IR 05000322/1989006
| ML19351A318 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/04/1989 |
| From: | Doerflein L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19351A317 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-322-89-06, 50-322-89-6, NUDOCS 8910200024 | |
| Download: ML19351A318 (11) | |
Text
h.
)
'
..
,
.
,
- ..
..
,
,
,.
p
..
,
.
.
-
c
,
j
t l
-
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
l l
Report No..
50-322/89-06 p.
,
Docket No.
50-322 License No.
NPF-82 Licensee:
Long Island Lighting Company
'
.P. O. Box 618
' ' '.
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Wading River, New York 11792 Facility Name:
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Inspection At:
Snoreham. New York Dates:
May 6, 1989 - August 28, 1989
Inspectors:
F. J. Crescenzo, Senior Resident Inspec'or
D. J. F ek, Se r Operations Enginear
Approved by:
d 10!L/!M
.
.L. T. Doerflein fChief Odte '
j React:rProjectfSection2B
Inspection Summary:
5/6/89 - 8/28/89 (Report 50-322/89-06)
s
!
Areas ~ Inspected:
Routine inspections of operations, maintenance, surveillance, committee activities and license conditions.
Special inspections were cond"cted in.the areas'of defueling operations and licensee preparations for a minimum
,
posture status. Two hundred and twelve hours of direct inspection effort were expended.,
-
Results: 'No violations or inadequscies were identified.
Defueling of the l
>
,
' reactor vessel was completed in accordance with station procedures. The licensee has taken steps to place the facility in a long term layup condition.
->.
Yi x
,
l.
L'
8910200024 891005
-
l-PDR ADOCK 050C0322
'
Q FDC j
g, L.
,
,
,
.,.
..,
-
.
.
. _ -.
,
.
...
..
.
C
(.
.
,
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.0 Facility Activities (71707/62703/40503/93702).................
2.0 Observation of Defueling Activities (62703/67010/60705/86700/62703/61726)........................
3.0 Minimum Posture (40500).......................................
4.0 L i c e n s e e Me e t i n g s.............................................
5.0 S ta f f i n g C ha n g e s..............................................
6.0 Facility Tours (71707/71710).............................
... 10
7.0 TI's 2515/93 and 2515/95......................................
8.0 Management Meetings (30703)...................................
,
?
I I
l l
l i
l l
'
(I i
'
.
.
..
.'
,
.
.
,
l
,
DETAILS 1.0 Facility Activities
The facility remained shuvic#n throughout the inspection period.
Licensee efforts were focused an defueling of the reactor.
I On June 28, 1989 the Long Island Lighting Company shareholders voted to approve the settlement agreement with New York State. The agreement
'
calls for transfer of Shoreham te the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) to be decommissioned. The agreement also prohibits the licensee from operating Shoreham and required the licensee +o defuel the
reactor. The licensee began developing plans to e u ablish a " minimum posture" censistent with the terms of the cgreement.
Minimum posture is broadly defined as the minimum workload and staffing
'
..
l 1evel needed to fully comply with all regulations assuming all fuel remains in the spent fuel pool.
On July 13, 1989, preparations for fuel movements were completed and
-
core offload was commenced. Core offload was completed on August 9, i
1989. At the close of the inspection, the core had been fully offloaded L
to the spent fuel pool, the reactor vessel had been reassembled, the
'
reactor cavity drained, and the shield plugs reinstalled.
l l
Concurrent with these activities, the licensee continued to develop and implement plans to reduce staffing levels and deiine minimum posture
-
system status.
2.0 Defueling The inspector monitored preparations for and conduct of defueling activities.
No inadequacies were noted.
2.1 Preparations
,
The it.spector reviewed the licensee preparation for fuel movement in the following areas: cffloading procedures, refueling apparatus preparations, fuel movement training, integrated schedule review, health physics, security and quality assurance.
The procedure for fuel movement (SP-58.005.001 " Core Loading and Fuel I
' Movement") was found to be adequately prepared and issued.
