ML20054H042
| ML20054H042 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/26/1982 |
| From: | Gallo R, Higgins J, Paolino R, Richards S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054H027 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-322-82-08, 50-322-82-8, NUDOCS 8206220518 | |
| Download: ML20054H042 (9) | |
See also: IR 05000322/1982008
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
Region I
.
,
Report No. 50-322 / 82-08
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
.
Facility Name:
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1
Inspection at:
Shoreham, New York
Inspection conducted: March 30 - May 10, 1982
I
O b
Inspectors:
J[ hic 1
rSenior Reside t Inspector
date signed
li . 8D
'A
-
. en
m
date' igned
Reac or Inspecfor (3/1 & 4/1)
RTPao
iro
l
j
4 (L
hoca
Ib
cn
s
S. Richards, Reactor Inspector (3/31 & 4/1)
'datd signed
'
/hQh
6/76 f 82-.
Approved by:
R. M. Gallo, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 1A
date signed
projecn Branch #1, DPRP
Inspection Summary:
Inspections on: March 30-May 10,1982 (Inspection Report No. 50-322/82-08)
Areas Inspected: Routine onsite repular, backshift, and week-end inspections by the
resident inspector (110 inspection hours) and two regDrd.ned inspectors (16
inspection hours) of work activities,preoperational '.erhg and plant staff activities
including: tours of the facility, test procedura v vie. , tost witnessing, review of
,
NRC Bulletins and Circulars , review of electri9
'm
tion, review of environmental
qualifications, documentation review, participe Mar. i, JLB activities, and followup
on previous inspection findings.
Results: Of the nine areas inspected, no violations were identified in eight areas
and one violation was identified in the ninth area (failure to properly control the
issuance of docteents, paragraph 6).
8206220518 820527
DR ADOCK 05000322
Regio.. I Form 12
(Rev. April 77)
e,
.
.
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
T. Gerecke, Quality Assurance Manager (L)
J. Kelly, Field QA Manager (L)
W. Patejek, Lead Advisory Engineer (S&W)
J. McCarthy, Section Supervisor - FQA (L)
M. Milligan, Project Engineer (L)
K. Nicholas, Lead Startup Engineer (GE)
J. Notaro, Operating Engineer (L)
G. Price, Senior Asst. Project Engineer (L)
R. Reen, Security Supervisor (L)
J. Rivello, Plant Manager (L)
T. Rose, Acting 00A Engineer (L)
C. Seaman, Senior Asst. Project Engineer (L)
J. Smith, Manager, Special Projects (L)
D. Terry, Assistant Startup Manager (L)
R. Werner, 00A 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 manaaement, clerical, maintenance,
operations , engineering, testing, quality assurance and construction personnel.
2.
Previous Inspection Item Update
a.
(open) Unresolved Item No. (322/81-02-05): FSAR Conformance: This item
was also reviewed in inspection reports 81-18 and 81-20.
In a letter from
LILC0 to the NRC dated March 11, 1982 the licensee briefly described the
Shoreham Plant Configuration Paview Program. This program was further
described in meetings held for that purpose on April 2,1982 between the
licensee and Region I representatives.
During this meeting the licensee stated that each safety-related system in
the FSAR will be reviewed in this proqram.
The review consists of document
review, plant inspections, recording of discrepancies, and followup to ensure
correction of any identified discrepancies.
Correction may consist of
engineering disposition, plant changes or FSAR amendment. The licensee
further stated that four engineers are assigned full-time in order to complete
the program by late summer.
l
l
l
l
.
.
-3-
b.
(open) Unresolved Item No. (322/81-12-06): Control Room Core Spray
The licensee issued Engineering & Design Coordination
PanelLabeling):
Report (E8DCR No. F-36533A which corrected the disparity in valve
operating switches between loop A and loop B.
Both now have four
positions. The *A0V-081 disc position tags were removed. Also the position
indicator light nameplates were changed. The inspector noted that the
conrnon operating switch for valves E21*A0V-081 and E21*M0V-081, which had
previously been labeled only for the A0V, was now labeled only for the MOV.
