ML20129G109
| ML20129G109 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 05/29/1985 |
| From: | Bettenhausen L, Briggs L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20129G066 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-443-85-12, NUDOCS 8506070153 | |
| Download: ML20129G109 (7) | |
See also: IR 05000429/2005003
Text
.
q
.
$
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
,
,
Report No. 50-443/85-12
Docket No. 50-443
License No. CPPR-135
Priority
--
Category
B
Licensee:
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire
1000 Elm Street
Manchester, New Hampshire 03105
Facility Name:
Seabrook Station, Unit 1
Inspection At:
Seabrook, New Hampshire
Inspection Conducted: April 29-May 3, 1985
l,
$Y?
Inspectors:
2
L. Briggs,LeadReactorEngineg
date'
I
Approved by-
i k. [d
J9
. Bettenhausen, Chiff
da%
'/ -
Operations Branch, DRS
-
Inspection Summary: Inspection on April 29-May 3, 1985 (Report No. 50-443/85-12).
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection by one region-based inspector
(33 hours3.819444e-4 days <br />0.00917 hours <br />5.456349e-5 weeks <br />1.25565e-5 months <br />) of acceptance test procedure review and verification, preoperational
test witnessing, preoperational and acceptance test results evaluation review,
steam generator tube eddy current testing, emergency diesel generator preopera-
tional test scope review, QA interface with preoperational testing and facility
tours.
Results: No violations were identified.
Mh
3
_
r
.
.
DETAILS
1.0 Persons Contacted
J. Azzopardi, Quality Assurance (QA) Engineer (NHY)
R. Guillette, Assistant Construction QA Manager (NHY)
- R. Jeffrey, QA Engineer (YAEC)
- G. Kann, Phase 2-6 Test Group Manager (NHY)
- G. Kingston, Station Staff Compliance Manager (NHY)
D. Lambert, Field Quality Control (QC) Manager (UE&C)
G. Mcdonald, Construction QA Manager (NHY)
- D. McLain, Startup Manager (NHY)
- B. O'Connor, Field Superintendent QC (UE&C)
- J. Tefft, Startup and Test Department Special Assistant (NHY)
T. Waechter, Startup Test Engineer (Safety Injection System)
Other NRC Personnel Present
- R. Barkley, Reactor Engineer
A. Cerne, Senior Resident Inspector
H. Wescott, Resident Inspector
2.0 Acceptance Test Procedure Review and Verification
,
The following acceptance test procedure was reviewed in preparation for
test witnessing, technical and administrative adequacy and verification
that testing planned would adequately satisfy regulatory guidance and
licensee commitments. The procedure was reviewed to verify proper
licensee review and approval, correct format, test objectives, prerequi-
sites, initial conditions, test data recording requirements, technical
adequacy and system return to normal.
1-AT-4.1, Condenser Air Evacuation-Condenser Vacuum Pumps, Revision 0,
-
Approved April 11, 1985
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
3.0 Preoperational Test Witnessing
During the entrance meeting on April 30, 1985 the licensee informed the
inspector that two preoperational tests of safety related equipment were
--
.
.
2
ccheduled to be conducted during the week. The scheduled tests were
1-PT-10, SI Accumulator Blowdown and 1-PT-7, Residual Heat Removal System.
,
Since both tests would inject water into the reactor vessel, 1-PT-10 would
be performed first followed by 1-PT-7, to stay within the limits of the
reactor vessel water removal rate.
In preparation for test witnessing the inspector reviewed both preopera-
tional tests. The field copy of 1-PT-10 was also reviewed to verify
prerequisites were met prior to test performance. On May 1, 1985 while
filling the SI Accumulators the licensee noted a discrepancy between the
installed level instruments and the temporary standpipe level indication
on all accumulators. Discussion with the licensee indicated that water
may have entered the high (reference) leg of the instrument during the
accumulator filling evolutien. Since this leg is normally dry and senses
SI Accumulator Nitrogen pressure and its total span is only 14 inches a
small amount of water could cause a significant error in level readings.
The licensee decided to have the I and C department troubleshoot and
recalibrate the installed level instruments. At the end of this inspec-
tion on May 3, 1985 recalibration activities were still in progress.
The inspector did observe that Startup and Test Department (STD) QA was
providing full coverage of 1-PT-10.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
__
4.0 Preoperational and Acceptance Test Results Evaluation Review
4.1 Scope
The completed test procedures listed below were reviewed during this
inspection to verify that adequate testing had been conducted to
satisfy regulatory guidance, licensee commitments and FSAR require-
ments and to verify that uniform criteria are being applied for
evaluation of completed test results in order to assure technical and
administrative adequacy.
