IR 05000443/1986044
| ML20212P362 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 08/21/1986 |
| From: | Kramaric M, Mark Miller, Pasciak W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212P341 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-443-86-44, NUDOCS 8609030103 | |
| Download: ML20212P362 (8) | |
Text
-
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-443/86-44 Docket No.
50-443 License No.
CPPR-135 Category B Licensee:
Public Service of New Hampshire P.O. Box 330 Manchester, New Hampshire 03105
'
Facility Name:
Seabrook Nuclear Power Station - Unit 1 Inspection At:
Seabrook, New Hampshire Inspection Conducted: J 7-11, and August 4-7, 1986 e
.
O/
Inspectors:
h b (2 M. MilhV diatio Q pec list Q
/dat/
)) lb A), '
Gu c
M 7Kra riT, idiationSpe'ialist)
/ dat/
T 2I b
'
Approved by:
24 6L
'
W. Pasciak, Chief, Effluents Radiation
/ date Protection Section, EP & RPB, DRSS Inspection Summary:
Inspection on July 7 - 11,1986 (Report No. 50-443/86-44).
Areas Inspected: Announced preoperational inspection of the applicant's effluent controls and radioactive waste programs including: effluent measurement and control, solid radioactive waste management, radiological capability comparison, and preoperational and acceptance testing program.
Results:
No violations or deviations were identified.
.
G
%
"
8609030103 860822 PDR ADOCK 05000443 O
__
-_
_
__
_
-.
.
.-. -.
.
'
.
i DETAILS
!
)
1.
Individuals Contacted 1.1 Principal Licensee Employees
- G. Kingston, Compliance Manager
- H. Anderson, Radwaste/ Utilities Department Supervisor
- J. Linville, Chemistry Department Supervisor
- J. Rafalowski, Health Physics Department Supervisor J. Gallagher, Chemistry Operations Supervisor R. Litman, Chemistry Support Supervisor
- T. Pucko, Licensing Engineer
- M. Yergeau, Radwaste Engineer R. Campion, Chemistry Foreman
- R. Walker, Radwaste Foreman 1.2 Yankee Atomic Electric Company
- W. Middleton, Quality Assurance Staff Engineer 1.3 Contractors
'
A. Ficcardt, Air Balance Engineer, QTS
- S. Dunphy, Startup Supervisor, UE&C
- R. Gregory, Licensing Engineer, UE&C
.
1.4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- A. Cerne, Senior Resident Inspector D. Ruscitto, Resident Inspector
!
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Effluent Measurement and Chemistry Control The inspector reviewed recent changes to the licensee's program for the measurement and control of radioactive effluents. The licensee stated
'
their Offsite Dose Calculation llanual had been revised (effective June 30,
1986) which resulted in changes to the liquid effluent releases (CX0917.01), gaseous effluent releases (CX0917.02), and Offsite Dose Assessment (CX0908.01) procedures. The licensee forwarded the revised documents on July 23, 1986. The inspector reviewed these procedures as well as other Technical Specification surveillance procedures including, Engineered Safety Features - Containment Enclosure Emergency Air Cleanup
!
System and Fuel Storage Building Emergency Air Cleaning System procedures.
(e.g. filter testing, air capacity, visual inspection); and oxygen grab sample monitoring for controlling explosive gas mixtures in the Gaseous Waste System.
I i
- -. -
,
.,.
,,. -
,.
-., _ -.,. _, _.. _ _
_ - - - _ _ _. - _ _ _. _ _ - -. -, -
-
.
.
Within the scope of this review, no violations or inspector concerns were identified. The inspector noted that the licensee's Technical Specifi-cations were in final draft. The licensee discussed with the inspector that two sections, 4.9.12, Fuel Storage Building Air Cleaning and 3.11.2.5, Explosive Gas Mixture - Cubicles, would be amended to reflect expected operating conditions in the near future.
3.
Solid Radioactive Waste Management The Radwaste/ Utilities Department is the principal group that will process and ship radioactive materials. This organization, which includes a supervisor, foreman and three technicians is established and staffed.
