IR 05000322/1985020

Insp Rept 50-322/85-20 on 850401-0515.No Violation Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Evaluation of Wetwell/Drywell Inerting Nitrogen Cooling Components,Colt Diesel Generator Testing Status & Previous Insp Items

ML20128P171
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	05/23/1985
From:	Eselgroth P, Strosnider J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20128P146	List: IR 05000322/1985020 ML20128P141
References
50-322-85-20, NUDOCS 8506030479
Download: ML20128P171 (8)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:- - x

              - -

# ,>

.n

               -
          .      ,

1~

      '

t ,A . j ., _ :e a> s

    .*    g ,
            ,
              '
               ,
 *.+..     ,  .L - a
 ~                '
        '
;     ,
     ,
        ,
             ,

? . .

      '           J*
 '
   "
        ,U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,x

..

    .. ,' ,
      ,
                .
,  >          .
            .
          . Region I
 '}
     ~
  ;
                -
                 ,
.
   .
'

5 . REPORT N /85-20

 -
       -
.
      .'7   )- .

ib

       ,
            ~
  -

DOCKET N :50-322-7,- .y ,

               ,
                 ;
.F 1 ,

LICENSE N NPF-19  ;

                 ,
*~
'

LICENSEE:;

     ^
      - 'Long' Island Lighting Company,          ;

, _ -P. O. Rox 618 "

  .     ,Shoreham Nuclear Power Station         !
      . Wading River, New York 1 11792   .
                ,
                 i
:    .
     . .

s INSPECTION AT: Shoreham..New' York  ! INSPECTION CONOUCTED:- April 1 - May 15,1985 , J -

  ' INSPECTOR:   ?

J. W. Eselg

         >  M 1, Senior Resident Inspector Dat'e SitJned fM-   ,
               ,,   ;
  ' APPROVED:     o-       .
              '
              !23/85   I r r      . R. Strosnider. Chief, Reactor Projects     Date Signed  .
 -
   . ction IB; Division of Reactor Projects
 <

< ,

                 '

...
 'L  SupMARY:    - The resident" inspector reviewed licensee actions to date on the'

6 ' licensee's evaluation 'of wetwell/drywell inerting nitrocen cooli.ng '  ;

- '.      components and Colt diese1' generator testing status. This report       1
'
  /  <   calso ' includes follow-up reviews of previous inspection items      '
                . i w       covering lead / acid battery installations, control rod drive cooling      g
-,'      's
                '

orifice clogging, quality assurance deficiency system management y~ overview and emergency diesel generator air start check valves.'

                '
                 ,i
 .
   .y r r  1
       ,,
         . ,.; ;     ,

m

              ,
     +   a   ,.  .

s V lJ5 The'inspecto'r closed' three previous inspection items and' opened '

' 1 ., J3 one new ite No  !

" .

    ] ,,   .'  </p'") ' ,',$ violations   ._ y, were identifie '
    .-  ~4This9eport . involved 64 hours' of inspection by the resident inspecto ;
, ,   . . y c. ,  r, ,
       -y    ,

g, .

     , , %p ' %, , , w - en. d ,

g

          ,< c-  -

ce r I, , o ,

       ,

s . 1 [ 'e

             '
   ' .% k ' k         I I,f ,'\ j
  *      +

p, i

~T    e-   k.?', .  } {,f ' [  '
             ;     <
,y ,

w- ' j .f-

    ,
      ,

ty- ,

           .. .     :

G' iybm .g ff~?, -

    . .    .

x * - t ;- .

           *

off s < - . ,zy , ,

  ~    ,f     f p    /  ' ' &
          *
           /'9 le
  -
      }   .
        ", I9) -j .' ,
         ,

f f , , p

;    , 0   ,  -.s  ;    .

l g _

 * ~        *

l' l 9- ,,

.,
    .,   . 4  ,
     ,
 * 5
, ,  %
, ^~~
                 '

l r^t * ,

                 , -
.w ,
   &v,, ,
      '

            .
                ,
  -
   : 'n . ,
        ,

I

,      .__ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
.