The procedures for disassembly of the shield blocks, drywell and reactor vessel were also reviewed by the inspector to assure that the procedures were current and technically adequate.
..
_ _ - _.
.-
.-
3 r-
,
E=,
n ft
';
-..
. -
t e
-
,
i The licensee completed all the preventive maintenance activities for the refueling platform. Polar crane surveillance was also completed. The licenu performed dry runs of survei?1ance on the refueling platform (for training purposes) early in the planning and preparation stage prior to performing a formal surveillance on
,
the platform to comply with the technical specifications reqairements for timeliness of the refueling platform surveillances.
,
Formal refresher training was given to those individuals involved with fuel movement on the refusi floor. The licensee method for moving fuel consists of a SR0 monitoring fuel movements, with the actual manipulation of the refueling apparatus performed by main-
,
tenance personnel.
Reactor engineering personnel are utilized to provide additional verification that the fuel moves are performed
properly. The training cor.sisted of c16ssroom instruction on plat-
form description, operation and interlocks, fuel bundle description and orientatio, and fuel handling and manipulation. The classroom instruction was followed up by nands on practice on the refueling platform roving a dummy fuel bundle anc blade guide. The inspector witnessed portions of the training in the field and found it adequate.
The licensee also instituted full security and health physics controls
,
during the practice training. This provided practical training for
.
the security and health physics personnel. The licensee pe. formed training for operators in the control room on technical specification requirements and special equipment or indications available in the control room.
The licensee prepared a s:hedule fer the fuel movement activities which include preparations for fuel movement, disassembly, fuel movement to the pool and reassembly of the vessel and drywell.
- The inspector reviewed the schedule.
No concerns were identified.
The inspector discussed with the Health Physics Engineer the plans for health physi:s coveray.' during fuel movements.
Radiation
Work Permits (Rk/s) had been prepared in advance.
The expected
ALARA dose calculation was less than five msn-millirem. The health physics personnel participated in the practice field
'
training as described above. The inspector did not identify any cuncerns with the health ' physics coverage.
The inspector reviewed the security olans for the defueling. As described above, during the hands on practice training, the secut it personnel also practiced their controls to be used during fuel s. -
i me.r t s.
The inspector did not identify any concerns with the secarity involvement with fuel movements.
<
'h,
.
- 4 l-
- - - - - -
-
m--
- * * -
y
-
-
b
.
.
[ _4
-
i a
-
The inspector reviewed the Quality Assurance (QA) plans for fuel
"
,
movement. The QA organization had extensive plans for the
'
l coverage of the fuel ruvement activities including the
'^
preparation, implementation, and closeout phase. QA was to perform inspections and surveillance on essentially 100% of the activities.
The inspector cencluded that the licensee preparations for defueling were adequate and that the facility was in a position to safely
,
transfer the fuel from the core to the fuel pool.
l t
/
2.2 Fuel Movements The inspector observed activities ssociated with disassembly of the reactor vessel, fuel movements and reactor vessel reassembly.
i No inadequacies wet. noted.
!
'
The following licensee procedures were referred to during the inspection.
32.704.02 React Ves Serv Platform & Sup-Inspect, Instal & Removal 32.704.05 Spent Fuel Pool Jib Cranes - Inspection and Operation i
32.704.06 Fuel Handling and Incore Tools-Use, Inspection r.nd
Operation 32.704.08 Refueling Platform, Aux. Hoists and Fuel Grapple Operation 34.001.01 Reactor BLOG Crane Hoist Sling & Cable Operebility test 34.001.02 Ref Platform Surveillance l
35.705 04-Removal of Refueling P,lty Shield Plugs 35.705.05' Removal of Dryer / Separator Storage Pool Shield Plugs 35.705.06 Removal of Refueling Canal Shield Plugs
'35.705.07 Drywell Head Removal
35.705.08 Reactor Vessel Head Insulation Package Removal 35.705.09 Reactor Vessel Head Detensioning 35.705.10 Rcactor Vessel Head Removal 35.705.11 Reactor Vessel Head Studs Removal 35.705.12 Steam Oryer Removal
, The inspector also verified the requirements of technical specifi-
.
cations 3/4.9, " Refueling Operations," were met. No inadequacies were noted. A number of minor equipment failures were noted. Most of these occurred on refueling platform apparatus. None of the failures jeopardized safety or violated requirements. The licensee took proper actions to correct the equipment problems.
