ML20027B822
| ML20027B822 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/13/1982 |
| From: | Gallo R, Hannes P, Higgins J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20027B815 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737, TASK-2.K.3.13, TASK-TM 50-322-82-33, IEB-80-04, IEB-80-4, NUDOCS 8209300173 | |
| Download: ML20027B822 (8) | |
See also: IR 05000322/1982023
Text
F
,
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Reg. ion I
,
Report No. 50-322 /82-23
Docket No. 50-322
Category
B
License No. CPPR-95
Priority
--
_
Licensee:
Long Island Lighting Company
175 East Old Country Road
Hicksville, New York 11801
.
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1
Facility Name:
Inspection at:
Shoreham, New York
Inspection conducted: August 1 - September 8,1982
f J!fle
M
Inspectors: _ . Hi
! Mis, Senior Resident Inspector
date signed
J
__
AY fdA!.
}$2 -
date signed
P[H.'Hggs,Residen+ Inspector
date signed
~'
'f//3 /W
Approve by:
T,roj(ects Branch #1, DPRPM fallo, Chief, Reactor Projects Sectio
date signed
R
I
Inspection Summary:
Inspections on:
August 1 - September 8,1982 (Inspection Report No. 50-322/82-23)
Areas Inspected: Routine onsite regular, backshift and weekend inspections by the
l
resident inspectors (147 inspection hours) of work activities, preoperational
testing, and plant staff activities including: tours of the facility, procedure
review, test program implementation, review of NRC Bulletins, test results review,
review of construction deficiency reports, review of Three Mile Island modifications,
j
and followup on previously identified items,
i
Results: No violations were identified.
i
!
8209300173 820916
PDR ADOCK 05000322
'
G
l
L
.
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
'
R.Gutman,MaintenanceEngineer(L)
R. Jongeblood, Nuclear Engineer (L)
J. Kelly, Field QA Manager (L)
i
'
W. Matejek, Lead Advisory Engineer (S&W)
J. McCarthy, Section Supervisor - F0A (L)
M. Milligan, Project Engineer (L)
W. Museler, Manager, Construction and Engineering (L)
K. Nicholas, Lead Startup Engineer (GE)
R. Perra, Assistant Superintendent FQC (S&W)
R. Reen, Security Supervisor (L)
J. Ricardo, Lead Startup Engineer (S&W)
J. Riley, Operations Manager (GE)
J. Rivello, Plant Manager (L)
C. Seaman, Senior Asst. Project Engineer (L)
J. Smith, Manager, Special Projects (L)
R. Werner, 0QA Engineer (L)
E. Youngling, Startup Manager (L)
L
- Long Island Lighting Company
S&W - Stone and Webster
The inspector also held discussions with other licensee and contractor
personnel during the course of the inspection including management,
clerical, maintenance, operations, engineering, testing, health physics,
security, quality assurance, and construction personnel.
2.
Previous Inspection Item Update
2.1 Items Closed
2.1.1 (closed) Unresolved Item No. (322/80-09-01): Containment Systems
Technical Specifications Items: The inspector reviewed the latest
NRC draft of the Shoreham Technical Specifications and noted that
section 3/4.6.2 contains a limiting condition for operation and
surveillance requirements for the Drywell Floor Seal Pressurization
System.
Also in this same specification the 4.91 inches of water per
minute acceptance criteria has been deleted and the wording now reads
that leakage must be within the specified limit. This is acceptable
since the acceptable limits are defined in correspondence between the
licensee and the NRC relative to the Safety Evaluation Report open
item number 26,
2.1.2 (closed) Violation No. (322/81-13-01): Startup Manual Control: This
violation cited discrepancies associated with the updating of the
various controlled copies of the Startup Manual.
It was updated in
inspection report 82-02 and then cited as a repeat violation in
inspection report 82-08. The licensee stated that all manuals have
been corrected and that the Administrative Aide to the Startup Manager
is responsible for changes. All changes to controlled copies are to
be made by Startup personnel. The inspector reviewed the following
..
.
.
-3-
in selected copies of controlled Startup Panuals:
- Proper entry of Revision 17
- Proper entry of Revision 18
- Correct pages in place for selected earlier revisions
- Proper entry of the new Startup Instruction No. 9 into
Appendix 4A of the Startup Manual
- Correct revisions of Startup Instructions No. I through No. 8
in the manuals
The inspector also reviewed the last two quarterly surveillances by
Operational Quality Assurance (0QA) of the Startup Manual, No.82-113
dated March 29, 1982 and No.82-114 dated June 30, 1982. The inspector
noted that the licensee had established adequate control of the Startup
Manual and had no further questions.
