IR 05000443/1986023
| ML20206H849 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 06/18/1986 |
| From: | Eapen P, Finkel A, Napuda G, Oliveira W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206H846 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-443-86-23, NUDOCS 8606260333 | |
| Download: ML20206H849 (16) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. . U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Region I Report No.
50-443/86-23 . Docket No.
50-443 License No.
CPPR-135 Category B Licensee: Public Service of New Hampshire t Post Office Box 330 Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 Facility Name: Seabrook Station, Unit 1 Inspection At: Seabrook, New Hampshire Inspection Conduc ed: April 14-18, 1986 Inspectors: [ M 8' 8{* G.
apuda, Lead Reactor Engineer date .( M b 3ogd A. Finkel, Ledd Reactor Engineer date - S I $ W. Oliveira, Reactor Engineer / dite Approved By: (h. N. bukM [7IP/"</br>Dr. P. K. Eapen, Ch14f, Quality Assurance Section,</br>'datd Operations Branch, DRS Inspection Summary:</br>Inspection on April 14-18, 1986 (Inspection No.</br></br>'0-443/86-23)</br>A.</br></br>is Inspected:</br>Routine announced inspection on April 14-18, 1986 by three region based inspectors. Assess the readiness of the QA Program and staff to support plant operations in QA/QC organization, QA/QC surveillance, onsite operating and support staff, and non-licensed training.</br></br>Previously identified items were also reviewed.</br></br>Results: No violations were identified.</br></br>Two unresolved items (Paragraphs 4.4 and 5.3) were identified.</br></br>I</br>'</br>g2gO G</br>,</br>i</br>!</br>!</br>. -</br>- _ _</br>- - - -</br>- -</br>.- - -</br>. - - --. -.</br>.-_</br></br>.</br>.</br>DETAILS 1.</br></br>Persons Contacted Public Service of New Hampshire</br>* J. Azzopardi, Quality Assurance (QA) Engineer</br>* 5. Bucl:wald, QA Supervisor</br>* R. Cyr, Maintenance Manager</br>* W. Johnson, Vice President Quality Programs</br>* W. Middleton, QA Engineer</br>* J. Marchi, Supervisor Quality Control (QC)</br>* B. O'Connor, Field Supervisor QC</br>* D. Perkins. QA Engineer</br>* P. Richardson, Training Center Manager</br>* V. Sanchez, Licensing Engineer</br>* J. Singleton, Assistant QA Manager</br>* W. Sullivan, Senior QA Engineer</br>* J. Tefft, Startup Engineer</br>,</br>* D. Turner, QA Engineer</br>* J. Warnock, Nuclear Operations Quality Assurance Manager U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission</br>* R. Barkley, Resident Inspector</br>* P. Eapen, Chief, Quality Assurance Section</br>* H. Gregg, Lead Reactor Engineer</br>* D. Ruscitto, Resident Inspector</br>* A. Varela, Lead Reactor Engineer Other engineering, management 0A/QC, operations and technical personnel were interviewed ouring the inspection.</br>* Denotes those present at the exit meeting on [[Exit meeting date" contains a listed "[" character as part of the property label and has therefore been classified as invalid.. 2.0 Previously Identified Items [ Closed) Unresolved Item 86-05-02 - Establish Non-licensed training sche-dule.
The licensee has created general lesson plans, started training classes and established training matrices for each department. The re-quired training program to familiarize the personnel in various Station Procedure Manuals has been documented in the following memoranda: Memo SS #22735, February 7, 1986, Manual Training; -- -- Memo SSP #860183, February 27, 1986, Reporting Manual Training; and, Memo SSP #860278, April 3, 1986, Production Manual Training -- Based on a review of the department training schedule matrices and the program outlines, the inspector considered this item closed.
$ .
_ __ _ - . _. _ _ _ _ - - -. _ . _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _. _ - _ . . _... ___ ' .
- ! (Closed) Construction Deficiency Report 85-00-21 - Westinghouse-manufac-i tured resistor terminal boards used in the 7.5 kVA Uninterruptible Power i Supply (UPS) were defective. The terminal boards became discolored due to i heat generated by the components on the board.
The potential effect of j the heat on the terminal boards would be embrittlement and material dete-l rioration which could lead to circuit failure.
I Licensee's corrective action has been to replace the terminal boards in
the three affected inverters, 1-EDE-I-1A, 1-EDE-I-1B and 1-EDE-I-IC.
In- ! verter 1-EDE-I-ID was not affected and the unit 2 items in the warehouse l were also not affected.