Communications with the c.ontrol room was verified to be adequate.
Operability requirements for the fuel handling equipment and the neutron monitoring apparatus were verified to be in compliance with
.
-..-
--.
.
.
.-..
-
- -
- --
-
.
ti-o.
.
-
.
.
-6-r technical specifications.
Health physics monitoring and control of activities were adequate. Access control and equipmt.it accountability were adequate.
The inspector had no further questions.
l 3.0 Minimum Posture (40500)
The inspector reviewed the licensee's methods for determining post settlement system status astuming a " Fuel In Pool Scenario" (FIPS).
- -
Following completion of core offload, a large percentage of technical specifications no longer apply.
This assumes that the fuel emains in
- f.e spent fuel pool and is not handled in +he secondary containment.
&
.
The licensee has begen defining a minimum posture configur& tion consistent with this condition and the current license conditions.
The licensee defined four broad categories into which systems would be placed.
These aie:
Operable - Systems maintained to meet technical s;ecification
-
requirements for operability.
Functional - Essential support syrten not required per technical
-
specification but necessar/ for minimal plant functions.
l preserve - System equipment of considerable value; preserve for
-
sale or salvage.
,
L Secura System not operated or maintained.
Left in a
-
de-energized state.
l Each system was reviewed by the systems eng.neering group and L
considered for placement into one of *hese four categories The following assumptions were considared during the roviews:
Fuel would be moved to the spent fuel pool.
-
Following core offload, the cavfty would be drained. The reactor i
-
vessel head flange would be replaced but the studs would not be tensioned.
Control rods, nuclear instrumentation, and neutron sources. and vessel internals will remain in the vessel.
Reactor vessel level and chemistry will be maintained within technical specification'11mits.
K
'echnical specifications applicable "at all times" will be met
-
without exception.
Initially, technical specifications for conditions 4, 5, and *
-
will be met.
Exceptions to these will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
-
-
.
l o-
'
pg 3<
7'
.'
,
V ;
.
'
t r-7-
,
Thrlists were reviewed by the Review of Operations Committee (ROC). A sub-committee was appointed to conduct a detailed independent review.
,
This subcommittee made several recommendations and the lists were sent
'
back to the systems group for further evaluation. The final list was
-
.-
approved by ROC.
The inspector monitored the activities to classify. systems.
The
,
'
process appeared to be reasonable. The use of ROC to approve the classifications was appropriate. The ROC sub-committee performed an adaquate review and made a number of substantive connents which were incorporated by the systems group.
Compliance with technical specifications was noted to be a top priority. The inspector also found the initial classification of systems to be reasenable and consistent with technical specifications. The inspector will continue
-
to naq1 tor activities concerned with long term disposition of systems.
The inspector questioned the licerisees plans for operation of the fuel pool cooli's testem. The licensee is planning to not operate the fuel pool coo 19 s cctem due to the low decay heat calculated for the core (900kw). The Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) indicates that fuel pool cooling is operated to maintain the fuel pool water temperature less than 125 degrees Fahrenheit (F). The inspector inquired if the licensee had perfon:ed a safety analysis on the /eanned operating mode of the fuel pool cooling system.
Following tais inquiry, the
licensee performed a safety aaalysis.
This was reviewed by the inspector and found to be acceptable.
!.
As noted above, the licensee will continue to comply with specifi-cations applicable "at all times." These are mostly effluent monitoring, fire protection and administrative requirements.
There are few other technical specifications applicable when all fuel is in
-
I the spent fuel pool.
The liennsee plar.s to allow certain exceptions l.
to this and maintain systems operabic although not strictly required.
