IR 05000322/1986018
| ML20213D364 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/24/1986 |
| From: | Briggs L, Florek D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20213D358 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-322-86-18, NUDOCS 8611120019 | |
| Download: ML20213D364 (8) | |
Text
.
.
b' W U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No. 50-322/86-18
. Docket No.
50-322 License No. NPF-36 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:
September 29 - October 3, 1986
. Inspectors:
/OM3k D.(Fdrek,LeadReactorEngineer
'dats
)
Approved by:
I s.$ag
// #/ #6
. Briggs, /)Sef, Test Program Section date'
OB, DRS Inspection Summary:
Inspection on September 29 - October 3-1986, (Inspection Na. 50-322/86-18)
Areas Inspected:
Routine unannounced inspection of licensee actions on previous inspection findings; startup test program including the overall program, test results evaluation, test procedures review, independent measurements, QA/Or 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" B611120019 861104 PDR ADOCK 05000322 G
.
.
_ _,
-_
.
.
.
_ ___
_-
. - _ _ _ _ _ _. _
_.
- _.
-
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted J. Alexander, Operations Engineer
- P. Cassidy, Nuclear Engineer
- R. Dicola, Compliance Engineer
- G.'Gisonda, Licensing Supervisor
- R. Grunseich, Operational Compliance Engineer
- D. Himle, Power Ascension Test Program Test Coordinator
- R. Jongbloed, Reactor Engineer
- J. Scalice, Assistant Plant Manager
- C. Seaman, Quality Control Manager
- D. Smith, Compliance Engineer
.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission J. Berry, Senior Resident Inspector
- C. Warren, Resident Inspector
.
- Denotes those present at the exit meeting held on October 3, 1986.
The inspector also contacted other licensee personnel in the technical, QA and operations staff during the course of this inspection.
2.
Licensee Actions on Previous Inspection Findings t
(Closed) Violation (322/85-31-01) This violation involved conducting startup program activities not fully in accordance with the governing procederes. This item was partially reviewed in inspection report 50-322/36-09. The previous inspection indicated that this item would remain cpen until licensee activities relating to review of startup procedures were complete. Based on the review of the startup procedures as described in section 3.4 the inspector was satisfied that the quality of the startup procedures was acceptable ~to close this item.
3.
Startup Test Program l
3.1 Reference
!
'
-Shoreham Nuclear Power Station (SNPS) Final Safety Analysis Report-SNPS Safety Evaluation Report-Regulatory Guide 1.68 " Initial Test Program For Water Cooled Reactor Plants-SP-12.075.01 " Administration of Startup Testing"
-ANSI N18.7-1976 " Administrative Controls and Quality Assurance for the Operational Phase of NLclear Power Plants"
.- -.
. -
-
_ _. _.,
.
-
. - -.. -,
-
.
.
3.2 Overall Startup Test Program The inspector held several discussions with licensee startup test program personnel to discuss the plans for future testing and the activities necessary to be ready to resume the startup test program.
The licensee indicated that test procedures were undergoing additional review and that training lesson plans for future testing were being developed. Current activities also include closing out the testing that was recently completed in the period August 5-31, 1986.
3.3 Startup Test Results Review Scope The test results of Attachment A were reviewed against the following attributes.
Procedures were reviewed to assess that each was approved in accordance with the administrative procedure, test changes were noted if appropriate, test objectives were met, test exceptions were noted if appropriate and were processed in accordance with the administrative procedures, data sheets were completed as required, tast 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 were approved by appropriate management.
In addition the inspector reviewed the Plateau Summary Report for test condition heatup. Technical review committee (TRC) and Review of Operations Committee (ROC) were completed on September 10 and September 19, 1986, respectively..This review included assessment of the testing performed as of that time, test results, test exceptions, and tests to be deferred until a later date.
Discussion The test results were found to satisfy the test objectives.
The licensee review process had not been completed for all the test re-sults reviewed by the inspector.
Identified test exceptions were being processed in accordance with the administrative procedure. No additional test exceptions were identified based on inspector review.
The licensee is reviewing the procedures in accordance with admin-istrative procedures and plans to perform an additional Test Plateau review on the results of the recently completed testing prior to beginning test condition TC-1.
The plateau summary for the prior testing done in test condition heatup was determined to satisfy the
'FSAR and license commitments.
_
-
.
.
.
- _ _
_
_
- _ _ _ _
,
.
_. _
i
-
.
I
..
Findings
,
No unacceptable conditions in the results reviewed or in the licensee's plans were identified.
3.3 Startup Test Procedure Review Scope The startup procedures of Attachment B were reviewed to determine the degree of compliance with the following attributes: appropriate management review, appropriate committee review, procedure is in the proper format, test objectives are clearly stated and consistent with the FSAR, appropriate references, appropriate precautions and pre-requisites,-initial test conditions are specified, acceptance cri-teria are clearly stated, proper identification of test equipment, technically adequate and workable, and provisions for recording, evaluating and approving test data. The procedures reviewed were those test procedures to be performed after the licensee has obtained the license to exceed the current license power of 5%.