This violation is closed.
2.1.3 (closed) Unresolved Item No. (322/81-20-01): Hole in motor-operated
valve (MOV) casing: The licensee issued Repair / Rework Request
No. P42-170 to replace the damaged MOV motor casing for valve P42*MOV-036.
This was completed June 14, 1982 and the valve was retested as appropriate.
The inspector reviewed the documentation and observed the new motor
installed on the M0V. This item is closed.
2.1.4 (closed) Violation No. (322/82-08-01): Document Control: This violation
had two parts, control of the Startup Manual and use of an improperly
approved procedure. The resolution of the Startup Manual control is
discussed above under Violation No. (322/81-13-01). With respect to
the procedure approval, the licensee initially took exception to the
findings in letter SNRC-720 dated June 25, 1982; and then agreed to
specified controls and approvals, which were documented in the letter
from the NRC to LILC0 dated August 9,1962.
In reviews performed
during this inspection period, no exemples were identified where
appropriate procedures and approvals were not executed..
Additionally,
the Startup Manager has reviewed and approved the test results of the
Inservice Reactor Pressure Boundary Leak Test performed between April
24 and May 3,1982. This item is closed.
2.1.5 (closed) Violation No. (322/81-13-01): Startup Lifted Leads and Jumpers:
The inspector observed the panels identified in this item and noted that
all discrepancies were corrected. The inspector conducted tours through-
out the plant during the inspection period and did not identify any
unauthorized startup lifted leads or jumpers. The inspector also
reviewed the Startup Jumper Tag File and the Jumper Log Book. No
discrepancies were identified.
The Startup organization has placed
.
.
-4-
'
plastic insulating end-caps on spare leads in control room and relay
room panels in place of the tape previously used in order to quickly
and easily distinguish between spare leads and temporarily lifted
leads. Discussions and document review indicate that program
requirements have been re-emphasized to Startup Personnel. The
inspector reviewed Operational Quality Assurance (00A) 1902 documents
associated with the lifted lead and jumper program including: the
bi-monthly surveillances, corrective action requests, and LILCO
deficiency reports (LDRs) and noted a decreasing nu&:r of identified
problems. The inspector noted that the Startup response to two LDRs
stated that particular lifted leads without tags were acceptable
since the leads had not been lifted as part of a test procedure. The
inspector did not agree with this narrow interpretation and discussed
this with the Startup Manager, who agreed that any lifted lead or
jumper in place overnight, should and would be tagged per the Startup
Manual. Startup has initiated a weekly surveillance program to
survey control room, relay room, and remote shutdown room panels for
improper lifted leads and jumpers. The inspector reviewed the records
of this program and noted that it appeared effective in reducing the
number of identified problems.
This violation is closed.
2.1.6 (closed) Unresolved Item No. (322/82-13-05): Annunciator Data List:
The inspector reviewed the identified annunciators and a random
selection of additional annunciators on the data list. All were
appropriately yellow-lined.
In addition the Startup Work Coordinator
and the Startup technicians have been reinstructed in the proper
updating of the annunciator data list. This item is closed.
2.2 Items Remaining Open
2.2.1 (open) Violation No. (322/81-14-01): Jumpers and Lifted Leads: This
item was previously reviewed in report 81-20.
Danger tagging and
l
jurisdictional tagging were found acceptable then.
No discrepancies
have been identified in these areas during the current inspection
'
either. The area of Startup jumpers and lifted leads was addressed
above in paragraph 2.1.5 and was found acceptable. The remaining
area is the plant staff jumper and lifted lead program.
During the
inspection 81-20 update discrepancies were identified in this program.
During the current inspection, additional discrepancies were identified
in this program as follows: Permits 81-11-4, 82-04-01, 82-08-03,
and 82-08-06 had no expected duration; Permit 82-08-03 did not indicate
the number of tags; several monthly audits performed since the issuance
of the above pemits did not identify the noted discrepancies; and in
Panel WWP the lead to relay 3L-FW-VL was not tagged, three tags were
attached to a terminal vice the lifted lead, and there were two lifted
leads (the white and green / black leads of cable M42-NNC046) with no
tags on the right side of the panel. This item remains open.
.
.
_.
