ML20214R478

Forwards Initial OL Review Rept for Seabrook Station Unit 1. Areas Evaluated Include Const & Preoperational Testing Programs & Selected Licensee Special Procedures Developed to Ensure Subcriticality Maintained

ML20214R478
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook, 05000000
Issue date:	10/09/1986
From:	Murley T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20213F044	List: ML20213F042 ML20214R426 ML20214R460 ML20214R478 ML20214R485 ML20214R491 ML20214R529 ML20214R545 ML20214R564 ML20214R568
References
FOIA-87-271 NUDOCS 8706080162
Download: ML20214R478 (3)

Text

. . .. - .

O October 9, 1986 Docket No. 50-443 MEMORANDUM FOR: Harold R. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: Thomas E. Murley, Regional Administrator, Region I

SUBJECT:

SEABROOK STATION, UNIT 1 LOW POWER LICENSE RECOMMENDATION This memorandum provides the Region I assessment and recommendation for issuance of a low Power Operating License for Seabrook Station, Unit 1. This recommendation includes issuance of a license pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 50.57(c) and is based upon the Region I evaluation documented in the attached Initial Operating n License Review Report, with special note of the following:

1. The construction and preoperational testing inspection programs have verified that the Seabrook Unit 1 plant has been constructed substantially in conform-ance to the construction permit and the application, as amended, the provi-sions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission, as required by 10 CFR 50.57(a)(1) and (2).

2. We have concluded that New Hampshire Yankee, currently a division of Public Service Company of New Hampshire, is capable of operating the plant safely at low power. Seabrook Unit 1.is essentially ready for fuel loading. While a few systems remain to be final tested, successful completion of these acti-vities is controlled by Technical Specifications in such a way that systems required to be operable for a particular mode of operation (including Mode

6) must be declared operable before that mode can be entered.

! 3. Region I has worked closely with NRR in reviewing New Hampshire Yankee's ap-t plication for a subcritical license pursuant to 10 CFR 50.57(c). This has included a review of selected licensee special procedures developed to ensure subcriticality is maintained. The proposed licensee program provides reason-able assurance that the reactor will remain subcritical following fuel load j permitted by license issuance.

4. Each Region I professional employee was requested by memorandum, dated April 21, 1986, to identify any unaddressed safety concerns which he or she might have concerning Seabrook Unit 1. No concerns were identified.

Other significant elements of this recommendation include:

1. The evaluation is based upon over 20,000 NRC field inspection hours to date.

2. As-built inspections have found substantial conformance between the facility and the FSAR, SER, and Technical Specifications.

l I i

+

i I l F]706080162 870602  ;

PDR FOIA PDR \

ORABER87-271

Memorandum for Harold R. Denton 2 OCT 09 na l

3. An IE Integrated Design Inspection (IDI) and a Construction Appraisal Team (CAT) inspection were conducted at Seabrook Unit 1. In general, there was consistency between the plant, regulatory requirements, and licensing commit-ments. All inspection findings opened by these two inspections were subse-quently resolved and closed.

4. Region I independent NDE examinations were conducted in 1982 and 1985 and confirmed acceptable weld quality, welding and material controls, and imple-mentation of the Seabrook Unit 1 NDE program in accordance with ASME Code commitments.

5. NRC investigation and inspection of allegations raised to Region I with re-spect to Seabrook Unit I construction have identified no significant hardware impact and no unresolved safety issues. A number of new allegations have

' come to our attention in recent weeks. We will evaluate these allegations in accordance with our regional procedures. Our preliminary evaluation of these recent allegations is that they do not raise significant hardware or safety issues that would preclude a fuel load license.

The following is planned to evaluate the licensee's performance during initial operations:

1. As part of routine inspection, plant and staff conformance to license condi-tions and Technical Specifications, including operability requirements.for the various operational modes, will be reviewed upon license issuance and frequently thereafter.

2. If a license is issued pursuant to 10 CFR 50.57(c), routine inspections will be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the special procedures imple-mented by the licensee to maintain the. reactor subcritical. This would in-clude both a review of the administrative control over valves which could cause boron dilution as well as other procedures implemented to maintain boron concentration.

In conclusion, I find that Seabrook Unit I has Nen constructed substantially in accordance with Construction Permit CPPR-135, the Seabrook Station FSAR, and NRC regulatory requirements. I also find that, subject to the license conditions recommended by Region I in Attachment I to NPF-56, the licensee is capable of operating the plant safely at low power.

prJginal Signed 378 Thomas E. Murley Regional Administrator

Attachment:

Initial Operating License Review Report

. . . . . . - . . -. .. .. = - ..

Memorandum for Harold R. Denton 3 00T 09 BBS cc w/ attachment:

V. Stello, EDO '

J. Taylor, IE J. Davis, NMSS H. Thompson, NRR T. Novak, NRR V. Noonan, NRR V. Nerses, NRR W. Kane, RI S. Ebneter, RI T. Martin, RI E. Wenzinger, RI T. Elsasser, RI A. Cerne, RI i ,

RI:

fU F

RP f u III p 9 W Elsa ser/meo W  ; i,nger W an 1 M 1y 9/24/86 [g i H

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 4

4

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