This is for systems required to move fuel in the secondary containment.
t l
The' inspector noted the licensee intends to fully comply with appli-l cable technical specificatione. Ultimately, license amendment requests will be submitted to reduce the scope of the current operating license even further. These submittals are in early planning stages and were not reviewed.
The' licensee intends to maintain all programmatic procedures as they
'
are cur rencly written. Administr:tive procedures will also remain effective.
For systems which will not be maintained operable the procedures will be "de-activated." Ge activated procedures will not receive the periodic reviews required by technical specifications.
It is estimated that approximately 50% of the current number of procedures will be de-activated.
'
.
.,
Egk r ww -~
- -
w
-
--.
-,
- - i m-
, -
---
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -'
,
e
,
,
i
<.
,
..
.
,
'
!
-8-
'
-
i
!
Quality assurance programs will not change but workload and staffing
!
will fall to minimum levels.
Certain administrative aspects of the implementing procedures will be changed.
Certain non-essential
activities will be eliminated. Workloads will be reduced consistent.
,
with the reduction in plant staff workload. Workloads will also be reduced consistent with Maintenance Work Request or LILCo Deficiency Report (LOR) disposition deferrals.
Resolution of deficiency reports and generic concerns applicable to inoperable systems will be deferred.
This will invc1ve documentation of the LDR or generic concern but the specific resolutions and related work may be deferred.
If work is conducted on an secured system, quality assurance will be conducted
,
.
consistent with the current program.
Exceptions will occur as the
'
licensee reciassifies safety systems through USAR updates or license amendments.
The licensee intends to eliminate a number of activ ties which are not I
specifically required in the quality assurance program description.
These involve additional inspector training, additional auditing, and reli:bility centered analysis. Although these programs have
'
c.ontributed greatly to quality programs they are not required and can be eliminated at the licensee's discretion.
As noted abovu the licensee will maintain all organizational and programmatic functions for the near term. The licensee is fully aware that changes to these facility components will require NRC approvt.1.
The licensee is currently considering a estructuring of the facility organization to become effective sometime in early 1990.
No forms 1 l
proposals have been made at this time.
1; i
Although these functions will remain intact, the licensee intends to reduce staffing levels consistent with the reduced workloads.
Approximately 50% of the plant staff positions will be eliminated.
These reductions were begun following completion of defueling. The inspector found no inadequacies with the staffing plan reduct Sns.
.
Training and yualification requirements of personnel will remain as
!
they are.
Exceptions may be required to fill certain positions. This
-
is expected to occur in certain positions where it may be difficult to attract qus11fied personnel from outside the company.
The licensee has committed to informing the NRC of exceptions to qualification requirements for replacement personnel.
Recently, the Radiological
,
Controls Division manager resigned and was replaced with the radiochemistry
,'
supervisor.
The radiochemistry supervisor meets all requirements except
'
for operations above 20% power. The licensee is preparing a memorandum to document the deficiency and the basis for an exception. This will presumably be bcsed on the fact that the licensee no longer plans to operate the facility at power. The ins 9ector had no further questions.
>
.;
.
-.
.
.
- -.
.
.
.
.
,,
.
,.v
.
V
-
.g.
i
,,
.
,
"
In conclusion, the inspector noted prograr, functions will remain
'o
.
stable for the near future. Staffing cuts have commenced and will
" '
ultimately reflect reduced workloadr.
Approximately 50% of the staff
positions will be eliminated.
This will be reduced further by USAR amendments to eliminate or consolidate program functions. Training and qualification requirements will remain the same; however, certain exceptions may be dealt with individually. The status of systems, staffinq and qualifications will continue to be reviewed during
,
subsequent inspections.
4.0 Licensee Meetings A publicly noticed meeting was held with the licensee at Region I on
-
June 30, 1989. The meeting was to allow the licensee to explain its short term plans given approval of the settlement. The licensee also outlined Flans for developing the minimum posture following reactor defueling. The licensee explained that a 50% reduction in on site
,
,
,
h sta N would-begin following defueling. This number was based on an i
analysis-of workloid assumi. g fuel in spent fuel pool and no cutbacks alternatives of program functions.
..
