IR 05000443/1987009
| ML20206A019 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1987 |
| From: | Eselgroth P, Florek D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205T757 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-443-87-09, 50-443-87-9, NUDOCS 8704070392 | |
| Download: ML20206A019 (7) | |
Text
.-
,
i
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-443/87-09 Docket No.
50-443 License No.
NPF-56 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 Conducted: March 2-6, 1987
.
_ kA O
Inspector:
D. Ylorek,~ Lead Reactor Engineer
'
d/te /
W
//87
Approved by:
P. Eselgpfth, Chief ddte Test PrMgrams Section, OB, DRS Inspection Summary:
Inspection on March 2-6, 1987 (Inspection Report No.
50-443/87-09)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of the post core load hot functional testing activities, including emergency feedwater turbine drive testing, procedure changes, independent measurements, QC interfaces and tours of the facility.
Results:
No violations were identified.
NOTE:
For acronyms not defined refer to NUREG 0544 " Handbook of Acronyms and Initialisms".
8704070392 870401 PDR ADOCK 05000443 G
...
. -.
-
-
-
- -.
.
.
.
i DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
,
-
New Hampshire Yankee (NHY)
!
- S. Buchwald, QA Supervisor
- R. Connolly, QC l
- R. Cooney, Technical Project Manager
- R. Cyr, Maintenance Manager
.
- W. DiProtio, Assistant Station Manager P. Gurney, Reactor Engineering Department Supervisor
- G. Kann, Program Support Manager L Ray, Reactor Startup Supervisor
- D. Perkins, Licensing
- T. Pucko, Licensing J. Tipton, Test Engineer
T. Tate, QC
'
i
- C. Vincent, QC Supervisor
!
B. Webster, Test Engineer
!
)
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC)
A. Cerne, Senior Resident Inspector
.
D. Ruscitto, Resident Inspector I
The inspector also contacted other administrative, technical test and operations personnel during the course of this inspection.
l
- Denotes those present at the March 6, 1987 Exit Meeting.
'
2.0 Post-Core Load Hot Functional Testing i
Scope j
The inspector witnessed portions of the following tests:
I 1-ST-7 Rod Drop Time Measurements 1-ST-10 RTD Bypass Loop Flow Verification
,'
1-ST-53 Turbine Driven Emergency Feedwater (EFW)
Start Verification Test Tests were observed to determine if the tests were conducted in accordance
!
with the approved test procedures; changes to the procedures were made in accordance with the administrative procedures; test prerequisites were
'
met; adequate communications were established; operator actions were correct; and test results were evaluated upon test completion.
,
I I
l
-
!
.
. -
..
..
.
.
.
-
Discussion I
The testing performed during this inspection is a continuation of the post core load hot functional testing as described in inspection' report No. 50-443/87-05. The testing on rod drop times obtained additional data on rod L-05.
The RTD manifold testing was performed after increasing the orifice size due to low cold leg flows in a previous test. The EFW testing is a continuation of testing to verify the EFW System performs as designed.
The attributes identified above were found to be satisfied during the activities witnessed. However, the inspector's questions and concerns on changes to procedures are discussed in Section 4.0.
Rod Drop Testing During the reperformance of rod drop testing on rod L-05 on March 4, 1987, the rod was redropped three times. The inspector witnessed the rod drop on two drops and the data evaluation on two drops. The evaluation determined rod drop times of 1.35 and 1.36 seconds which satisfied the test criteria of less than 2.2 seconds. The inspector noted that QC
personnel were also witnessing test and operations personnel during the performance of this test.
RTD Bypass Loop Flow i
The reperformance of the RTD bypass loop flow verification on March 5,
"
1987 was required because the orifice size was increased due to low flow in the cold leg. The test obtained the following data:
i
!
Hot leg flow (gpm)
Cold leg flow (gpm)
Loop Required Actual Required Actual
>76 151
>47
,
!
>7/
157
>48
3
>78 149
>48
4
>77 153
>51
This data satisfied the test criteria.
Emergency Feedwater Testing The inspector witnessed EFW testing performed on March 3 and 4, 1987.
{
Testing witnessed on March 3, 1987 included tests performed to support
governor control adjustment.