Although personnel attended a radwaste shipping training course, supple-mental training in waste systems, waste classification and health physics will be completed by October, 1986. The inspector noted waste. processing and mobile waste solidification procedures were completed. The procedure for shipment of radioactive material (WN0597.003) was to be completed by July 31, 1986.
4.
Radiological Capability Comparison The licensee compared the results of the test samples submitted to the licensee by the NRC reference laboratory, Department of Energy, Radio-logical and Environmental Sciences Laboratory (RESL). The results of the sample measurements comparison are listed as Table 1 and the agreement criteria are included as Attachment 1.
The measurement comparison indicated that all of the results were in agreement with the exception of the H-3 and Fe-55 analyses. The inspector discussed the results with the licensee and reviewed the disagreements.
The H-3 analysis was performed in-house using a modification of the licensee's procedure, CS0920.07 Tritium by liquid scintillation using LS-1800. The procedure requires a starting volume of 50-70 m1, which is then distilled.
However, due to the sample size provided (100 ml) the licensee was unable to completely follow their procedure. Apparently the H-3 disagreement was due to the licensee's inability to perform the analysis per the procedure. Similarly, the licensee's contract lab also required a larger sample than originally provided in order to perform the Fe-55 analyses. The licensee later determined that a dilution factor error of 100 resulted in a disagreement between the NRC and licensee's valves. As a result of these two disagreements the inspector stated that another RESL test sample will be submitted to the licensee for the H-3 and Fe-55 analyses. The results of these analyses will be compared and docu-mented in a subsequent inspection repor.
.
5.
Preoperational and Acceptance Testing 5.1 General The inspectors examined preoperational and acceptance testing of the following systems:
Ventilation Systems
Gaseous Radioactive Waste System
Solid Waste System The review was with respect to criteria contained in the following:
Final Safety Analysis Report, Chapter 14, " Initial Tests Program"
Regulatory Guide 1.68, Revision 0, "Preoperational and Initial Startup Test Program for Water Cooled Power Reactors" Seabrook Power Station Unit 1, Technical Specifications (proposed)
The evaluation of the applicant's performance in this area was based on review of documentation, observations by the inspectors, and discussions with cognizant applicant personnel.
The review in this area examined among other matters, the following:
.
Procedures, test objectives and acceptance criteria
Status of Testing Program Evaluation of test exceptions and field test change notices
Adherence to test procedures
Adequacy of applicant review and resolution of test exceptions.
5.2 General Findings Within the sc~ ope of the review, the inspector determined that pre-operational testing and review of test results was being performed in an adequate manner. No breakdowns in the testing program or results review was identified. The inspectors noted that the Solid and Gaseous Waste System testing had not been completed and will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
The inspectors noted that the initial test program procedures were designed as either Preoperational Tests (PT) for safety related systems, and Acceptance Tests (AT) for non-safety related plant systems and equipmen.
.
5.3 Ventilation Systems The inspectors reviewed the licensee's preoperational testing of the following systems:
Fuel Storage Building HVAC
Waste Processing Building HVAC
Containment Enclosure Exhaust System Containment Structure Recirculating Filter Subsystem Containment Structure Air Purge and Heating
Containment On-Line Purge Subsystem The review consisted of a preliminary P&ID drawing review in compar-ison to the Seabrook FSAR Chaptars 6.5.1 and 9.4 design basis, iden-tification of filters and non-filtered ventilation systems and status of testing program.
Within the scope of this review, no deviations or unacceptable condi-tions were identified by the inspector. With the exception of the Containment Purge and Air Recirculation Systems, Containment Enclosure Exhaust System and Fuel Storage Building, operational and filter train testing, has not been completed.