A publicly noticed meeting was held with the licensee at NRC Head-quarters, Bethesda, MD on July 28, 1989. The licensee essentially reiterated much of the information conveyed to Region I during the June 30, 1989 meeting discussed abole.
5.0 On anization Changes The licensee announced the following staff changes in a letter dated July 20, 1989 (SNRC-1615):
The Vice President, Office of Nuclear, John Leonard, would be
-
transferred to Vice President - Corporated Services. Mr. Leonard would retain authority over three areas which impact the Office of Nuclear. These are the Emergency Preparedness, Office of Training, and Non-Destructive Testing Group.
The Office of Nuclear will be headed by William E. Stieger, Jr.,
-
Assistant Vice President - Nuclear Jack A. Notaro, Manager, Nuclear Quality Assurance, to
-
Assistant to the Vice President - Gas Operations a
William Maloney, Manager Quality Control Division to Manager
'
-
,
g Nuclear Quality Assurance I
'
>
-
)
Charles A. Daverio, Manager, Nuclear Operations Support Department
-
to Assistant Departniant Manager in the Gas Supply and Pinnaing Department.
.
'
1.
j
,, -
-
.
..
'
'
'
.
i
'
'
-10-
> <
,
g..
Richerd Gutmann, Assistant Manager, Nuclear Operations Support
-
Department to Manager, Nuclear Operations Support Department
'
P.ichard T. Purceil, Operations Manager to Assistant Department
'
-
Manager New Business Michael Case, Operating Engineer to Operationr. Manager
-
6.0 Facility Tours (71707. 71710)
'
,
Control room instruments were observed for correlation between
- '
channels, proper functioning, and conformence with Technical
,
Specifications. Alarm conditions in effect and alarms received in the r
control room were discussed with operators. The inspector periodically
reviewed the night order log, tagout log, operator logs, and bypass jumper log.
Logs and records were reviewed to ensure compliance with
>
station procedures, to determine if entries were correctly made, and to serify correct communication and equipment status.
The inspector performed a detailed review of secondary containment systems required to support fuel movements.
This included verification of surveillance, system configuration, and operability requirements.
No inadequacie.,
were ncted.
7.0 T7.'s 2515/93 and 2515/95 In accordance with the following Temporary Instructions (TI), the inspector reviewed the licensea's action; in respon*,e to selected multi plant action items.
7.1 TI2515/93 - Inspection for Verificatioa of Quality Assurance Request Regarding Diesel Generator Fuel Oil (Multi-Plant Action
(MPA) Item A-15).
The purpose of this TI was to verify that the diesel generator oil is included in the plant's quality assurance program under 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix B requirements.
LILCo is currently required to perform analysis for diesel fuel oil usea in its electric power system and fire suppression system diese's by SNPS Technical Specifications 4.7.7.1.2 and 4.8.1.1.2d.
The methods for sampling and analyzing the diesel fuel oil for these systems are specified in Station Procedure 74.017.01, which was reviewed and approved by the plant's Quality Control organi-zation.
h sed on the above, MPA Item A-15 is closed.
7.2 TI2515/95 - Inspection for Verification of BWR Recirculation Pump Trip (Multi-Plant Action Item C-02). The purpose of this TI was to verify that licensees have installed a reactor recirculation pump trip for conditions indicative of an ATWS event in response to Multi-Plant Action Item C-02.
__
-
_
_
. _.
.
F
.
..:..
L
.-
e
-11-o
!
u LILCo has installed the' required recirculation pump trips s1 (reactor vessel water level-low low or reactor vessel pressure-high) and they are included in tne SNPS Technical Specifications,
-
in specification 3/4.3.4, "ATWS Recirculation Pump Trip System Instrumentation." Based on the above, MPA Item C-20 is closed.
8.0 Management Meetings (30703)
Periodic meetings were held with station management to discuss inspection findings during the inspection period. A summary of findings was also discussed at the conclusion of the inspection. No proprietary information was covered within the scope of the inspection, o
,
No written material was given to the licensee during the inspection period,
,
't b
[