It consisted of a quick start plus varia-tions in governor adjustments to determine stability. This evolution was
adequately controlle **
.
On March 4, 1987, the licensee attempted a cold quick start of the EFW turbine driven pump.
Steam line inlet temperatures were determined as
93 F and 87 F which satisfied the test prerequisites of less than 150*F. The inspector was monitoring pump discharge pressure 'and the time for the steam inlet valve (V-395) to open. The inspector noted that 28 seconds after initiation, valve V-395 opened and it took 65 seconds for the pump discharge pressure to exceed 1460 psig.
This is an indication that the test criterion of pump speed, which should be greater than 3350 rpm in less than or equal to 60 seconds, was not satisfied for this run.
This: was also confirmed by the test engineer who, using a portable strobe indicator, also indicated that the speed criterion was not met. A sub-
,
sequent run performed later in the day was also witnessed by the
!
inspector.
This run was made to obtain additional data to be used by engineering to modify the start sequence. The results were similar to the ones described above.
QC personnel were observed to be monitoring the test activities.
Findings No violations were identified.
3.0 EFW Turbine Drive Start Sequencing Changes
.
The inspector reviewed DCR 87-96 which changed the EFW turbine drive start
!
sequence based on previous EFW test runs, reviewed the revision 3 to 1-ST-53 Turbine Driven Emergency Feedwater Start Verification Test, and witnessed the Station Operation Review Committee (SORC) meeting on March
!
5, 1987 where the above documents were presented and reviewed. The change L
affected the opening times for the three valves which allow steam to enter the turbine. The change reduced, from 20 to 17 seconds, the delay in the opening of the steam admission valve, at the turbine, from the time the steam isolation valves at one of the two main steam lines, is fully open.
The opening time of the steam admission valve at the turbine was reduced from 10 seconds to between 5-6 seconds.
For this change the 50RC review was quite thorough.
The SORC noted tSat the tolerance allowed in the change to 1-ST-53 to measure the allowable stroke timing could deviate up i
to a second from that used in the desit change.
Appropriate changes were made to the procedure.
No unacceptable conditions were noted in this review.
l 4.0 Procedure Changes i
Scope During the course of this inspection, the inspector noted that the procedure changes to the startup tests reviewed, were classified as either intent or non-intent.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's i
e
.,,,.
-,,,.-r
-,v.-.
---,-~-m v
-
,,.
,
-,
.--
..y
,s.,,._,
- -,
-y
.
.-
-
. -.
.
.. - -
-
__ __.___
.
,
i i
i method to perform the assessment required by 10 CFR 50.59 for unreviewed safety questions.
The inspector reviewed Procedure 11210 Safety Evaluation 10 CFR 50.59, dated October 22, 1986, SM 6.1 Station Administra-
.
tive Procedures, dated. October 21, 1986, SM 6.2 Station Op'erating Pro-
!
cedures dated October 23, 1986 and the Startup Test Program Description
'
and held discussions with the Technical Projects Manager and Program
'
Support Manager to determine if the licensee.'s method was satisfactory.
Based on the documents reviewed, the inspector noted that the SORC was responsible for assessment for unreviewed safety questions.
This was documented in SORC meeting minutes.
The inspector expressed concern that for those changes classified as non-intent changes no assessment was required to be made, other than that implied by a determination of non-intent, until the SORC reviewed the change which could be as much as 14
'
days after the change was implemented as permitted by Technical Specifi-cation 6.7.3.
The non-intent determination is made based on general guidance in the various administrative procedures.
For startup test
>
i changes it related to changes in test objectives or acceptance criteria
whereas for normal station procedures it also related to methodology
'
,
changes.
Whereas none of the changes reviewed by the inspector repre-
-
sented changes that could be construed as unreviewed safety questions, I
the licensee's current procedure could allow such a change to be implemented. Independent of the inspector observations, the licensee had
,
recognized the weakness and was revising their procedure to be issued within a couple of weeks, to modify the procedure change forms such that in addition to determining intent or non-intent, the originator and reviewers would assess whether the change impacts the Technical Specifi-cations, FSAR or license.