This item remains open.
c.
(open) Unresolved Item No. (322/81-18-01): Steam Condensing Mode Temperature
Indications: This item identified that there is no temperature indication
for RCIC pump suction wager in the steam condensing mode and that the
The licensee reviewed this item and stated
temperature limit is 140 F.
(letter LIL-19667 dated March 19,1982) that additional instrumentation
was not required due to:
1.
low probability of high suction water temperature.
2.
minimal consequences with temperature above
140 F and below 170 F.
3.
a local temperature indicator on the RCIC
pump discharge.
The inspector reviewed this information with Region I and stated that this
did not provide adequate assurance that temperature limits for the RCIC
pump would not be exceeded during the steam condensing mode
Licensee pro-
g
cedure SP 23.121.01 properly cautions against exceeding 140 F but does not
provide either monitoring from control room, or constant monitoring at the
local indicator during startup with periodic logging thereafter. This
item remains open,
d.
(open) Unresolved Item No. (322/82-02-06):
Loose Parts Detection System
Preoperational Test: This item identified that initial calibration was
performed with no flow in the feedwater line and the calibration certifications
were not available for the test impact device. The inspector reviewed the
vendor's calibration certification for the impact device dated March 8,1982
and noted that it provided an impact of less than 0.5 ft.-lb. and that the
calibration was traceable to the National Bureau of Standards.
The licensee and the vender stated that system calibration with flow in the
feedwater line was the preferred method, although not actually required.
The licensee further stated that the Loose Parts Monitoring Startup Test,
when written, would call for calibration with flow in the feedwater line.
This item remains open pending review of the Startup Test.
I
b
.
.
-4-
3.
Plant Tour
a.
Discussion
The inspector conducted periodic tours of accessible areas in the plant
during nomal, backshift and week-end hours.
During then 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 precautionary measures
for installed equipment, as applicable;
- QA/QC surveillance - Pertinent construction and startup activities were
being surveilled on a sampling basis by qualified 0A/QC personnel;
- Security - Adequate site construction security;
- Veld Rod Control - Observations to determine weld rod was being controlled
per site procedures; and
- Component Tagging - Implementation o f appropriate equipment tagging for
safety, equipment protection, and jurisdiction.
No violations were identified.
4.
NRC Circulars
a.
Circulars Closed
Circular 78-08:
This Circular, " Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related Electrical
Equipment at Nuclear Power Plants", was issued to highlight the subject
area as a problem one. The licensee has established an environmental
qualification program, submitted the program to the NRC, and had an NRC
audit of that program on site.
Specific equipment problem areas are
covered in other NRC Bulletins and Circulars. Thus, this general Circular
is closed.
Circular 76-01:
This Circular, " Crane Hoist Control - Circuit Modifications", describes a
situation where modifications to the fuel cask handling crane allowed the
load to drop without the brakes engaging imediately. The licensee's reply
in 1976 stated that no such modifications were planned for the Shoreham
crane and that the crane's braking system had a history of satisfactory
performance.
Due to modifications perfomed on the crane between 1976 and
.
.
-5-
1980 the inspector requested that the licensee determine if this response
was still valid. The licensee reverified that the Shoreham crane should
not experience the described problem as documented in letter LIL-19551,
dated March 5, 1982.
Inspector review of onsite documents and a tour of
the crane raised no additional questions in this area. This Circular is
closed.
Circular 81-06:
This Circular, " Potential Deficiency Affecting Certain Foxboro 10 to 50
Millempere Transmitters", describes defects in the subject transmitters.
The licensee has reviewed his facility and detennined that such transmitters
are not used at Shoreham.
These transmitters have been added to the licensee's
Deficient Items List to prevent procurement in the future.
During tours of
the plant, the inspector reviewed documents and observed various transmitters
installed in the plant, and noted that none of the subject transmitters were
used. This Circular is closed,
b.
