ML20129G109

Insp Rept 50-443/85-12 on 850429-0503.No Violations Identified.Major Areas Inspected:Acceptance Test Procedure Review & Verification,Preoperational Test Witnessing & Preoperational & Acceptance Test Results Evaluation Review

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: ML20129G062 ML20129G109
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

Inspectors: l, 2

$Y?

L. Briggs,LeadReactorEngineg date' I

Approved by- i k. [d

. Bettenhausen, Chiff

J9

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)

• F. Bean, Field QA Engineer (NHY)

D. Bodoh, QA Engineer (NHY)

• R. Grippardi, Assistant QA Manager (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)

• J. Marchi, Startup QC Manager (NHY)

G. Mcdonald, Construction QA Manager (NHY)

• D. McLain, Startup Manager (NHY)

• W. Middleton, QA Staff Engineer (NHY)

• W. Monteith, Field QA Engineer (NHY)

• B. O'Connor, Field Superintendent QC (UE&C)

D. Perkins, QA Engineer (NHY)

• J. Singleton, Assistant QA Manager (NHY)

• J. Tefft, Startup and Test Department Special Assistant (NHY)

• W. Temple, Startup and Test Department QA Supervisor (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.

-

_