.-
- .. -
. ..
-
.
-
-.
_ _.
._
__ .
.
_
_
_
_
._
.
-
.
,
!
-5-
s
2.2.2 (open) Unresolved Item No. (322/80-04-04): Vendor Procedures:
,
.
The licensee has revised the Startup Manual, paragraph 7.6.2 to
require that the Joint Test Group review and approve any vendor
procedure used for test activites.
For the testing of the Carbon
and HEPA filters the licensee has written and approved procedure
CG.000.037 "In Place Testing of HEPA Filter and Carbon Adsorber Stage",
i
The inspector reviewed the procedure against the FSAR, ANSI N-510, and
Re ulatory Guide (R.G.).1.52, Rev. 2 and noted three minor discrepancies:
i
(1 an incorrect reference on enclosure 1, Table 1 to step 8.5;
.
'
(2 a missing equation on enclosure 6, page 2; and (3) the procedure
,
does not require that air flow be continued after the charcoal adsorber
test till residual gas effluent is less than 0.01 ppm per R.G.1.52
'
paragraph C.5.d.
This item remains open.
2.2.3 (open) Violation No. (322/82-13-04): Test Program:
Item 1 - The
inspector reviewed Checkout & Initial Operations (CAIO) package
,
number E11-254A dated .iugust 5,1982, which performed the retests of
-
relays E11*K45A and B and discusred the completeness of C&IO files with
.
test engineers involved. No discrepancies were identified.
Item 2 -
'
The inspector reviewed CAIO package No. E11-254A which contained circuit
wiring checks in accordance with EADCR P-363098. However, the inspector
noted that as of September 7,1982 the Yellow Line Master drawing for
'
1.61-1361 had not yet been corrected.
Item 3 - Not reviewed yet.
<
This violation remains open.
.
3.
Plant Tour
The inspector conducted periodic tours of accessible areas in the plant during
normal, backshift, and week-end hours.
During these tours, the following
specific items were evaluated:
- Hot Work - Adequacy of fire prevention / protection measures used;
- Fire Equipment - Operability and evidence of periodic inspection of fire
,
suppression equipment;
- Housekeeping - Maintenance of required cleanness levels of systems under
or following testing;
'
- Equipment Preservation - Maintenance of special' precaution'ary measures for
installed equipment, as applicable;
- QA/QC surveillance - Pertinent construction and startup activities were
being surveilled on a sampling basis by qualified QA/QC personnel;
- Security - Adequate site construction security;
- Weld Rod Control - Observations to determine weld rod was being controlled
4
per site procedures; and
'
- Component Tagging - Implementation of appropriate equipment tagging for
safety, equipment protection, and jurisdiction.
'.
. Minor _ discrepancies identified were brought to the licensee's attention and
were corrected.
-
.
- -
.
.-
_____--____ ___ __
-
.-
.- .. -
. . . - -
- . _ -
. - _ -- - .=
-
-.
-
. - - - _ _ .
.
.
-6-
f
4.
Three Mile Island (TMI) Modifications
i
4.'1 Reactor Core Isolation Coo 11ng (RCIC)' Automatic Restart
This is item II.K.3.13 of NUREG-0737, " Clarification of TMI Action
!
,
i
Plan Requirements".
In letter SMRC-744 dated July 29, 1982 the
licensee stated that this item was ready for confirmatory review.
.
The inspector reviewed the completed RCIC Preoperational Test,
PT.119.001-1, which verified the installation of the RCIC automatic
n
restart modification. The inspector also reviewed station operating
and alarm response procedures-for the RCIC system and noted that:
(1)SP.23.119.01, Rev. O and ARP 1062, Rev. I were not revised after
the modification, and (2) ARP 1248 Rev. O. Reactor High Water Level,
~ !
does not mention the HPCI or RCIC turbine trips. Additionally, the
'
inspector noted that prior to implementing this modification, all RCIC.
turbine trips gave the control room RCIC Turbine Tripped Alarm. This
,
alam scheme is still described in the FSAR, but has been degraded in
the plant in that now a trip on high reactor water level (level 8)
will not give the RCIC Turbine Tripped Alarm. The inspector stated that
the intent of the TMI modification was not to remove existing alarm
indications. This item remains open.
,
5.
