IR 05000322/1986009
| ML20203B157 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/11/1986 |
| From: | Eselgroth P, Florek D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20203B150 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-322-86-09, 50-322-86-9, NUDOCS 8604180031 | |
| Download: ML20203B157 (7) | |
Text
.
.
.
...
.
..
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-322/86-09
.
Docket No. 50-322 License No.
NPF-36 Category C
.
Licensee: Long Island Lighting Company 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville, New York 11801 Facility Name:
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station
1 Inspection At:
Shoreham, New York j
Inspection Condu ed: March 24-27, 1986
Inspectors:
,
D. Florek, Lead eactbr Engineer dhte Approved by:
N P. Eselgroth hief,' Test Program date
'
Section,
, DRS Inspection Summary:
Inspection on March 24-27, 1986, (Inspection Report No. 50-322/86-09 Areas Inspected:
Routine unannounced inspection of licensee actions on previous inspection findings; startup test program including the overall
'
program, test plateau review, test results evaluation, review of the startup report; independent measurements calculations and verification; QA/QC Interfaces and tours of the facility.
Results: No violations were identified.
-
Note:
For acronyms not defined, refer to NUREG-0544 " Handbook of Acronyms and Initialisms".
.
3604180031 860414 PDR ADOCK 05000322
.o PDR
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
_-
_ _.
_.
_
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee J. Alexander, Operations Engineer J. Cocuzzo, QCD 6pector D. Dyrof f, QCD i.ditor
- R. Grunseich, Operational Compliance Engineer F. Hearty, GE Operations Superintendent
- D. Himle, Power Ascension Test Program (PATP) Test Coordinator B. Hobbs, Startup Test Director R. Perra, QCD Section Head
- J. Scalice, Operations Manager
- C.
Seaman, QCD Manager
'
- L. Somma, Nuclear Engineer
- W. Steiger, Plant Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission f
- J. Berry, Senior Resident Inspector
!
- L. Kolonauski, Reactor Engineer Examiner j
- C. Warren, Resident Inspector
- Denotes those present at exit meeting on March 27, 1986.
2.
Licensee Actions on Previous Inspection Findings
'
(0 pen) Violation (322/85-31-01) This violation involved conducting startup test program activities not fully in accordance with the governing proce-
.
dures. The inspector verified the licensee actions identified in the
October 25, 1985, letter which responded to the violation.
Immediate cor-rective actions were also assessed in inspection report 50-322/85-31.
The inspector verified that test directors were informed of the lessons learned and corrective actions taken as a result of the violation. This was based on review of lesson plans and training provided on February 21, 1986, on PATP Organization and Administration, and discussion with PATP cognizant personnel. The inspector also discussed with QCD improvements made to
,
'
preclude a reoccurrence of the problem which lead to the violation and reviewed the QCD Surveillance Report Attribute / Requirements to be reviewed i
during startup test surveillance activities and noted that attributes in-cluded a review of precautions and prerequisites. The one activity.that has not been completed was the review of startup test procedures for test
,
condition 1 through 6 to eliminate similar conditions.
The licensee acti-vity in this area is about 50% complete. The licensee indicated that this
+
activity will be completed prior to test condition 1.
The licensee actions were considered acceptable. However this item will remain open pending completion of the licensee activity relating to review of startup test procedures.
'
.
_ _ _ _ -. _ _ _ _ _
.
.
3.
Startup Test Program 3.1 References:
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station (SNPS) Final Safety Analysis
Report SNPS Safety Evaluation Report
Regulatory Guide 1.68 " Initial Test Program For Water Cooled
Reactor Power Plants" SNPS Power Ascension Test Program 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."
3.2 Overall Startup Program Scope The inspector held several discussions with licensee personnel to as-certain whether the lessons learned during the previous testing were being fed back into the program. The inspector also reviewed Proce-dure 12.075.01 " Administration of Startup Testing," Revision 12 dated March 25, 1986.
In addition the inspector reviewed plans for the up-coming restart to closecut startup test exceptions and to reperform some previously completed startup tests.
Discussion The new revision of Procedure 12.075.01 reflects lessons learned in the previous performance of startup testing. Based on review of training records, training on the procedure was provided to personnel involved in the PATP.
In addition the licensee has performed tech-nical training in the testing activities to be completed in this re-start period for the involved personnel including operations personnel.
This training is still ongoing.
Major testing in this restart period includes high pressure coolant injection, reactor core isolation cool-ing and control rod drive testing and initial synchronization of the main electric generator and is scheduled for approximately 5 weeks.
Findings No violations were identifie.-
.
.
._.
.
_
.
.
,
3.3 Plateau Review Scope The inspector reviewed Test Condition Heatup Plateau Summary Report dated December 19, 1985, to ascertain whether the licensee is performing an adequate evaluation of test results, to evaluate the adequacy of the licensee administrative practices in maintaining
proper test discipline concerning test execution, test alteration and test records and whether the licensee is following their procedures for review, evaluation and acceptance of test results.
In addition, the inspector reviewed the Master Startup Activity List controlling test condition heatup and reviewed the test exception report log to determine if the open items identified in the test plateau review summary were consistent with the status of test exception reports. TRC minutes 85-38, 85-39, 85-40 and 85-41 were also reviewed.
1 Findings l
No unacceptable conditions were noted in the above.
3.4 Test Results Evaluation Scope
!