The inspector reviewed the test results and verified the licensee's
evaluation of test results by review of test changes, test exceptions,
test deficiencies, "As-Run" copy of test procedure, acceptance
criteria, performance verification, recording conduct of test, QC
inspection records, restoration of system to normal after test,
independent verification of critical steps or parameters, identifica-
tion of personnel conducting and evaluating test data, and verifica-
tion that the test results have been approved.
1-AT-12.1, Instrument and Service Air Systems - Plant, Revision 0,
--
Results Approved February 20, 1985;
1-AT-7, Secondary Component Cooling Water System, Revision 0,
--
Results approved April 4, 1984;
__
, . . . . .
.
.
3
1-PT(I)-35, Reactor Coolant System Hydrostatic Test, Revision 1,
--
Results approved April 19, 1985; and,
--
1-PT(I)-1, Reactor Coolant Pumps-Initial Operation, Revision 2,
Results approved April 3, 1985.
4.2 Findings
No discre,ancies or violations were identified during the above
review; nowever, there were several test exceptions that require
license corrective action. These test exceptions were assigned to
the incomplete items list (IIL) by the licensee for tracking purposes
(normal method at this facility). Once transferred to the IIL the
test exception is closed by the licensee with corrective action
implemented via the IIL.
i
The following IIL numbers correspond to incomplete test exceptions
.
and collectively constitute unresolved Item 443/85-12-01.
Procedure No.
Short Title
IIL No.
1-PT(I)-35
RCS Hydro
RC-0684, RC-0763,
RC-0696, RC-0698,
RC-0802, RC-0847,
RC-848,
RC-849,
RC-850,
RC-852
1 PT(I)-1 had Active Work Request No. RC-0804 issued to rebalance
Reactor Coolant Pump RC-P-ID (experienced high vibration during the
test). This item is considered part of unresolved Item 443/85-12-01.
,
The inspector also had additional comments concerning'the administra-
tive implementation of the preoperational test program. The follow-
ing items were discussed with the licensee:
Test procedures do not have QA/QC witness points identified in
--
the field copy. The licensee's QA department issues a memo to
the Startup and Test Department (STD) which identifies desired
witness points. The inspector verified for the above tests
reviewed, that QA coverage for the identified procedural steps,
plus others, was provided for the completed and approved
procedures. The inspector noted that this method makes it more
difficult for both the results view process and the notifica-
tion of QA prior to performance of the desired witness point
because of the extra paper work involved. .The licensee assured
the inspector that tight control would be exercised to ensure
that QA was notified prior to sitness points and that reviewing
officials including the NRC would be provided sufficient informa-
tion to enable identification of QA witness points. The
nspector informed the licensee that this item would receive
_
,-~,_
y - - ,
7
..
...
4
very close attention during both test witnessing and results
review by the NRC.
The inspector had no further questions concerning this item at
that time.
1-PT(I)-35 served as the controlling procedure to establish
--
plant conditions and to verify that the code hydro was
conducted by authorized personnel (Pullman Higgins, UE&C
and the ANI) and that required inspections were conducted
with acceptable results. The Pullman-Higgins ("N" stamp
holder) Project Procedure RC-IT-01, Integrity Test, was
used to identify all welds, as well as other inspection
requirements, that were to be inspected for code hydro
acceptability. RC-IT-01 also itemizes the open test
.
exceptions (35 originally) which are carried as one test
exception by 1-PT(I)-35. The open exceptions which
identify arc strikes and several valve, fitting.and flange
leaks have been assigned IIL numbers (listed above) and
will be tracked by the STD.
Final review of RC-IT-01 by
the licensee will take place after all exceptions are
corrected and prior to Reactor Coolant system turnover to
station staff. This item will be reviewed by NRC:RI during
a future routine inspection as part of the Code Hydro
results evaluation review.
5.0 Steam Generator Tube Eddy Current Testing
The inspectors discussed eddy current testing with representatives of
Conam and witnessed testing on April 30, 1985.
Testing was being con-
. ducted on Steam Generators (SG) 'A'
and 'D' concurrently using two ZETEC
model MIS 18 eddy current testing systems and two Hewlett Packard model
HP236 computers to store data for subsequent off-site analysis. On May 2,
1982 the. inspectors met with several licensee representatives to discuss
program status and any identified problems. At that time the licensee
informed-the inspectors that SG 'A'
and 'D' were both about 60 percent
complete including off-site analysis. To date only one tube of the
approximately 6700 tubes tested had any indication of a problem. The one
tube is located in SG
'A', Row 7 Column 56.
