procedures for the review of test exception report Findings No violations were identifie .5 Startup Test Personnel Performance The inspector held several discussions with licensee management regarding the issue of test personnel performance. Inspection 50-382/85-31 identi-fied a violation for test personnel failure to follow procedure. This (

_ . .

. ..

-

.

.

.

o I inspection identified another example of test personnel failure to perform the analysis step as specified in the procedure (See section 3.2). The latter case had no effect on the test adequacy or test acceptance criteri The licensee described corrective actions which include enhanced test per-sonnel awareness, improvement in test personnel communication, additional training in testing activities, and timely independent review of completed test results. The licensee representative acknowledged that improvement

~

must be made in assuring test personnel follow the procedure to the letter and utilize the' administrative program controls available to either change test procedures or utilize the test exceptions. The inspector acknowledged the licensee activities and will pursue the licensee's implementation in subsequent inspection .

4.0 Feedwater Minimum Flow' Valve Failure A 10" feedwater valve FCV 028A had its antirotation device fall off which in time allowed the shaft to loosen. The valve had been experiencing vi-bration. The valve is manufact'ured by Copes-Vulcan. The licensee initiated MWR 85-4902 and reassembled the valve. The inspector visually examined the reassembled valve and had no questions regarding the temporary repai The inspector questioned the licensee regarding whether or not the failure could be considered generic based upon a similar. failure of a Copes-Vulcan feed water regulation valve reported in IE Iaformation Notice 83-70 Supple-ment 1, " Vibration - Induced Valve Failures". The inspector obtained a copy of the in 83-70 Supplement 1 from ISEG. ISEG was not yet tracking this problem. A NpRD computer print out obtained by ISEG also did not list this problem. However, the licensees CILAR system had identified the IE IN 83-70 Supplement 1 and had assigned it to maintenance for evaluatio on March 22, 1985 as CILAR 85-30. Due to the large number of CILARs as-signed to maintenance, approximately 95, maintenance had not yet evaluated the Copes-Vulcan valve failure reported in IE IN 83-70 Supplement 1. The inspector also observed that the maintenance CILAR backlog inventory be-tween May and July was approximately the same, i.e., not being reduce It was noted that maintenance had recently assigned a full time pe~rson to work on the CILAR backlo The inspector discussed the large CILAR back log (183 total) with licensee management, focusing the discussion on the need for attention to potential generic problem The inspector checked with quality control (QC) to determine if QC had become involved in the Copes-Vulcan problem. QC referred to the MWR for the valve repair and stated that they had no involvement since the MWR was marked non-safety relate A check with LILC0 Power Engineering identified that because of other Copes-Vulcan vibration problems, a vendor representative had been brought

~

in to study the vibration problem. A vendor-recommended modification will be made in the near future (parts to be delivered in late September)

to reduce the vibration in the Copes Vulcan feedwater valves.

' ______

,- . -

,

.

.

.

5.0 Initial Turbine Roll Activities Scope The inspector reviewed the following documents: Oraft procedure TP 23.127.02 Turbine Generator Initial Roll and Synchronization; memo E Wheeler to J. Emerich dated April 16, 1984 " Low Load Operation"; memo R. Carson to A Ciaranello dated August 24, 1983 " Bypass Capacity"; and memo C. Wojeicki to E. Youngling dated July 2, 1984 " RPM Acceleration - Load Evaluation for Low Power Level Determination". The inspector assessed whether the 11-censee's plans to roll the turbine under the 5% license were adequat The inspector also had several discussions with licensee personnel on this subjec Discussion The inspector independently concluded that sufficient steam is available under the 5% license to be able to achieve rated tu'rbine speed utilizing the slow acceleration rate for the turbine control. However, the inspec--

tor could not adequately assess the license's administrative controls, training of operators, safety evaluation and plant procedures since they are being prepared. These will be reviewed in a subsequent inspectio The licensee described the administrative controls that he will utilize and the procedures to be utilized and indicated they would be similar to the Limerick Generating Station Unit turbine roll procedure .0 Independent Measurements The inspector independently measured scram times from three Visicorder traces and checked the times against computer recorded scram times. The scram time tests were all taken from control rod 22-39. The times corre-lated within one thousandth of a second and were within Technical Speci-fication limit The inspector also independently verified several of the analysis steps during the review of test results utilizing the data recorded in the startup test procedur The inspector also independent'y verified that it was technically feasible to achieve the initial turbine roll under the 5% licens .0 Tours of the Facility The inspector made several tours of the facility during the course of the inspection including the reactor building, turbine building, and control roo During a tour of the reactor building on August 23 the inspector noted that the hand wheel on Suppression Pool Spray Header Valve E-11-MOV 41A appeared to be loose. The licensee investigated and corrected the e

. _ . .- . . _

J

'

. - 9 problem by tightening the set-screws on the handwhee During a tole of the Drywell on August 25, 1985 the inspector noted'that the flexible por-tion of electrical cable conduit ICK769NG had become disconnected from the rigid conduit, exposing approximately 6" of the electrical cables inside the conduit. The conduit is located at approximately elevation 70' on the south side of the Drywell. 'The inspector notified the licensee's Watch Engineer who issued a maintenance work request to repair the condui The inspector had no further concern .0 QA/QC Interfaces The inspector. observed QC personnel conducting surveillance activities during the conduct of the startup test on HPCI. The inspector also dis-

cussed the status of QC activities relating to startup test results review and was informed that completed test section packages had been provided to QC for review by the startup personnel. No unacceptable conditions were

, note ,

i-f

' 9.0 Exit Interview

<

!

At the conclusion of the site inspection on August 30, 1985, an exit meet-ing was conducted with the licensee's senior site representatives (denoted in paragraph 1). The findings were identified and 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 f

!

!

l l

!

I i

!

4  :

f l

I'

n .

Y - , - - . . _

- - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ - , ~ "