IR 05000322/1985028

Insp Rept 50-322/85-28 on 850624-28.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Startup Test Program,Including Startup Test Results,Test Exception Repts,Core Thermal Power Determination & Qa/Qc Interfaces

ML20133M961
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	08/02/1985
From:	Eselgroth P, Marilyn Evans, Florek D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20133M944	List: IR 05000322/1985028 ML20133M940
References
50-322-85-28, NUDOCS 8508130326
Download: ML20133M961 (7)

Text

-

,.

t I

l

!

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report N /85-28 Docket N License N NPF-19 . Priority --

. Category C 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: June 24-28, 1985 Inspectors d D .' F o r'e k , ad Reactor Engineer 8- 2 - SE date f /

////f/ HJa Em:7) $-$~f')

~

fM. Ef6s, eactq64 gineer date Approved by:

. Eselgr , Chief, TPS, DRS 8-2- 6 date Inspection Summary: Inspection on June 24-28, 1985 (Inspection Report No. 50-322/85-28).

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the Startup Test Pro-gram; including the overall startup test program, startup test results,. test exception reports,. core thermal power determination, turbine roll activities; containment local leak rate testing; QA/QC interfaces; and tours of the facility. The inspection involved 57 hours6.597222e-4 days <br />0.0158 hours <br />9.424603e-5 weeks <br />2.16885e-5 months <br /> onsite by two region based inspector !

l

Results: No violations were identifie j

1 e508130326Bj@$$$22 PDR ADOCK PDR G ,

_ J

-

, 3

.

DETAILS 1.0 P_ersons Contacted Long Island Lighting Company and Contractors D. Bouchie, Lead STD and A Engineer

• R. Grunseich, Supervisor Nuclear Licensing

• A. Himle, PATP Test Coordinator

• B. Kobel, Nuclear Licensing ,

R. Lawrence, Project Advisory Engineer I

• J. Livingston, PATP Test Coordinator

• R. Macina, Reactor Engineer I

• A. Mullen, QC Division Manager S. Petty, QC Supervisor

• G. Rhodes, Compliance Engineer

• J. Scalice, Operations Manager

• W. Steiger, Plant Manager ,

• B. Sutor, Compliance Engineer '

M. Toner, Reactor Engineer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l

• J. Berry, Senior Resident Inspector Designee

• P. Eselgroth, Section Chief Test Programs Section

• M. Evans, Reactor Engineer

• Denotes those present at exit meeting on June 28, 1985.

2.0 Startup Test Program

References:

l

• Shoreham Nuclear Power Station (SNPS), Final Safety Analysis i Report

• SNPS Safety Evaluation Report

• Regulatory Guide 1.68 " Initial Test Programs" for Water Cooled Reactor Power Plants" -

• SNPS Power Ascension Phase Planning Schedule l

• SP-12.075.01 Administration of Startup Testing

• ANSI N18.7-1976 " Administrative Controls and Quality Assurance for the Operational Phase of Nuclear Power Plants" l

"

.

.

2.1 Overall Startup Test Program The inspector reviewed the following documents:

• SP-12.075.01, " Administration of Startup Testing," Revision 9,

SP-12-075.01, " Administration of Startup Testing," Revision 10 draft copy

• Review of Operations Committee (ROC) Meeting Minutes for Meetings85-070, 85-071 and 85-072

.

• Test Review Committee (TRC) Meeting Minutes for Meeting 85-06 The inspector reviewed the above documents to followup the items identified in inspection report 50-322/85-14 Section 2.1 relating to the administration of the startup progra The inspector also reviewed the Master Startup Activity List in the Administration of Startup Testing Procedure SP-12.075.01 Rev. 9, to determine whether the overall program was consistent with the FSAR Chapter 14 commitments. The inspector reviewed the plant test schedule to ascertain that all tests committed for test condition heatup were scheduled by the license Findings Based on review of the Master Startup Activity List and the plant test schedule, the inspector verified that the licensee has satisfied the FSAR commitment The findings identified in Section 2.2 are also reflected in the fol-lowing concerns. The test results reviewed by the inspector for open vessel testing have not yet been reviewed and approved by management as described in Chapter 14 of the FSAR. The licensee conducted a plateau review which in addition to other items reviewed test summa-ries of test results prepared by the test personne Since ANSI 1 requires timely review of startup test results, the inspector ques-tioned the adequacy of the plateau review. The inspector also noted that the administrative procedure did not define plateau review ac-ceptance criteria for proceeding into the next test condition. The inspector noted that the plateau review as a minimum should assess that: all required tests were conducted, test results for tests con-ducted were reviewed and approved by management, all tests excep-tions were resolved, and all test changes made to completed tests were reviewed and approved by managemen The inspector noted during review of the administrative procedure that the licensee established a plant hold for level 1 test excep-tions and explicit approval of the plant manager to remove the plant

. . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ -

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . .

.

hol However, the specific administrative actions were not defined that must be completed in the period between the time a plant hold is placed due to identification of a level 1 test exception and the removal of the plant hold by the plant manage The inspector noted that the licensee has not proceeded into test condition heatup. The inspector discussed the above items at the exit and the findings were noted by the licensee. The inspector indicated that the above items would collectively constitute an unresolved item pending modification of the administrative procedure and conducting the required reviews prior to proceeding into test condition heatup. (322/85-28-01).

2.2 Startup Test Results The inspector reviewed the following test results for test condition open vessel for the attributes contained in inspection report 50-322/85-14 Section STP-1 " Chemistry and Radchemistry" STP-2 " Rad Measurements" STP-3 " Fuel Load" STP-4 " Full Core Shut Down Margin" STP-5 "CRD Testing" The inspector also reviewed temporary procedure change notice TPC 85-70 and station procedure change notice SPCN-85-198.

l Findings

!

