IR 05000443/1986031
| ML20202D924 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 07/03/1986 |
| From: | Eselgroth P, Wen P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20202D909 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-443-86-31, NUDOCS 8607140249 | |
| Download: ML20202D924 (6) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-443/86-31 Socket No.
50-443 License No.
CPPR-135 Licensee:
Public Service of New Hampshire P.O. Box 330 Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 Facility Name:
Seabrook Station, Unit 1 Inspection At:
Seabrook, New Hampshire Inspection Cenducted: June 2-6, 1986 Inspectors p
nl 1
_7-]^SS P5 C. nen,e eactor Engineer date r/_
f P.W.!g
[_
_
7-3' $$
Approved by:
selgrpth, Cntef, Test Programs date Section,Od,DRS Inspection Su. mary:
Inspection on June 2-6, 1986 (Inspection Report No.
50-4i3/sFril Areas Inspected:
Startup program and startup test procedures review.
Results: No violations were identified.
NOTE:
For acronyms not defined, refer to NUREG-0544,
" Handbook of Acronyms and Initialisms".
i 8607140249 860707 PDR ADOCK 0500
G
.
.
DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted Public Service of New Hampshire
- F. W. Bean, QA Engineer (YAEC)
- S. Dunphy, Technical Support Supervisor - STD (NHY)
- R. W. Gregory, Licensing Engineer, (UE&C)
P. Gurney, Reactor Engineering Supervisor (NHY)
"G. A. Kann, Test Group Manager - STD (NHY)
"D. G. McLain, Startup Manager (,iHY)
- W. T. Middleton, QA Staf f Engint er (YAEC)
"L. Rau, Reactor Startup Supervisor (NHY)
- W. R. Sullivan, CA Engineer (NHY)
C. Vincent, QC Supervisor (NHY)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
'A. C. Cerne, Senior Resident inspector D. G. Ruscitto, Resident Inspector The inspector also contacted other licensee personnel during the inspection.
- Denotes those present at the exit meeting on June 6, 1986.
2.0 Startup Test program 2.1 Test program Review The inspector reviewed the Seabrook-1 startup test program for initial fuel loading, initial criticality, low power tests, and power ascension tests during this inspection period.
Tne administrative control of start-up testing is described in the licensee's Startup Test Program Descrip-tion.
This document provides guidance for the administration of the Startup Test Program, and describes the startup test organization, the responsibilities of the various personnel during performance of a test, and the conduct, review and approval of tests.
The licensee's startup testing organization is well established and de-fined.
The Startup Manager has overall responsibility for the initial startup progran and reports directly to the Vice President - Nuclear Production.
The detailed test coordination and test performance will be managed by the Reactor Startup Supervisor and Test Group Manager.
The SDRC (Station Operation Review Committee) has final responsibility for reviewing and approving test procedures and co pleted test results.
The licensee plans to use four testing crews with five members each.
Each test crew will have expertise in reactor engineering, instrumentation and
.
.
control, plant systems, and simulator instruction.
The sequence of testing is described in startup test procedure 1-ST-1,
"Startup Program Administration," Rev. O.
This test procedure outlined the steps in the testing sequence, specified guidelines at appropriate points, and referenced detailed test procedures and data collections.
Based er the test program review and discussion with licensee represen-tative3 5e inspector determined that the requirements of the test pro-gram are..,nsistent with FSAR Chapter 14 and Regulatory Guide 1.6S com-mitments.
The majority of test procedures have been written and have received SORC's approval. Only 6 test procedures which are involved in the retest of problems icentified during Hot Functional Testing are still in the final approval stage.
The inspector also noted that all applicable test proce-dures were submitted to the NSSS vendor (Westinghouse) for review.
The co cents and resolutions have been completed and will be incorporated in the next test procedure revision.
The licensee's startup testing program is considered to be acceptable, to date, and the startup testing pre-paration is proceeding well.
2.2 Test Procedure Review The inspector reviewed test procedures as listed in Attachment A and discussed procedure content with licensee personnel to assure that the following criteria were met:
FSAR, Regulatory Guide 1.68, and Technical Specifications (Draft)
--
were incorporated.
procedure revie,vs and approvals were perforced in accordance with
--
the licensee's administrative controls.
Test objectives were clearly stated.
-
Pertinent prerequisites were identified.
--
Acceptance criteria against which the test 111 be judged were
--
clearly identified and that the procedare requires a comparison of the results against the acceptance criteria.
Step-by-step instructions for the perfor ance of the procedure were
--
co plete to the extent necessary to assure that test objectives are met.,
The procedure requires that te=porary connections, disconnections or
--
ju pers be restored to norcal or reference their control by another procedur.