This tube is scheduled to be
retested and plugged if determined to be defective. All data are being
taken as a base line reference and to eliminate any potential leakers.
This item will be followed during routine resident inspection activities.
6.0 Emerging Diesel Generator (EDG) Preoperational Test Scope
During discussions with the licensee concerning the intended scope (test
procedure not yet written and approved) of EDG testing the inspector noted
that ECCS load sequencing was not planned to be conducted immediately
.following the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> full load (22 hours2.546296e-4 days <br />0.00611 hours <br />3.637566e-5 weeks <br />8.371e-6 months <br /> at 100 percent load followed by
. . _ . _ .
__
m
.
.
5
two (2)_ hours at 110 percent load) as required by RG 1.108. A recent
ammendment to the FSAR takes exception to this requirement. When question-
ed the licensee stated that their concern centered on a failure of one of
the ECCS loads to start that would negate the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> full load run. The
inspector stated that the reason for the load sequence test was to prove
that the generator could maintain voltage and frequency in a hot condition
while experiencing the heavy starting currents of the ECCS loads. The
inspector also noted that should an ECCS component fail to start it would
not invalidate the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> full load run because temperature readings
taken during the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> full load run would allow the licensee to
duplicate temperature conditions without another 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> run to satisfy
the ECCS hot load sequence test.
The inspector discussed this item with the NRR LPM who stated that he
would have the FSAR exception to RG 1.108 reevaluated for acceptability.
This item is unresolved pending further discussion between NRR, NRC:RI and
the licensee (443/85-12-02).
7.0 QA Interface with the Preoperational Test Program
The inspector reviewed several recent STD QA Surveillance Reports (QASR)
covering various activities of the licensee's STD.
The surveillance
reports were discussed with the STD QA supervisor.
The following QASR's
were reviewed:
QASR Q 2.6.21.8292, Review of work requests, completed on April 1,
--
1985. The surveillance was conducted against the requirements of
TPI-11. The QA inspector noted that STD was working on solenoid
WLD-FY-82 under work request (WR) No. WLD-402. This portion of the
system (waste processing-liquid drains) had not yet been turned over
to STD.
The QA inspector issued deficiency notice (DN) No. 072 for
STD response.
The inspector also noted that TPI-11 allows STD to
perform special tasks prior to turnover after obtaining construction
management concurrence.
The WR was not issued as a special task item
and construction management concurrence had not been obtained. The
work was being performed to support the Code Hydro.
The STD response stated that a review of issued WLD WR's had been
conducted and that this occurrence was an isolated case.
In addition
closer attention would be given to equipment turnover status in the
future. The response was accepted by STD QA on April 10, 1985.
DN No. 072 was closed.
QASR Q 2.6.21.8475, Surveillance of 1-PT-10, completed on May 1,
--
1985. The QA inspector verified test prerequisites had been met
prior to proceeding to actual test performance. The test was
delayed due to questionable level readings. See Paragraph 3.0
of this report. No deficiencies were observed by the QA
inspector.
_
.'
.'
6
QASR Q 2.6.21.8366, Surveillance of 1-AT-4.2, Condenser Air
--
Evacuation-Water Box Priming Pumps, completed on April 12, 1985.
The QA inspector verified several portions of the test. The
system performed as required with one exception, computer input
D5104 annunciated at 18 in. Hg. vacuum vice the the desired
.
point of 10 in. Hg vacuum. A test exception to 1-AT-4.2 was
written as required.
No deficiencies were observed by the QA
inspector.
No unacceptable conditions were observed during the above review
of QASR's.
8.0 Plant Tours
The inspector made several .ours of the various areas of the facility to
observe work in prograss, housekeeping, cleanliness controls and status of
construction, preoperational and special testing activities (Paragraph 3
and 5).
No unacceptable conditions were noted.
9.0 Unresolved Items
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in
order to ascertain whether they are acceptable, an item of noncompliance
or a deviation.
Unresolved items identified during this inspection are
discussed in Paragraph 4.2 and 6.0 of this report.
~
10.
Exit Interview
A management meeting was held at the conclusion of the inspection on May 3,
1985, to discuss the inspection scope, findings and observations as
detailed in this report (see Paragraph I for attendees). No written
information was provided to the licensee at any time during this
inspection.
_
-