The heatup phase test results sections listed in the discussion
,
section below were reviewed to assess that each was approved in accordance with the administrative procedures; test changes were noted if appropriate; test objectives were met; test exceptions were noted and were processed in accordance with administrative procedures; data sheets were completed as required; 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; QA or independent review of test results; and test results have been approved by appropriate management.
'
In addition one hundred and thirty (130) test exception reports for test condition heatup were reviewed for technical adequacy and processing in accordance with the administrative procedure.
.
'
i
!
!
!
.
.
.
-
_
.
- - _.
_.
,
..
._.
___
-
.. _. _ _ _
.-
_
i
,
e j.
_
J
Discussion
.
The test exception reports reviewed.were acceptable based on review of the reports and in several instances additional discussion with
test personnel to provide additional closecut details. This was one lesson learned from prior testing.
The new issuance of 12.075.01 as
described in Section 3.2 includes additional requirements for docu-menting complete closeout information in a test exception report.
The test result section listed below were reviewed. The test section summaries were approved as part of the test plateau described in Sec-
tion 3.3.
A summary of key results follows:
STP-5
" Control Rod Drive" Sections 8.1, 8.2 and 8.2 performed during test condition heatup.
'
I All control rods except rod 22-35 had acceptable scram
'
times at rated pressure.
Rod 22-35 was not tested due to
!
it being inoperable.
It will be tested-in the next plant j
restart. The average scram times for the A and B sequence
rods satisfied the test criteria as follows:
)
Time to Notch A Sequence B Sequence
. Criteria
,
!
(Max time, sec)'
l
!
L
.296
.306
.43
,
i
.591
.608
.86
1.360 1.344 1.93
=
2.359 2.461 3.49
,
i STP-15 "HPCI" Section 8.4 Endurance Run test implemented
'
September 24, 1986.
The test was terminated prior to oil temperature equilibrium due to
'
,
j high suppression pool temperatures and will be reperformed at a l uer
date.
STP-17
" System Expansion" Sections 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, and 8.6 performed over three system heatup cycles."
- s
,
The test was conducted over three plant heatups. Displacements which
'
,
exceeded the test criteria were subsequently resolved and found to be
'
acceptable.
-
l
}
STP-29
" Recirculation Flow Control" Section 8.1 test performed l
October 7, 1985.
Flow controller steps were introduced on the A and B recirculation 1-
!
!
pump. The 8 MG set experienced oscillations when operated below 24%
-
speed. The licensee plans to limit operation in this region as a short term resolution and to obtain more data following additional
'
planned testing at later test conditions.
,
1
........
.- -
_.. !
. -
.
.
.
-
.,. _
. _ _ _, ~. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ - -
.
_
__ _
_
_
__ _
__
.
.
!
l l
3.5 Review of Startup Report t
l The inspector reviewed the. licensee reports "Shoreham Nuclear Power l
Station Startup Report" dated November 15, 1985 and " Supplement No. I to the Startup Report" dated February 14, 1986 to verify that
[ ~
the report included the.information required of the technical speci-
!
fications, test results are consistent with the requirements and
corrective action is adequate for identified problems. No unaccep-
'
table conditions were noted.
l 4.0 Independent Measurements, Calculations and Verifications During this inspection the inspector verified several of the analysis steps in completed test procedures using the data collected during the tests as part of test results evaluation.
5.0 QA/QC Interfaces The inspector had several discussions with the Quality Control Division (QCD) Manager, QCD Section Head and QC inspector regarding the status and l
plans for the QCD involvement in the PATP. QCD plans include round the clock QCD coverage of the PATP testing in the upcoming plant startup.
The QCD surveillance checklist items were reviewed and no unacceptable conditions were noted.
The status of the QCD reviews of completed startup test result sections and completed startup test procedures were also reviewed. The. inspector expressed concern on the backlog of completed test results sections for QCD review and that the FSAR identified audit of completed. test proce-dures, namely, STP-3 and 4, was still in progress and has been for several months. QCD inspectors were fully aware of the status.
STP-3 and 4 are the only startup test procedures that are fully completed at this time.
Whereas there have been several discussions between the QCD inspectors and PATP personnel on the findings of the STP-3 and 4 QCD audit, and some actions have been initiated or completed based on these discussions, the
,
!
inspector determined that there appeared to be a different understanding by PATP personnel and QCD inspectors on some of the actions to be per-formed based on these discussions.
.
This was discussed with the QCD Manager. The use of QCD personnel to support the recent plant outage was the apparent reason for the QCD back-log. The QCD Manager indicated that he would followup on the inspector concerns, resolve the conflict between PATP and QCD and apply the appro-priate allocation of resources. This appears achievable since the outage is nearing completion. QCD involvement in PATP will be further assessed in a subsequent inspection.
L
-
-
-
-
-
--
--
-
- -
-
- - -
- - - --
-
--
- -
- -
--
-
.
.
6.0 Tour of the Facility The inspector toured the turbine building, reactor building, primary containment, control structure and control room.
No unacceptable conditions were noted.
7.0 Exit Interview At the conclusion of the site inspection on February 27, 1986, an exit meeting 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 inspec-tion findings to the licensee. The licensee did not identify that pro-prietary information was contained in the scope of the inspection.
.
-
-
-
- - -
-
- -
- - -
-
-
-
-
- - -
- - - -
-
-
.