DETAILS 1.0 Persons' Contacted R. Gutmann, Maintenance Engineer (L) R. Kubinak, Director, OA, Safety & Compliance (L) A. Muller,QCDivisionManager(L) W.Steiger,PlantManager(L) D. Terry,MaintenanceDivisionManaqer(L) L - Long Island Lighting Conpany The inspector also held discussions with other licensee and contractor personnel during the course of the inspectio .0 Status of Previous Inspection items

  ,

2.1 (closed) Unresolved ~ Item 85-18-01: Lead / Acid Battery Installation Revie During the previous inspection period, the resident inspector reviewed the installation'of safety related batteries and their battery racks at the l plant, along with the licensee's maintenance engineer. This inspection was prompted by an NPC, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, memorandum which informed the regional office that analysis by GNB Batteries Inc. (formerly

     .

Gouldr Inc.) indicated that battery racks and batteries at some nuclear power plants may be install.ed with an improper end gap between the stringers and cells This' memorandum stated that the end gap should be between 1/8 and,1/4 inch and,,that irpproper end gap installations are not consistent with seismic qualification testing, j J, The 're'sident ins'pector and maintenance engineer inspected the A, B and C battery rooms and found that at several locations on the bank C1 battery installation the stringer to cell end gap measurement exceeded 1/4 inc The licensee initiated Maintenance Work Request (MWR) No. 85-1833 to correct this conditio During this period, the inspector checked the completed end gap adjustment work at the bank C1 battery installation and found it to be satisfactor This item is close .2 (closed)UnresolvedItem 85-18-02: Control Rod Drive Cooling Orifice Clogging.

< During the previous inspection period the licensee commenced a control rod drive (CRD) cleaning program as a result of indications of clogging in the CRD cooling water flow path of 60 CRD' Last month's report noted that when a control rod is fully inserted, attempts to insert the rod further typically result in a CRD " stall" flow in the control room of 1.3-1.5 gpm associated with flow through unobstructed CRD cooling water passages. Although CR0 operability was not affected, the " stall" flow on 60 of the CRD's had

, dropped to the 0-0.8 gpm range. Attempts to free up the cooling water
.

.

.

  -3-flow path by flushing were not successful and the licensee concluded, following consultation with General Electric, that inspection of the CRD cooling water orifice in each of the .CRD.'s was necessar Inspection of the CRD coolinq water orifices in several of theirive mechanisms revealed that the orifices, which have a 1/32 inch hole, were partially or completely clogoed by- a plastic'like sliver of material which turned out to be teflon. The licensee concluded that these teflon slivers had come from the scram inlet valve teflon seats which were found, upon examination, to be shredded at the inside diamete Discussions between the licensee and General Elcetric revealed that this splintering of the scram inlet valve seat could be minimized by use of a stronger tefzell seat which is used in later desien BWR plants that
    '

utilize a higher scram pressur The licensee elected to replace all 137 scram inlet valve ~ teflon seats with the improved tefzell material and completed that work durina this inspection period. The licensee also replaced the CRD cooling water orifice in 135 of the drive mechanisms with a newer design orifice having more holes and therefore being less prone to clonaina of the cooling flo In the remaining two drive mechanisms the orifice could not be removed without potentially damaging the CRD and General Electric recommended leaving them as is. The CRD cleaning effort also involved flushing of the lines between each of the 137 hydraulic control units and the CRD's when the latter was removed for cleanin CRD " stall" flow measurements taken on each of the CRD's following cleaning demonstrated that all " stall" flows have returned to norma The inspector had no further questions, this item is close .3 (closed) Violation 84-50-03: Ouality Assurance Deficiency System Management Overvie During a previous inspection period the resident inspector reviewed the Quality Assurance deficiency reportino/ tracking system and found that the licensee's program for ensuring that LILC0 Deficiency Report (LDR) findings have corrective actions identified in a timely manner was lackin Specifically, the inspector found twenty-three LDR's greater than ninety days old for which no licensee corrective action had been establishe This situation resulted in issuance of a Severity Level V violation (Supplement I) to the licensee aaainst 10CFR50, Apnendix B requirement During the previous inspection period the resident inspector reviewed corrective actions submitted by the licensee to the NRC for this violatio The violation corrective actions, submitted in a timely manner by the licensee, apoeared to incorporate some follow-un shortcomings similar to those which may have contributed to the original condition of non-comoliance found by the resident inspector. Specifically, the licensee response indi-cated that at the 90 day point, absent a OA Department approved corrective action for the stens to be taken to clear the deficiency, the 0A Manager would then