Test summaries of results were prepared by test personnel. Several examples of conflict with the administrative procedure were also identified by the inspector which reflects a lack of management review and approval of test results. These include two documents labeled official test copy of STP-1, penciled entries of non-relevant test information in STP-1, and lack of reference to test exception report numbers in the affected step in the STP-2 procedur The inspector's review of the test data against the procedure acceptance criteria did not identify any unacceptable condition Chemistry data; rad surveys (see section 2.3 regarding TER-2-1);

CRD insert, withdraw, friction and scram data were all acceptabl The full core shutdown margin was 2.74% with an acceptance criteria of greater than 1.05%. The average scram times for the i

t

.

.

. _ _ _ _

~

r- ,

.

.

zero pressure scram condition were as follows: -

Notch Time to Notch 45 .238 39 . 4 .' 3 25 .845 5 1.535 Inspector review of the TPC and SPCN against STP-1 were found to be acceptable. Inspector will reassess the adequacy of the test results following review and approval by managemen .3 Test Exception Reports (TER)

The inspector reviewed 26 TER reports against STP's 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 811, and 817. Resolution of all TER's except 817-1 was reviewed and approved by the technical review committee (TRC) and review of operations committee (ROC) and management. TER-817-1 was recently identified. Inspector review of the resolutions identified no un-acceptable resolutions from a testing and plant operations viewpoin However, following inspector review of TER-2-1, he questioned the completeness of the resolution to prevent problems in the futur TER-2-1 was issued due to data unavailability for an unaccessible rad survey point. Data was not needed for this test conditio Licensee resolution did not address relocating the survey point to an accessible location. The licensee acknowledged the inspector's observatio .4 Core Thermal Power Determination for Low Power Testing The inspector reviewed the following documents:

• Portions of STP-12 "APRM Calibration," Revision 3, dated June 24, 198 * TP-54604.11 " Low Power Level Determination," Revision 1 dated June 26, 1985 -

• GE memorandum dated May 16, 1985 " Power Calculation Uncertainty at Low Power" The inspector reviewed the method the licensee will use to determine core thermal power under the low power license. The licensee indi-cated that the APRM's calibrated by the constant rate heatup method will be used to determine core thermal power. Inspector independent evaluation concluded the method is conservative. The licensee also indicated that they have installed ultrasonic flow meters on the startup feedwater line and will utilize data from these flowmeters and a standard steady state heat balance to further calibrate the

I J

p .,

--

.

l g

.

{ APRM's at approximately 2% power. The inspector expressed concern on i . using the data from the ultrasonic flow meters to further adjust the APRM's due to lack of previous experience. The inspector indicated that 'use of a constant rate testing calibration for APRM's is con-servative and has not caused problems in conducting the low power startup testing program in the past. A review of the uncertainty calculations performed by the licensee indicate uncertainty of the constant rate heatup method and low power steady state heat balance are comparable. Inspector independent assessment also concluded the sam Based on the inspector's investigation, the licensee representative agreed that for the low power testing:

• a constant rate heatup calibration will be used to adjust APRM's gains

• APRM's will be reading on the x10 scal .5 Turbine Roll Activity The inspector held discussions with the licensee representative regarding the plans to roll the turbine on the 5% license. The licensee indicated that they are reviewing the plans and activities of the recently completed low power turbine roll at Limerick and performing a safety evaluation for this activit The inspector will follow closely the licensee plans and evaluations in this are .0 Containment Local Leak Rate Testing The inspector observed primary containment purge air to suppression chamber isolation valve orientation and packing to determine if a problem previously identified at Peach Bottom (Inspection Report 50-272-85-23)

during containment Integrated Leak Rate Testing existed at Shoreham. At Peach Bottom, valve packing oriented toward primary containment had not been tested during local leak rate testin (LLRT)

The following procedures were also reviewed:

-

Procedure No. 84.654.03, Type C Local Leak Rate Test Penetration X-28, Surveillance completed June 14, 198 Procedure No. 84.654.07, Elastomer Seat Butterfly Valve Leak Test Penetration X-29, Surveillance completed June 12, 198 Findings l Based on discussions with a licensee representative inspection of the l valve orientation and review of the procedures, the inspector assessed

! that the problem identified at Peach Bottom does not exist at Shoreha . _ .

.'

.

Every 18 months, blank flanges are installed on the primary side of the valve and an LLRT is performed. Therefore, the valve packing is teste No unacceptable conditions were identifie .0 QA/QC Interfaces The inspector held discussions with the QC Division Manager and QC Super-visor and discussed plans for the Startup Test Program. The inspector also contacted QC inspectors regarding their activities and findings. QC has and will provide shift coverage and perform surveillance reviews of ongoing tests. Startup results will also be reviewed by QC, however, none have been reviewed to date since none have been reviewed by managemen The inspector also reviewed the audit report 85-02 conducted February 15 -

March 20, 1985 which included an assessment of the startup program. The audit identified two observation No violations were identifie .0. Tours of the Facility The inspector made several tours of the facility during the course of .

the inspection including the turbine building, reactor building, control l structure and control room. The inspector noted that scaffolding was j erected in the reactor building to implement Appendix R commitment No unacceptable conditions were note .0 INDEPENDENT MEASUREMENTS / Assessments Independent measurement or assessments are described in Section 2.2, 2.3, and .0 Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance or deviations. Unresolved items disclosed during the inspection are *

discussed in Section .0 Exit Interview At the conclusion of the site inspection on June 28, 1985, an exit i meeting was conducted with the licensee's senior site representatives (denoted in paragraph 1). The findings were identified and discussed.

i

'

At no time during the inspection did the inspector provide written inspection findings to the licensee. The licensee indicated that no proprietary information was contained in the scope of this inspectio l l

l

!