! Work Request (WR) 85-W-M01063, November 2, 1985 identified the work task l to be performed and Nonconformance Report (NR) 85-0015, December 17, 1985
listed the inspection criteria. Nonconformance Report (NR) 86-0003, { January 17, 1986 documented the inspection of the replacement terminal j boards and circuit reconnections, a This item is closed.
- l l
(Closed) Construction Deficiency Report 85-00-12 - The Georgia Tech (GT) Strudl Computer Program used in the design and analysis of HVAC, piping , i and I&C supports prior to January 1984 had an error in the section of the { program that calculates frequencies using the Rayleigh Quotient Method.
j Georgia Tech confirned the error in all versions of the program prior to i
the 84.03 release.
The error had been corrected in all subsequent releases ) including the 84.03 version.
i The licensee sampled 25 computer runs potentially affected by the GT Strudl The results of this review indicated that none of the 25 support error.
. designs were impacted by this error.
Subsequently, the licensee performed a generic evaluation on all affected HVAC supports. The results of this evaluation also indicated that none of the HVAC supports were impacted by i j the GT Strudl error, i i ! Based on the above program review, the licensee concluded that this item l is not a reportable 10 CFR 50.35(e) condition.
t l This item is closed.
! l [ Closed) Construction Deficiency Report 85-00-11 - Incorrect short time delay band levers (link,s) supplied with Brown Boveri K-Line circuit r breakers with overcurrent trip devices Model OD-4 or 00-5.
' Brown Boveri notified the licensee that incorrect short time delay band
levers (links) had been installed in the electro-mechanical overcurrent ! trip device. The short time (link) would limit the travel of the short time armature and cause the short time element to be inoperative in the maximum band.
s.
!
' I . m-~ . m- , --% m.
n- =,w--. - - ,e, .,,. -, ---,..., -4-.,---, .--,~,----..,,-,Oy ,y-,-m._r--. ---~-----.-.-ve.
- The licensee performed a 100% inspection (NCR 82-636A) on all Unit 1 K-Line breakers and spare parts. Work Request (WR) ED3E-0195, January 4, 1986 initiated the rework task and inspection of the work was documented on Station Quality Control Inspection Report 10-1, Revision 3.
On a sampling basis, the inspector verified that the following Brown Boveri K-Line Cir-cuit Breakers were modified with Part 707970K1.
-- 51963A-104-01400 519638-104-01400 -- -- 51963J-104-01400 51963E-14-01442 -- This item is closed for Unit 1, however, Unit 2 is not completed and is being tracked by the licensee in their Nonconformance Reporting System.
3.0 Non-Licensed Training 3.1 General The inspection was to assess the effectiveness and adequacy of the licensee's non-licensed training program to support the operational phase of Seabrook Station. As a representative sample, the inspector chose the training programs for instrument and control (I&C) techni-cians, electrical and mechanical maintenance personnel, and auxiliary operators ( A0s).
The effectiveness of the existing program was deter-mined by reviewing the following: -- Shift turnover of A0s at 1500 A0 conducting the rounds of the primary area -- -- Health Physics (HP) technicians conducting new fuel receipt survey HD 958.26, Revision 0 -- Chemistry technician conducting pH, specific conductivity, and total organic carbon tests A Manual Training Session for station personnel and reviewing -- lesion plans -- I&C technician calibrating the emergency diesel generator B air receiver pressure gage and Allen Bradley switches -- Testing of the Intelligent Remote Terminal Unit (IRTU) and Re-sistance Temperature Detector RTD Circuit Board by I&C personnel .
' l
_ _ _ .
1 3.2 Details of the Review For each of the job functions identified in Paragraph 3.1, the inspec-tor reviewed the established training program, implementing procedures, qualification, and experience of personnel, qualification and training of instructors, quality of on-the-job (0JT) training. The effective-ness of training was also assessed by reviewing work performed by personnel who received training. The comments and evaluations from the trainees, line supervisors, and instructors were also reviewed to establish how this feedback was factored into future training.
The management's involvement in the training area was assessed for effec-tiveness.
A.
Training Policy and Progress The inspector performed a review of selected procedures from the i training programs for non-licensed operators (NLO), mechanical, electrical, health physics, shift technical adviser (STA), QA/QC, chemistry, instrument and control (I&C), and technical staff.
The licensee (Seabrook) policy and planning in their management ' manuals as well as FSAR Chapter 13.2 address the basis for and the commitment to training, on-the-job training (0Ji) and measur-ing program effectiveness.
The key training manuals reference INPO accreditation.
The manuals and documents reviewed are lis-ted in Attachment B.
The responsibility for Seabrook's training of the operating staff is divided between the Seabrook Training Center and the Station Training Department.
(1) Seabrook Training Center The Training Center Manager is responsible for development, implementation and administration of licensed operator training and auxiliary operator (AO) training programs.