- , s-4-request more information of the responsible party. If a reply to this request was not received in 10 days, a Corrective Action Request would be issued. This course of action, at this point in time, was considered by the NRC to be a weak approach to resolving the matter of unapproved corrective actions for items which have existed for an already prolonged period of tim Following additional NRC/ Licensee discussions in this area, the licensee revised the LDR disposition follow-up steps to state the following:

"The Section responsible for the disposition should provide a disposition to the LDR within 30 days. If the disposition cannot be finalized within 30 days, the responsible individual should notify the appropriate Quality Division Manager (QDM) in writing of the estimated disposition completion date. If the disposition or a memo explaining a reason for LDR disposition in the future is not received by the 0A Department within 30 days, a memo by the applicable Quality Division Manager will be issued to the appropriate Section Head and/or Division and/or Department Manager with a copy, to the appropriate Responsible Division and/or Department Manager and QA Department Manage If a disposition to an LDR is not received by an appropriate QA Division within 45 days, the QA Manager, shall request, in writing, from the responsible Department Manager, a request for evaluation of significance of the unresolved LDR and an estimated completion date. A copy of this request shall be forwarded to the V.P. Office of Nuclear Operations. Failure to respond to the 45 day memo within 10 days, shall require the issuance of a Corrective Action, Request."-  ,

The resident inspector coEsiders t[his to be a satisfactory resolution of the timeliness issue and has no ,further questions on this aspect. The inspector has also noted a' marked improvement in the timeliness of establishing LDR disposition '

  '

Durihg.the previous insp'ection' period, the inspector reviewed the QA approved dispositions which had been ' established ' subsequent to the violation for som of the LDR's and found the dispositions ~ acceptable without further questioning on LDR's 1538,'1736, 1759, 1840, 1844, 1982, 2092, 2155, 2215, 2324, 2368, 2379, 2403, 2457, 2466"and 2488. During the current inspection period the inspector' reviewed QA ' approved dispositions for the remainder of the original 23 delinquent LDR's =plus two others and found the dispositions to ail to be acceptable. Specifically, this included LDR's 2341, 2352, 2355, 2455, 2485, 2470, 2471, 2472 and 247 The inspector- has .no ~ further questions. This item is closed.

Y-

K. ~ +

,
-
  ,-  y r,f [i spr
      . . ' ... uy  --[

s ,

        *
         ,
 ,
    ;, ~ -f  , > , ' , a'-!,
      '.
    ~'
    -
     "
      ' .   , ' y f l 1;  / ., . . .I ' O
      ' ' '
    .%f
        '
     ; ,
       ' '
,

se,7f . % y

         '
 ' 3.0 Emergency Diesel Generator (kDGl Air St'a'rt Check' Valves _ l BycopyofalettertotheNRCfromTransAmericaDeLaval,inc.(TDI),

the. licensee was formally notified of an air start. check valve problem that occurred at Grand Gulf. This problem involved broken check valve

 -

internals (disc guide) which was'found in one of the engine cylinder ' The TDI EDG's at Shoreham utilize the same type of 3 inch air start check

  -

valves which are manufactured by Williams Gauge Co., of Pittsburgh, P ;