Containment Purge Valve Operability Test
In letter SNRC-636 to the NRC the licensee comitted to the performance of
an In-Situ operability test of a six inch containment purge valve. These
a
valves are air-opened and spring-closed. This test was perfomed during
the Structural Acceptance Test at a containment pressure of greater than
55 psig and demonstrated that the valve will close within 5 seconds as
required by SER Open Item No. 36 and II.E.4.2.
The inspector reviewed the
test data, observed the valves in the plant (including the new debris screen
at the inlet from the drywell), and discussed the test and valve arrangement
with cognizant licensee personnel.
During the test, difficulty was experienced
with the opening of one purge valve located inside the drywell due to
insufficient differential pressure. The test was performed satisfactorily
using a valve physically located outside of the primary containment and it
was determined that, had the inside valve been opened, it would close also.
This is because both sides of the valve diaphragm are vented during closure
and the spring is the only closing force. The inspector had no further
questions in this area.
i
-
6.
Construction Deficiency Reports
In letters to the NRC dated November 30, 1981 and July 23, 1982 the licensee
described a reportable deficiency involvingw(ater hammer loads affecting the
4
Control Rod Drive (CRD) System at Shoreham Item No. 81-00-09). The inspector
discussed various aspects of this problem with NRC regional management and with
licensee representatives as follows. All design loads are to be specified by
'
Stone & Webster (S&W), the licensee's Architect-Engineer. Also, the pipe
stress analysis is to be perfomed by Stone & Webster. Pipe support design
i
w
,
, - , , , . . . ~ . , . - -
, , -
,
--,,cx,-,
m,,,,,,,..
,-..-_..-,..,v,m
.--c .-
_....-,,,,,-m
,-
---,_-~m.,s
. - , .-
.
.
-7-
will be performed by Reactor Controls, Inc. (RCI) using the S&W supplied
loads. Both the licensee and S&W have sent design / engineering personnel
to RCI to review the design process to be utilized for the CRD pipe supports.
Finally, the licensee has committed to performing an onsite design review of
four CRD pipe supports: one modified support inside and one outside primary
containment; and one unmodified support inside and one outside containment.
This item will receive further review and remains open.
7.
New Fuel Inspections
The inspector observed the uncrating of new fuel from the metal shipping
containers, the inspection of the new fuel, and the dry storage of the fuel
in the fuel pool area.
During the witnessing the inspector noted that:
- License requirements were being met.
- Security measures were in place.
- Health physics controls were in place.
- Fire protection measures were being observed.
- Personnel were qualified.
- Inspections were perfonned per procedures and results were documented.
- Fuel assemblies were carefully handled.
A few discrepancies were identified by the new fuel inspectors which were
typical of new fuel. These are scheduled for correction prior to use of the
new fuel.
Discussions with responsible personnel indicated that no mishaps
had occurred during fuel handling and inspections.
During the placement of-
the initial bundles in the fuel pool area, the inspector noted that the tag
.
board already indicated the final position with all fuel assemblies in the
l
pool.
The licensee's representative agreed that the tag board should be
maintained current as each fuel assembly was moved and changed the method
of handling the tag board. Further inspections revealed no discrepancies.
,
l
The inspector had no additional questions on inspection of new fuel at this time.
8.
NRC Bulletins
l
Bulletin 80-04: This Bulletin, " Analysis of a PWR Main Steam Line Break
with continued Feedwater Addition" involved an analysis discrepancy at a
Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR). The licensee has reviewed this Bulletin
and determined that it is not applicable to Shoreham, a Boiling Water Reactor.
This Bulletin is closed.
9.
Preoperational Test Program Implementation
During the inspection period the inspector observed portions of system and
component testing, reviewed test documentation, held discussions with test
engineers and startup management, observed equipment operation, reviewed the
use and updating of controlled test procedures, and reviewed test organization
and scheduling.
No discrepancies were identified.
..
.
_
.
. - -
l
"
,
.
.
-8-
10. Management Meetings
At periodic intervals during the course of this inspection, meetings were
held with licensee management to discuss the scope and findings of this
inspection.
The resident inspector also attended selected entrance and exit interviews
for four region-based inspections conducted during the inspection period.
Additionally, the inspector participated in the following meetings / reviews
conducted with the licensee:
- Caseload Forecast Panel to review the licensee's current schedule.
- Meeting with LILC0 President W. Uhl, et al. in Region I to discuss
prerequisites for an operating license and other topics.
- NRR site visit to discuss post-accident discharge of radioactive
material and secondary containment flooding.
t
l
l
l
l
!
l
k
. . -
. -
.