Status of the testing program for the above listed systems was as follows:
Fuel Storage Building HVAC PT-27.1 Fuel Storage Building Ventilation System
- Completed February 24, 1986, One Test Exception PT-27.2 Fuel Storage Building Exhaust Filter System
- Completed February 14, 1986, Seven Test Exceptions PT-44 Plant Ventilation System Filter Testing; Filter F-74
- Completed February 13, 1986, No Test Exceptions Waste Processing Building AT-20.1 Waste Air Handling Ventilation System
- Procedure Approved October 23, 1984
- Scheduled for mid-June, 1986 PT-44 PVS Filter Testing; Filter F-143
- ScFeduled for mid-July, 1986 Containment Enclosure PT-23 Containment Enclosure Exhaust System
- Procedure Approved July 9, 1986
- Scheduled for mid-July, 1986 PT-44 Filtar Testing (EAH), Filters F-6 and F-69
- Completed July 9, 1986 PT-24 Containment Enclosure Leak Rate Test
- Completed June 20, 1986, Three Test Exceptions
.
.
-.
-
_ _ -
_.
.
.
.
.
Containment Structure s
PT-26 Containment Air Recirculation
- Completed April 16, 1986, One Test Exception PT-44 PVS Filter Testing; Filter F-8
- Scheduled for early July,1986 AT-22.
Containment Purge
- Completed April 23, 1986, Open Test Exceptions PT-44 PVS Filter Testing; Filter F-40
- Scheduled for early July,1986 The inspectors noted that most of the test exceptions would be closed upon completion of the Phase I air balance testing program which is documented as General Test GT(I)-M-03.
The inspectors verified that testing was being conducted in accordance with the referenced FSAR standards and applicable Regulatory Guides.
The licensee stated that the ventilation testing program as described in FSAR Chapter 14 would be completed prior to core loading. This area will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
6.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with the applicant's representatives denoted in Section 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on July 11, 1986. The inspectors summarized the purpose and scope of the inspection and the inspection findings.
.
--.
,
, - -
-
.
. - -.
- - _ _ _..,, - -.. -
.
.
Attachment 1 Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements (Table 1 only)
This attachment provides criteria for comparing results of capability tests and verification measurements. The criteria are based or an empirical relationship which combines prior experience and the accuracy r,eeds of this program.
In these criteria, the judgement limits are variable in relation to the compar-ison of the NRC Reference Laboratory's value to its associated uncertainty. As that ratio, referred to in this program as " Resolution", increases the accept-ability of a licensee's measurement should be more selective. Conversely,
_ poorer agreement must be considered acceptable as the resolution decreases.
Resolution = NRC REFERENCE VALUE RATIO = LICENSEE VALUE
REFERENCE VALUE UNCERTAINTY NRC REFERENCE VALUE Resolution Agreement
<3 0.4 - 2.5 4-7 0.5 - 2.0 8 - 15 0.6 - 1.66 16 - 50 0.75 - 1.33 51 - 200 0.80 - 1.25
>200 0.85 - 1.18
.
.!
-..-.
...
.. - -
,. _,.. -., -,. - - -...,
.. -...,, _. _ -, _... _ -, - - - - _.
.
.
_
_.
.
_
_
_
_
.
.
.
TABLE 1
.
SEABROOK VERIFICATION TEST RESULTS
!
SAMPLE ISOTOPE RESULTS IN MICR0 CURIES / MILLILITER COMPARISON NRC VALUE LICENSEE VALUE
______________________________________________________________________________
100 ml H-3 (8.98 0.20)E-5 (1.68 0.10)E-5 Disagreement-test sample Sr-89 (1.13 0.03)E-4 (1.50 0.09)E-4 Agreement Sr-90 (1.0710.04)E-5 (1.14 0.33)E-5 Agreement Cs-137 (8.18 0.25)E-5 (8.4210.20)E-5 Agreement Co-60 (7.28 0.14)E-5 (7.55 0.30)E-5 Agreement Mn-54 (5.05 0.10)E-5 (5.2210.20)E-5 Agreement Fe-55 (6.66 0.13)E-5 (6.62 0.47)E-7 Disagreement 1000 ml Co-60 (7.28 0.15)E-6 (7.23 0.30)E-6 Agreement test sample Cs-137 (8.18 0.25)E-6 (8.12 0.20)E-6 Agreement i
!
a
-, -,. - - -
-
. -.-.--
.--,-r.,e-.-
.. - -,
-,.- -.
.--,.-i..---.--,,
_