IR 05000322/1988006
| ML20207E181 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/03/1988 |
| From: | Blough A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207E174 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-322-88-06, 50-322-88-6, NUDOCS 8808170092 | |
| Download: ML20207E181 (6) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. - . . _ , . ~ . ' . l U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.: 50-322/88-06 Docket No.: 50-322 Licensee: Long Island Lighting Company P. O. Box 618 Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Wading River, New York 11792 - Inspection At: Wading River, New York l ' Inspection Conducted: April 30 - July 8,1988 Inspector: F. J. Crescenzo, Senior Resident Inspector ! Approved By: [[ N '- # # ~
A. Randy BlougF, Ch1ef Date > Reactor Projects Section No. 3B
Division of Reactor Projects !
! ! Inspection Summary: '! i Areas Inspected: Routine Resident Inspection of plant operations, radiation
, protection, security, plant events, maintenance, surveillance, outage activi- [ ties, and reports to the NRC. One hundred and fifty hours of direct inspection ' . effort were expended for this inspection.
[ Results: No violations were identified.
The licensee responded promptly, ' thoroughly, and professionally to issues and events durir7 this. period.
- I - I .! -
i
i
' f GG08170092 G80803
- PDR ADOCK 05000322 Q PDC Lg ! I .- - - - . - . ~ .
. - . . . DETAILS 1.
Operational Safety Verification (MC 71707, 71709, 71881, 93702) 1.1 Inspection Activities On a daily basis throughout the report period, inspections were con-ducted to verify that the facility was operated r,afely and in con-formance with regulatory requirements.
The licensee's management control system was evaluated by direct observation of activities, tours of the facility, interviews and discussions with licensee per-sonnel, independent verification of safet: system status and limiting conditions for operation, and review of facility records. The licen-see's compliance with the radiological protection and security pro-grams was also audited. Significant events which occurred during the inspection period were followed or investigated by the inspector.
These inspections were conducted in accordance with NRC inspection procedures 71707, 71709, 71881 and 93702.
1.2 Inspection Findings The unit remained in cold shutdown throughout the period of this re-port.
A full participation exercise of the Emergency Plan was con-ducted in June. Activities associated with the exercise consumed a large amount of the licensee's attention.
NRC findings resulting from observation of the exercise are documented in NRC Inspection Report 50-322/88-05.- Significant work activities were focused on returning systems to operable status to allow plant operation.
The licensee completed activities associated with inspections of elec-trical equipment to envircnmental qualification standards.
The licensee also initiated an inspection program.to identify and dis-
position potentially defective seismic support - fasteners.
Routine , maintenance and surveillance activities were also conducted, i On June 14, 1988, the licensee discovered that radiochemistry tech-a nicians had been incorrectly obtaining water samples fro.n the
Residual Heat Removal Service Water system (RHRSW).
The RHR heat exchanger s mples are normally obtained at a Radiation Monitoring
System panel. This panel was out of service requiring that the tech- > nicians take samples locally at the heat exchanger. The samples'were to be obtained from the outlet side of the heat exchanger; however, , it was discovered that the technicians were sampling from the inlet side.
The licensee determined the cause of this error to be inade-quate labeling of the valves coupled with the technicians' failure to properly verify the identity of the valves.
The inspector reviewed the details associated with this incident and determined that the licensee's corrective actions were adequate to prevent recurrence.
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ____ ____________ _ .___ _-__ _ _ ____ ________________ ______ __ _______ ______________ - . . . This incident, along with a description of the licensee's corrective actions are described in greater detail in Licensee Event Report (LER) 88-10.
The inspector also noted that two other incidents involving inadequate monitoring of liquid effluents have been re-ported by the licensee since August,1987. These other incidents are documented in LER Nos. 87-27, and 87-33.
The inspector reviewed these incidents and determined that the specific causes and correc-tive actions for each of the three incidents are independent and that no specific negative trend could be identified in the licensee's liquid effluent monitoring program. The inspector was concerned that these errors may represent a decline in the overall quality of the ef fluent monitoring programs and discussed this concern with station management.
Evaluations of future events of this nature for regu-latory significance will include trending considerations as well as the safety significance of each event.
No other inadequacies were noted.
2.
Surveillance Testing (MC 61726) 2.1 Inspection Activity During this inspection period the inspector performed detailed tech-nical procedure reviews, witnessed in-progress surveillance testing, and reviewed completed surveillance packages. The inspector verified that the surveillance tests were performed in accordance with Tech-nical Specifications, licensee approved procedures, and NRC regula-tions.
These inspection activities were conducted in accordance with NRC inspection procedure 61726, 2.2 Inspection Findings No violations were identified.
I 3.
Maintenant.e Activities (MC 62703) 3.1 Inspection Activity During this inspection period the inspector observed selected main-tenance activities on safety related equipment to ascertain that these activities were conducted in accordance with approved proce-dures, Technical Specifications, and appropriate industrial codes and standards.
These inspections were conducted in accordance with NRC l inspection procedure 62703.