This will include initial, replacement and requalification training.
The inspector reviewed the Shif t Technical Advisors (STA) training Program. At Seabrook Station the STA functions j are carried out by Senior Reactor Operators who successfully completed the STA training program. The STA training pro-gram satisfactorily cover the mitigation to core damage question discussed in NUREG-0737.
The STA training was ' conducted by a contractor.
Twenty-one operator licensed personnel have satisfactorly completed the training.
Each operating shift has been assigned a STA.
l
.r_ _,. - _ _ _ _ _ -, _ _. _ - - _ _,, _ _ _ _, - _ ._ -, _ _ _ _
. -. - _ -. _ _ _ _ - - - -.._ . _ - _ - _ - -.. - . -_ _ ! } -
.
! ! I i i The minutes to the Curriculum Development Committee (CDC) were reviewed. The function of the CDC is to review, dis- . cuss, and recommend measures and actions relating to all j new and existing training programs conducted by Training
Center.
The CDC consists of six regular members which in-j cludes the Training Center Manager as Chairman, Training } Supervisor and Operations Manager.
The followup actions of i agenda items are tracked to insure that all concerns are i expeditiously resolved.
The minutes reviewed covered: i continued training of A0s; clarification of certification, ! qualification as watchstanders for A0s; and the requalifi- ! cation program for licensed operators.
' The effectiveness of the Training Center program is further measured by third party audits and internal audits.
The ! inspector reviewed the latest third party audit conducted J in September 1985.
He noted that the Training Center de-j cided not to follow one recommendation regarding operator i self study.
They provided the student with personalized ' tutoring.
The internal audits are discussed in the QA/QC Interface section.
1 } Four new A0s in training, two A0s and two STAS were inter-i viewed and their training records were reviewed. The inter- , I views were to determine the effectiveness and the relation-j ship (job related) of the training to the work performed by the personnel.
! i
(2) Station Training Department
l The Training Manager reports to the Assistant Station Mana-i i ger and is responsible for development, implementation and j administration of general and specialty training including
General Employee Training, Fire Brigade Training and Spe- ! cialized Training.
!
The inspector attended a portion of the Manual Training i Session for all plant personnel.
The session described in general terms each of the Seabrook manuals.
The attendees,
acknowledged that these sessions made them aware of the va-l rious types and purposes of Seabrook Manuals. The inspec-j tor reviewed a videotape presentation by the Training Mana-j ger of the Seabrook Station General and Speciality Training
Manual.
This videotape presentation was effective.
Later
' I the Training Manager told the inspector that the manual was i being revised (e.g., Chapter 5, Emergency Planning will be i deleted and the information will be incorporated in the j applicable sections of the manual).
' < i !
. . - . - -.
. - - - . . _ - -_ _ _.
- . . - _ - - -. _.- -.. - - -. -. ...... -_..
! . l ! j
-
!
The training programs are reviewed annually. The training staff, however, is continually in contact with the operating
{ staff for improving their training effort.
The Training l Department is consiaering more frequent reviews with the operating staff.
The 15 lesson plans reviewed were in accordance with STC-j 20003.
Most of the plans reviewed also contained the hand-outs, view graphs, 35 mm slides.
The training areas review- . ed included chemistry, health physics, QC, NOE, and welding ! material. Also reviewed were qualification cards for re-l spiratory protection under course S-7-R.
i l The inspector reviewed the training records of three mana-l gers, five supervisors, three STAS, two engineers, three l
training instructors, 6 A0s, 6 I&C technicians.
The train-i ing records were easily accessible, current and complete.
) The inputs from the craft were not obtained for the develop-ment of the initial training programs.
The Training Depart-ment intends to request feedback from the craft personnel
and their supervision, as part of their post training fol- { lowup actions.
The craft personnel interviewed. supported the formal train-ing efforts esoecially in the OJT area. They considered the instructors to be knowledgeable and competent.
The ,
instructors themselves considered their own training and i } the proposed continued training to be adequate.
The in-structors also found management to be supportive in the } preparation and implementation of training courses.
The j instructors and students found the training material and l facilities also to be adequate.
' The Chemistry Department training includes performance eval-
uations to assess their training.
These evaluations are: the monthly check analysis program; the Shewhart QC program; and the work control log as well as continual dialogue with
the technicians.
In the area of OJT, some qualification ' cards were verified by oral boards.
Qualification Card i CP2.1A, Revision 0, Chemist to Watchstander requires an oral board. This card also complies with ANSI 3.1-1978.