.
--
The procedure provides identification of personnel conducting the testing and evaluating test data.
The inspector inforced a licensee representative that the 'following items had not been clearly / correctly incorporated into the test procedures:
(1)
1-ST-15: The current procedure (Rev. 0) directs the verification of system settings to be in agreement with the Westinghouse Precautions, limitations and Setpoints (PLS) document. However, for the reactor protection system (RpS) setpoints, the procedure did not specifically address to check against TS requirements.
Because the TS is still in the review and development process, the final TS RPS setting may deviate from the current Westinghouse PLS recommended values.
(2)
1-ST-18: The current procedure (Rev. 0) did not provide instruction to perform Moderator Temperature Coefficient (MTC) calculation upon completion of this test (Isothermal Temperature Coef ficient Measure-ment).
For the initial core startup the MTC tends to have a positive value at all rods out configuration, and the TS has specific require-ments upon discovering this situation.
(3)
1-ST-22:
The current procedure (Rev. 0) provides instructicn to manually trip the reactor during the natural circulation test if core power exceeds 7%.
Because the schedule of this test will be per-formed under the low-power license, the core power should be limited to less than 5%. The methodology to determine the core power also needs to be more specifically spelled out.
(4) The test sequence in the startup test program does not include the performance of the RCS flow normalization test.
This test involves normalizing the elbow tap delta pressure flow to accurately indicate the flow measured using the precision heat balance method.
The Reactor Engineering group has a surveillance procedure, Rx 1705, RCS Flow Rate and Nuclear Enthalpy Rise Hot Channel Factor Surveillance, Rev.0, to perform this task. However, the actual test schedule has not been incorporated in the main test sequence.
The licensee's representative acknowledged the inspector's findings.
Other than the items as noted above, the licensee's test procedures are well prepared and technically sound.
The inspector had no further questions.
3.0 QA/QC Interface with the Startup Test Program The inspector reviewed the Seabrook Operational Quality Assurance Program Manual, and held discussions with the site QC supervisor and a cognizant QC inspector to determine the adequacy of QA/QC involverent with the Startup Test Program.
,
,.
,
.
I The site QA organization will assign QC inspectors to perform surveillance on certain startup tests. Approximately 8 QC inspectors will be assigned to follow the startup test program. Most of these QC inspectors were involved in the preoperational test coverage and have operational experi-ence. QA/QC plans to have 24-hour coverage for the entire startup testing period. During low power physics testing a QA auditor with nuclear engine-ering background will be brought in to augment the QC startup test cover-age.
The inspector concluded that QA/QC is actively involved in the startup test program. The surveillance plans for each startup test are being prepared satisfactorily.
4.0 Manage-ent Meeting Licensee management was informed of the scope and purpose of the inspec-tion at an entrance meeting conducted on June 2, 1986.
The findings of the inspection were discussed with licensee representatives during the course of the inspectiun. An exit meeting was conducted on June 6,1986 at the conclusion of the inspection (see paragraph I for attendees).
At no time during this inspection was written material provided to the licensee.
Based on the NRC Region I review of this report and discussions held with the licensee representatives at the exit, it was determined that this report does not contain information subject to 10 CFR 2.790 restric-tion.
.
ATTACHMENT A STARTUP TEST PROCEDURES REVIEWED 1-ST-1, Startup Program Administration, Rev. 0
--
1-ST-3, Cere Loading Prerequisites, Rev. 0
--
1-ST-4, Initial Core Loading, Rev. 0
--
1-ST-6, Rod Control System, Rev. 0
--
--
1-ST-7, Rod Drop Time Measurements, Rev. 0 1-ST-8, Rod Position Indication, Rev. 0
--
--
1-ST-9, Pressurizer Spray and Heater Capability, Rev. 0 1-ST-11, Reactor Coolant System Flow Measurement, Rev. 0
--
1-ST-15, Reactor Plant Systems Setpoint Verification, Rev. 0
--
1-ST-16, Initial Criticality, Rev. 0
--
1-ST-18, Isothermal Temperature Coefficient Measurement, Rev. 0
--
1-ST-19, Flux Distribution Measurements at Low Power, Rev. 0
--
1-ST-20, Control Rod Worth Measurement, Rev. 0
--
1-ST-21, Pseudo Rod E,lection Test, Rev. 0
--
1-ST-22, Natural Circulation Test, Rev. 0
--
1-ST-50, Movable Incore Detector System, Rev. 0
--
.
p
-
-
-
r w,
.