3.2 Inspection Findings No unacceptable conditions or violations were note ~ . - . , - ,
. 4.
Engineered Safet/ Feature (ESF) System Walkdown (MC 71710) 4.1 Inspection Activity The inspector verified the operability of selected ESF systems by performing a walkdown of accessible portions of the system to confirm that system lineup procedures match plant drawings and the as-built configuration. This ESF system walkdown was also conducted to iden-tify equipment conditions that might degrade performance, to deter-mine that instrumentation is calibrated and functioning, and to verify that valves are properly positioned and locked as appropriate.
This inspection was conducted in accordance with NRC inspection pro-cedure 71710.
4.2 Inspection Findings No violations were identified.
5.
Licensee Reports (MC 92700, 36100) . 5.1 In Office Review of Licensee Event Reports The inspector reviewed Licensee Event Reports (LERs) submitted to the NRC to verify that details were clearly reported, including accuracy of the cause description and adequacy of corrective actions.
The inspector determined whether information was required from the licen-see, whether generic implications were involved, and whether the event warranted onsite follow-up. These reviews were conducted in accordance with NRC inspection procedure 92700.
The following LERs were reviewed: LER 88-03: Unplanned automatic initiation of RBSVS "A" Train dur-ing an Instrument and Controls surveillance.
LER 88-04: Special Report on seismic monitoring instrumentation inoperable for more than 30 days.
LER 88-05: Special Report on inoperable meteorological monitoring instrumentation.
LER 88-06: Emergency Bus 101 deenergized due to personnel error during Instrument and Control surveillance (see para-graph 6 of this report).
LER 88-07: Loss of Reactor Protection Bus "B" due to improper cycling of supply breaker.
LER 88-08: Seismic monitoring instramentation inoperable for more that 30 day _.. _ _... - - _ _. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ __ _ -
t . .
b .
, , ' LER 88-09: Voluntary report of incorrect sample method documented
for sulphur analysis of standby Emergency Diesel Generator fuel oil.
LER 88-10: Incorrect sampling of Residual Heat Removal heat ex-changer service water (see paragraph 1.2 of this report).
i The inspector had no further questions related to these LERs.
, 6.
Loss of power to Emergency _ Bus 101 , ! On April 30, 1988, a loss of Emergency Bus 101 occurred with a subsequent start of Emergency Diesel Generator 101.
The incident occurred as a ' result of technician error during a surveillance test of the Emergency Bus
Load Program.
The specific details and corrective actions relating to ' i this event are. described in LER 88-06.
The inspector reviewed the cor-i rective actions and found them to be adequate.
Following the incident, the licensee performed an evaluation to determine if the EDG start warranted an inspection of the top surface of the EDG
block.
This was done to address license concition C.12 of attachment
3. A.2 to facility license NPF-36.
This license condition requires that ! folicwing any loss of offsite power event which results. in automatic starting of any EDG, the licensee shall inspect the top surface of the engine block exposed by removal of the cylinder heads.
The licensee con-cluded that the inspection was unnecessary since the event was not caused . by a "Loss of Offsite Power" but rather by the triggering of the bus load sequencer.
Furthermore, since the bus was in a test status, major loads fed from the bus were in Pull to Lock. This resulted in a minimal load
placed on the machine following itr start. The maximam load was less than 500 KW which is well below the normal load achieved during routine sur- ' veillance testing. The licensee has' documented this interpretation of the i ' subject license condition. The inspector reviewed the licensee's inter- ' ' pretation of this license condition and consulted with regional specialist inspectors.
The inspector concurred with the licensee's_ interpretation and had no further questions.
! "Stand-Alone" Hydraulic Control ' Units (HCDs) 7.
Seismic Qualification of . The licensee has completed an evaluation of the seismic quelification of the "stand-alone" hydraulic control units. This evaluation was conducted . in response to a question raised by the inspector concerning documentation ! of this qualification. At the time the question was raised, the licensee .. determined that proper documentation did not exist to demonstrate the stand alone HCUs were qualified.
The licensee consulted with General Electric (GE) to perform a seismic qualification analysis. GE concluded ! - that the stand alone HCUs installed at Shoreham are seismically qualified.
, t , , - a ! v r7-y3en.,.y_ g i.*,w
3 w p .+..,q y --{. -
.
. e . ,'
This was baseo on an extrapolation of test results cond' acted on the i "back-to-back" HCUs which GE had conducted previously.
The licensee accepted this extrapolation and provided the 'esults to the inspector for review.
The inspector reviewed this documentation and had no further questions.
8.
Management Meetings (MC 30702) At periodic intervals durir:g the course of *.his inspection, meetings were held with the licensee management to discuss the scop e and findings of this inspection. An exit meeting was hcid on July 27, 1988 to discuss the preliminary findings of this report.
The inspector also attended entrance and exit interviews for inspections conducted by region-based inspectors during the oeriod.
These activities were conducted in accordance with NRC inspection proced-ure 30702.
l l l _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ -. - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _. . _ _ _ _ }}