  .During the previous report period the licensee commenced an inspection of the air start check valves on all three TDI engine Each engine utilizes
-
  .two of these valves in the air start system and the licensee's inspections
 . -of all six valves revealed one cracked valve body, one cracked valve disc, and one disc with a linear indication. This linear indication was deter-
  . mined by the licensee and TDI to be non-rejectable, however, the licensee elected not to return this disc to service. Also, among two spare valves received from the Midland plant, the licensee found a valve body with rejectable casting void Following completion of this inspection program,.the licensee was able,
  .through the use of in-house and offsite spares, to release six valves for use on EDG's-101, 102 and 103. These valves will be reinspected by the

<-

  ' licensee at a later dat Williams Gauge Co. check valves of the above valve design are also used
  .in the TDI engine jacket water cooling and lube oil systems in lis, 3 and 5 inch sizes. However, the licensee has determined that inspection of these
..
 . valves is- unwarranted due to the lower pressure and significantly less
"  severe application of the valves in these systems. The air start system valves operate at 225 psig and receive'an initial high impact opening from compressed air starting tanks whereas the jacket water cooling and lube oil systems operate at less than 100 psig and the valves are operated
 , by pumping-pressure which builds up more graduall The licensee also completed a review of all other plant safety related systems (including the Colt EDG) and determined that the subject check valve design is not used elsewhere in'Shoreham safety related system L The inspector had no further question .0 Wetwell/Drywell Nitrogen Inerting Concerns IE Information Notice 84-17, " Problems with Liquid Nitrogen Cooling Components Below the. Nil Ductility Temperature", dated March 5,1984 and General Electric Service Information Letter (SIL) No. '402 dated February 14, 1984, discuss an event at an operating BWR which resulted in a'large crack'in'the vent header in the torus. This was attributed   *

to brittle fracture caused by the injection of cold' nitrogen into the torus during inerting and SIL No. 402 provided specific recommended

 ' actions' for. all BWR's with Mark -I or II containment systems that utilize nitrogen for,inertin <  ,,
   .
     "
     *&c, +
       .,
        .
    ,g,  ;.  / )
    ,
    .i
     >

_ _ _ s  ;/ ,

o, w -= ,

      --
  ,       ,
     ,
        '
   ~!i'   b;
      ^
       ,
       '
   .   ,
           '
  ,
 ~

_

; *
    ,    -6-
~ . During this reporting psriod the inspector reviewed the SIL No. 402-
'

R '

  ' '
   ,

recompendation and the licensee's actions to date. SIL No. 402 l states that,the following recommendations apply to all Mark I and _II RWR's:

' '
   . Evaluate Inerting System Design-r    .
       .
        ,  ..
   '

Evaluate the de-ign of the nitrogen inerting system. Investigate ;

"
 +   '
    '
     ' the potential for introducing cold (less- than 400F) nitrogen and
  ,
     , the orientation of the nitrogen port relative to the vent header, downcomers, or other equipment in the wetwell and drywell which-
.s
  '

may be in the path of the injected nitrogen. Assure that the

*  '
     . temperature monitoring devices, the low . temperature. shutoff valve  .
     ,
^.

t land overall' system design are adequate to prevent the injection of cold nitrogen into the containmen '

 '

c *

    ' Evaluate Inerting System Operation
.
 '
<
    '

Review the operating experience' of the'inerting system to assure -

 . that the. vaporizer, the low temperature shutoff valve and the -

e temperature indicators have functioned properly. Evaluate the

. plant calibration, maintenance and operating procedures for the'  -

_ , , inerting system. Assure that cold nitrogen inje:: tion would be

  " . '

detected and prevente . By letter, SNRC-1098 dated October 17,'1984, the$ licensee stated that the

'

following containment inerting system. modifications would be made to-preclude introduction.ofL cold nitrogen into the containment:

       . - .
          ~ '
          / -
           '
   ,  . A temperature-controlled valve wil1'be added upstr am -
         -

, 3 of the nitrogen vaporize .~.

        .
        ,t J,,* W
         ?
          -

4+ ,,

-,     .

A control panel local to the vaporizir (inUtO yard) . will be installed. This will signal'the' temperature- , 1

" '

scontro11ed valve to close when the nitrggen temperature i downstream of the vaporizercisjbelow 4.0.f.ge"1 . p ,.