This will provide additional assurance that changes are properly processed.
i During the witnessing of a 50RC meeting on March 5,1987, which satisfied l
the technical specification quorum requirements, the inspector noted that
'
several of the changes to procedures reviewed by the SORC were dependent on out of SORC meeting review by the S0RC members to determine that no unreviewed safety question was involved.
This was based on the inspector's observations of the lack of individual presentation other than the title or type, lack of copies for the SORC members of the change
-
at the meeting and the speed at which they were processed.
This was later confirmed by the Technical Projects Manager.
!
The licensee's practice is to publish the agenda listing the proposed
,
procedure changes for the 50RC ' meeting without providing a copy for each SORC member. The SORC members are instructed that if they wish to see a
'
specific change to see the SORC secretary.
Discussions with the SORC
secretary indicated that the SORC members frequently ask to see the t
changes but no log or documentation exists to indicate which SORC members reviewed the changes.
The actual SORC meeting is only perfunctory for
'
i those changes that are dependent on out of SORC meeting review unless a
'
comment has been developed by the out of meeting review.
This licensee i
.
-,. -,
.,-,-e.
-
--m-,-y--wr-+e
v
-,,-e--------
i.,-+,---
,,e,,.-~
,
n
,.-.-%
--,.,,-,y
+
-- -
~y--
r, - - ---
-
_
.
.
.
!
I practice could result in some procedure changes not satisfying the technical specification quorum requirements for review.
The startup procedure changes reviewed did not involve an unreviewed safety question.
!
For those late agenda item changes that were individually pre'sented to
SORC, and discussed in the meeting, the review was considered adequate.
.
The inspector's findings were acknowledged by the Technical Projects l
Manager.
Finding
'
An unresolved item will be assigned (443/87-09-01) pending completion of the licensee activities to revise the station procedures for performance of 50.59 reviews and to further assess the SORC practices to assure that technical specification SORC quorum requirements are not compromised by
the SORC out of meeting reviews.
5.0 Independent Measurements
The inspector independently assessed the EFW turbine performances and verified prerequisites during the EFW tasting discussed in Section 2.0.
6.0 QA/QC Interfaces Throughout the inspection, the inspector noted that QC was monitoring the licensee testing activities.
This included the Rod Drop Tests, RTD Manifold Tests and EFW Turbine Tests. The inspector also discussed with the QC Supervisor the plans for performing QC review of completed startup tests. QC reviews are planned for completed startup tests. No unaccept-able conditions were noted.
E 7.0 Tours of the Facility / Licensee Meetings The inspector made tours of several areas of the facility to observe work in progress, housekeeping and cleanliness controls.
In addition the inspector observed several licensee Plan of the Day meetings which review plant status and discuss planned testing.
No unacceptable conditions j
were noted.
8.0 Unresolved Items Unresolved Items are matters about which more information is required in j
order to determine whether they are acceptable, an item of noncompliance
or a deviation.
Unresolved items disclosed during the inspection are discussed in paragraph 4.0.
,
9.0 Exit Interview At the conclusion of the site inspection on March 6, 1987, an exit
meeting was conducted with the licensee's senior site representative l
,
,, - - - - - -,
, - - - - - - - - - -, -..,,
rw, n e r-,,,y m, - - - -, - - - <
g-
,-e.
,
,-, - +
,,.. -, - - - - - - - - -, - - -
,- -
g.-,-
,,-,,
,
....
-
_ __ __ _
._.
. _...
-
...
_
_ _ _... -- _
.. _ _ _ - -
_. _._
_
.
,
6-
r
.
- -
i I
(denoted in section 1).
At no time during this inspection were written I
inspection findings provided to the licensee.
Based on the Region I review of this report and discussions held-with the licensee representa-l tives at the exit, it was determined that this report does no't contain
'
l information subject to 10 CFR 2.790 restrictions.
i i
'
<.
J I
4
.,
J
!
!
!
I
l
!
!
!
l
.
-
!
i a
e
!
1
- i
<
&
1
.i
i
,,.,w--,
,
-n,.-,-r,--,,,-u
-, -, - - -,w.~----n.n---
--,,,,n,,n--,,,.-r-,
,-,-,,n
-,,.,
-w,.---.e,-,c,,-,v,,
.,.-,..-.,n.w--.r.re-,-
_,,--,.n
..