Circulars Open
Circular 78-12:
This Circular, "HPCI Turbine Control Valve Lift Rod Bending", described a
problem where the High Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI) Turbine's speed
could not be reduced to zero due to control valve lift rod bending. General
Electric Company issued a Service Information Letter (SIL No. 233) and a
Field Disposition Instruction (FDI) to address the problem. The licensee
reviewed the Circular and SIL, and issued E8DCR No. F-10778 to implement the
recomended modification to the turbine. The inspector reviewed the
documentation associated with the modification and a Field Ouality Control
Inspection Report (QCIR) dated June 29, 1979 which documented witnessing
of modification activities.
The FDI stated that the turbine vendor would
revise turbine documents to reflect the modification, however, inspector
>
review of the site turbine vendor manual did not reveal any reference to
the modification.
This Circular remains open pending resolution of the
vendor manual question.
Circular 78-14:
This Circular, "HPCI Turbine Reversing Chamber Hold Down Bolting", described
a problem where the subject bolts broke and remained inside the HPCI system.
General Electric Company issued SIL No. 274 and FDI # 76/88524 to address
the problem.
The licensee reviewed the Circular, SIL and FDI, and issued
E&DCR No. F-14314 to implement the recommended modification to the turbine.
The inspector reviewed completed modification paperwork, including a QCIR
documenting the witnessing of the activities by Field Quality Control. The
inspector also reviewed the turbine vendor manual and the HPCI Turbine
maintenance procedure SP 35.202.01, Rev. O.
The maintenance procedure
refers to the vendor manual for turbine disassembly. The inspector noted
that the manual was not detailed enough to even identify the parts that
were modified by the SIL.
The licensee's representative stated that the
'
acceptability of this would be reviewed. This Circular thus remains open.
.-
_
_ ___
.
.
-6-
5.
Preoperational Testing
a.
Discussion
The inspector and P.egion I reviewed portions of three test procedures:
PT.654.003, Rev.1, Primary Containment Leak Rate, Type C
PT.106.001, Rev. O, Control Rod Drive System
SP.22.009.01, with Startup revisions, Inservice Reactor Pressure
Boundary Leak Test
The inspector also witnessed portions of the three tests including:
the
Test Panel bypass 'talve leak check and Panel leak check, Control Rod
Drive (CRD) system flow rate test, and Reactor Vessel pressurization.
During the witnessing, the inspector noted that:
- test procedures were in use by personnel perfonning the tests;
- test personnel were suitably _ qualified;
- quality assurance participation was as required;
- data was logged per the procedures; and
- test acceptance criteria were met for portions observed.
With the exception of the items in paragraphs 5.b and 6. no discrepancies
were identified. The inspector also noted that the data collected for
the CRD flow rate test did not appear conclusive enough to demonstrate
that the acceptance criterion of 135 gpm had been met. The licensee had
not completed his evaluation of the data.
b.
Leak Rate Test Procedure
Based on the review of PT.654.003 and the test witnessing, the inspector
had four coments.
(1) The equation on page 8 of the procedure was incorrect. The correct
equation is given in ANSI /ANS-56.8-1981.
(2) The valve line up for step 8.1 was incomplete in that the flowmater
isolation valves were not designated as being open.
(3) Containment isolation valve leak tests do not measure test gas
temperature.
(4) The test panel is not verified to be level during calibration or
testing.
This item is unresolved and is designated as Item No. (322/82-08-02).
. . .
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ .
_ _ _ _
.
-7-
6.
Documentation
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion VI and the Shoreham FSAR section 17 require
that measures be established to control the issuance of documents including
changes thereto. Two instances of failure to properly control the issuance
of documents and changes were identified.
The first example relates to control of the Startup Instructions contained in
Appendix 4A of the Startup Manual.
Startup Manual section 4.17.3 states that
the Startup Instructions are approved by the Lead Startup Engineer. On April
27, 1982 the inspector noted that Rev. 2 to Startup Instruction No. 2, dated
April 8,1982, which was not formally approved by the Lead Startup Engineer,
was inserted in the Resource Center Startup Manual (Controlled Copy No. 36-1).
The approved Rev. I was removed.
The inspector reviewed several other Startup
Manuals, including the Control Room and the Operational Quality Assurance (00A)
controlled copies, and noted that all still contained the approved Rev.1.