       ,,s , , ,  ,
          '

o c

     . .A thermocouple will be located on,the~ nitrogen piding O   -
           '

inside secondary containment, and wil,1: provide"the signal ?

 ,
     ,
     'to the control panel in the' yard. -L J j 4
       ;
        < ~,
          % r

     . A pressure relief valve (setpoint of 350.ps'ig) will bd 1L   installed upstream of the temperature-controlled valv ~  '
, .    :During follow-up on these modifications the inspector determined that the 4   * i associated design work is not finished, but the design / modification work
    'is ' scheduled to be complete in lo85 prio'r to the; initial inarting of the
 '

containment. ^This modification is covered by' Engineering Evaluation and

,
  '

1 Assistance Request (EEAR) No. 84-275. The licensee intends to perform the

', ,
 ,   recommended evaluation No. 2 during the initial containment inertin . ;
      > Y  _ I

     .
**
,.

   -7-i The inspector will review the completed design / modification work and system testing data at a later date. This is unresolved item 85-20-0 ,

5.0 ' Colt Diesel Generator Testing During this inspection period the licensee started the run-in for EDG902 on Monday, April 8,1985, with the lineup for the engine subsystems. All remaining prerequisites and initial conditions were completed by Tuesday ; morni ng. The engine was successfully started on the first attempt at 0645 hours on Tuesday, April 9,1985. Low RPM runs, governor setting, overspeed trip verification, voltage regulator and excitation checks and generator phase rotation were all completed by 1600 on the same day. The generator was initially synchronized and closed to the grid at 1715 hours on Tuesday, April 9,1985. By 1333 hours on Wednesday, April 10, 1985, the run-in was completed.and the engine was shutdown after completing all step load runs through the two hour run at 100% load (4430KW). As with the other two engines, all start attempts were successfu The licensee is currently 3roceeding with plans for a six diesel generator (TDI and. Colt) tie-in at tie first reactor refueling outage. The licensee intends to perform as much of'the~ physical modification work as possible prior to .that time 'so as to minimize-any impact on outage length. The i licensee has indicated that' Colt engines, EDG-901, 902 and 903 will supplement the TDI engines EDG-101,102 and 103, respective 1yt however, the autonatic/ manual. selection features have not as yet been finalize '

  ' -
   -

6.0 SiteTours.[[ -

   *

The resident inspector conducted periodic tours of accessible areas in the plant, in the new Colt Diesel Generator Building and around the site in ' general. During these tours. the foll,owing specific items were evaluated:

 - Fire Equipment - Operability and evidence of periodic inspection of fire suppression equipment;
 - Housekeeping - Maintenance of required cleanliness levels;  l
 - Equipment Preservation - Maintenance of special precautionary measures for installed equipment, as applicable;
 - QA/QC Surveillance - Pertinent activities were being surveilled on a sampling basis by qualified QA/QC personnel;
 - Security - Adequate security coverage for areas toured;
 - Component Tagging - Implementation of appropriate eculpment tagging for safety, equipment protection, and juriscictio All items observed during general site / plant tours were found to be satisfactor _ . _ . . - - _ .
...
       .
     " ,
        -
,
    -8-  -
.

7.0 Unresolved Items

     <. ,
      ~
'
  ' Areas for which more information is required to determine acceptability  l
. are considered unresolved. An unresolyed item is. contained in paragraph '
     ,

      ; .
       .,
    '

I 8.0 Management Meetings , '- i

      '

l ; '.. <4 s

    , . .. . .
        '
        .
    ^    '

At periodic intervals during the course of'this' inspection.' meetings were held with licensee management to discuss' the scope and findings - of this inspection. Based on the NRC Region '! review of this' report and discussions held with licensee representatives on May 16, 1985, . it was-determined that this report does not contain 'information sub ' ' ject to 10 CFR 2.790 restrictions. ;

     ,  .
       -

The resident inspector also attended the entrance and exit meetings for inspections conducted by region-based inspectors during the. perio .

       #
        !
'
        -
        !

t }}