In addition, the inspector reviewed the licensee's guidelines for the review of
,
the startup test procedures. The licensee's objective is to have
technically adequate procedures that are compatible with the station operating procedures and that would require minimum on the_ spot.
procedure changes.
Discussion Except-for STP 19, 28 and 31, the licensee's procedures were issued (approved) procedures. All procedures were found to be generally acceptable. STP 28 and 31 were draft procedures and resulted in several discussions between the licensee and the inspector. These procedures were' generally acceptable but the inspector had several questions about the procedures which were satisfactorily answered by
the licensee. These discussions concerned the type of operator actions that were permissible during the performance of the loss of offsite power test and would not affect satisfying the acceptance criteria, additional data taking on other control r> c. instrumenta-tion, and ease of which offsite power can be restored should a
,
problem develop. The one item that the inspector will look-into in a
'
future inspection and which the licensee will provide additional justification for, is the plan to pre-lube the diesel prior to the loss of offsite power test.
Inspector questions for the Shutdown from outside the control room test concerned the licensee's plans to first scram the plant from outside the control room and only close the Main Steam Isolation
Valves if required.
The inspector noted that the FSAR, Section 7.5, indicates that if the scram from outside the control room is
!
>
--
-.-
-.
,
-
,
- - -
. -
,
.
__
__ _____.
'5
d
<
~
required, both the scram and MSIV closure will occur at the same time. This was acceptable to the licensee. The inspector noted after being informed by the licensee that additional discussions are being held with NRC headquarters personnel on the remote shutdown, aspects of.which may affect the conduct of the test.
If so, additional ~ review of the procedure will occur following the completion of these discussions. Not only do these discussions affect the conduct of this startup test but also affect station procedures as well.
During inspector review of STP-37, the licensee agreed to clarify the acceptance criterion relating to general technical specification compliance to include the specific technical specifications applicable.
Findings No violations were identified.
4.0 QA/QC Interfaces with the Startup Tes't Program The inspector reviewed the results of 12 Quality Assurance Surveillance Reports (QASR) performed by QA during the recent startup test retest program conducted in the period August 5-31, 1986. The inspector noted that the licensee had began the surveillance activities with generic checklist attributes but later began to prepare test specific checklist attributes as the retest program progressed. The inspector noted'that this activity was an improvement in the QA surveillance. No unacceptable conditions were found in the licensee's QA activities relating to the Startu? Test Program.
5.0 Independent Measurements, Calculations and Verifications
.
During this inspection the inspector verified several of the analysis steps in completed test procedures using the data collected by the licensee during the test, as well as several of the licensee's procedural steps during the test procedure review (Paragraph 3.3).
6.0 lugrs of the Facility The inspector toured the turbine building, reactor building, remote shutdown room, control structure and control room and noted that the housekeeping and overall plant conditions were acceptable.
7.0 Exit Interview At the conclusion of the site inspection on October 3,1986, an exit meeting was conducted with the licensee's senior site representatives (denoted in paragraph 1). The findings were identified and discussed.
.,
..
.
-, _
..
-_
.. -
_.
_ _ _ _ - - -_
_.
,
.. -
6-1..
- At' no time during the inspection did the inspector provide written
. inspection findings to the licensee..The licensee did not identify that proprietary information was provided during the course of the inspection.
,
i e
i -
-r v.
-yr,---
r-e,-
,-,
t----e--,y-.m,.n-e--e,--.,w_,_
re-------
m.we.---,-
- - - - - - - -
,.
3.--+v---y--.--w-v-
.. - <. -., -. - - -.r,r
- ~ _
--
_.
_
-
.s
.
ATTACHMENT A STARTUP TEST RESULTS REVIEWED TESTS PERFORMED DURING TEST CONDITION HEATUP AND RETEST PERIOD STP-9-Water Level Measurements STP-13 Process Computer STP-14 RCIC System STP-15 HPCI System STP-16 Selected Process Temperatures STP-42
. Service Water System STP-70 Reactor Water Cleanup System
.
STP-811 BOP System Thermal Expansion Testing
.
A
- o
-
..
ATTACHMENT B STARTUP TEST PROCEDURES REVIEWED STP-1 Chemistry and Radiochemical, Revision 3, dated June 1986'
STP-8 Control Rod Sequence Exchange, Revision 3, dated August 1986 STP-9 Water Level Measurement, Revision 4, dated March 1986 STP-12 APRM Calibration, Revision 4 STP-16 Selected Process Temperatures, Revision 2, dated July 1986 STP-19 Core Performance, Revison 2, Draft Copy STP-22 Pressure Regulation, Revision 3, dated June 1986 STP-28 Shutdown from Outside the Control Room, Revision 2, Draft copy STP-31 Loss of Turbine Generator and Offsite Power, Revision 2A, Draft copy STP-37 Reactor Building Closed Loop Cooling and Drywell Cooling, Revision 5, dated August 1986 STP-40-Condenser Offgas and Gaseous Radwaste System, Revision 2, dated April 1986
.
I
,
e--r,
,,, -.. -, -
- --., - -, -, --
,
---,-c--