The
inspector stated that this item was similar to previously identified instances
of failure to properly control changes to the Startup Manual.
The second example relates to approval and issuance of a test procedure. On
April 26, 1982 the inspector noted that the Inservice Reactor Pressure Boundary
Leak Test was being performed using a marked-up permanent plant Station Procedure,
which had been approved by the Assistant Startup Manager. The review and approval
method used for this test was not as
described in the FSAR, section 14.1
and the Startup Manual section 4.2.
The licensee's representative stated that
the Joint Test Group had discussed this test and concluded that, since it was
not an FSAR required test, that the test review and approval methods of the
FSAR and Startup Manual did not apply.
These two items constitute a violation and are designated Item No. (322/82-08-01).
7.
Electrical Separation
The resident inspector, two region-based inspectors and a representative of the
NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation toured the site and met with licensee
representatives to review four aspects of electrical separation:
1.
The effect of potential missiles generated by failure of the Reactor
Protection (RPS) Motor-Generator Sets on nearby class IE cables.
2.
Separation between raceways of redundant class IE divisions.
3.
Separation between class IE and non-class IE raceways.
4.
Separation of cabling not in a raceway.
j
_______
.
-8-
Documents utilized for the review included:
- Shoreham FSAR paragraph 3.12
- Regulatory Guide 1.75-Rev. 2
- Letters from NRC to LILC0 dated August 31, 1981 and March 15, 1982.
Based on the reviews, four understandings were reached:
1.
The licensee would conduct a review to determine the effect of any
potential missiles generated by the RPS Motor-Generator Sets and
the results would be provided to the NRC.
2.
When minimum separation was not maintained between raceways of
redundant class IE divisions, one of the four options listed in
the August 31, 1981 letter would be used, with preference given
j-
to options 1, 2, and 3.
If option 4 was selected, the specific analysis
would be submitted to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for review.
3.
Vertical separation of five feet would be maintained between class IE
and non-class IE raceways or barriers would be provided between them.
4.
The same separation criteria that apply to raceways would be applied
to plant cabling not in raceways.
The implementation of these items will be reviewed in a future inspection.
8
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) Activities
On April 13, 1982 the inspector participated in a tour of the Shoreham site
for the three member ASLB for Shoreham and all parties to operating license
hearings.
The inspector also attended portions of the limited public appearances
held before the ASLB as part of the second prehearing conference.
On May 4,1982 the formal hearings for the Shoreham operating license began.
The inspector attended portions of those hearings throughout the week of May 4.
9.
Environmental Qualifications
During the week of April 26, 1982 the NRC performed an audit of the licensee's
Equipment Environmental Qualification Program. This program is designed to
ensure that equipment, which must function after an accident such as a loss of
Coolant Accident or a High Energy Pipe Break, is qualified to survive any harsh
environment in which it may be located.
The inspector participated in several
meetings between the licensee and the audit team.
The results of this audit
will be reported separately by the audit team.
,
t
_g_
10.
New Fuel Procedures
In inspection 322/82-05 station procedure SP.58.001.01, Rev. 4, Receipt,
Inspection and Channeling of Unirradiated Fuel was reviewed and comments were
provided to the licensee. The licensee subsequently revised the procedure,
incorporating the comments. The inspector reviewed Rev. 5 to this procedure
and had no further comments at this time.
11.
NRC Inspector Impersonation
On April 27, 1982 a licensee contractor employee approached two other site
employees and began asking them questions.
He stated that he was an NRC
inspector, although he had nothing to identify himself as such. The licensee
performed a brief review of this incident and reported it to the resident
inspector, including the name of the offending individual. The inspector
informed the Region I office., who notified the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI). The FBI came to the site and interviewed the involved personnel. All
followup of this incident will be handled by the FBI.
12. Unresolved Items
Areas for which more inft rmation is required to determine acceptability are
considered unresolved. in unresolved item is contained in Paragraph 5.b of
this report.
13.
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
two region-based inspections conducted during the inspection period.
,
i