The Health Physics Department training has produced the following results: (1) one Health Physicist was certified
by the American Board of Health Physicists; and (2) one HP { technician passed the National Registry of Radiation Protec- < - tion Technician test because of the training received under l training module S-28, HP Theory.
i e ) . - - -. - - - -. - . - - - -. - .. - - - - - - - . -. . - . - - - -. - -
- --- - - .. - - - - - - -. - - - - - --.. - . -. - . .-.. i
i 4-
- } ! i ' B.
Observation of Work Activities
The inspector witnessed the work activities identified in Section , ! I above.
The activities were conducted in accordance with the i procedures by personnel knowledgeable in the requirements of the i procedures and proposed technical specifications.
In addition, j the personnel knew the requirements for reporting results that . were outside the limits cited in the procedure.
They also know j what to do if the measuring and test equipment (M&TE) was not functioning properly or providing questionable results. This '
i was especially evident in the following: ) { The health physics (HP) technicians conducted their routine t -- survey of receipt of new fuel material as requested in RWP ' No. 86-00004.
The HP technicians were counting the beta, gamma, and alpha from smears taken from the truck cab and
trailer.
They were performing the checks in accordance }l with Procedure HD 985.26, Revision 0, Receipt of Radioac-tive Material and recording the results.
i An I&C technician was performing a preventive maintenance -- i (PM) action in accordance with RTS 84 RI 05127, APL-1 Die-i sel Generator B Starting Air Receiver Pressure Calibration.
The calibration of the pressure gage and the switches were , l conducted in accordanceswith Procedure IS 1632.314, Revision
1 and change 86-127-IS1632.314.1.
Indication on one dial of a dual reading pressure gage was noted by the technician i ! not to be returning to zero when the pressure was released.
l The gage was reset and the gage performed satisfactorily.-
l Two I&C technicians were assisting in a test to close out a -- NRC concern.
The test was to check the Intelligent Remote , j Terminal Unit (IRTU)'s ability to function even when the j unit experiences an overioad voltage condition.
The inspec-tor observed the I&C technicians performing the prerequi- ' sites under the direction of the test engineer.
The inspec-tor was later informed that the test was a success.
C.
0A/QC Interface with Operating Staff Training , i ! Training for QA/QC cersonnel is described in the Nuclear Quality ! Training Requirements Manual, Revision 1.
The manual was deve- { loped following the guidelines of INP0 84-003, Guidelines for j Quality Control Inspectors and Nondestructive Examiners Techni- ! cal Training.
The manual is being revised to include additional f courses. QA has also identified and computerized the function ] and courses required, the planning and scheduling and i I % d i
i i -- - - _ - - _ -, - - ~,, _. -...-_,~_,__._ _,.,. _ _., _ _,. -,_-__'_ ~.- _. - _ m. - - _. _,,.. _. -.
- - _ - _ _- .- . --- - - - - - - - . ..- . - - i .
-
the status of individual training. The QC inspectors are train- , ' ed along with the craft. QA conducts training for plant person-nel as well as their own in Receipt Inspection. The inspector reviewed their lesson plans and found them in compliance with j STC-20003.
The inspector reviewed three internal audit reports regarding i training (see Attachment B).
The audits were thorough and iden-
tified deficiencies in the documented training programs.
The i deficiencies have been corrected. An audit of the licensing j training was being conducted during this inspection.
The inspector observed a QC inspector witnessing the test, the
Intelligent Remote Terminal Unit (IRTU) to withstand very high ' voltage and still function. The QC inspector was a former I&C i technician and explained his role in the test. He had completed the self-study training and was waiting for the implementation of the training described in the Nuclear Quality Training Re- , quirements Manual.
3.3 Findings
The inspector noted that the FSAR Chapter 13.2 regarding Training l states in paragraph 13.2.1.1 that Seabrook is and has been committed to ANSI /ANS and 3.1-1981 training requirements. Howe'ver, the latest amendment 57, still references ANSI /ANS 3.1-1978 in paragraph 13.2.1.5 as an applicable NRC requirement. The Training Center Manager acknow- , { ledged the oversight and agreed to correct this.
! ! No violations or deviations were identified.
The non-licensed train- ! ing program was found to be adequate to support the operational phase of Seabrook Station.
- 4.
Onsite Organization and Staffing ' 4.1 Program Review Organizational charts, plans and procedures were reviewed and discuss-ed with licensee personnel to verify the following.
l The onsite organizational structure was as described in the pro- -- posed facility Technical Specifications (TS) and Final Safety
Analysis Report (FSAR).
! j personnel qualification levels were in conformance with appli- -- l cable codes and standards described in the TS and FSAR (including
-Amendment 58).
p i Lines of authority and responsibility were consistent with the -- ' TS and FSAR.
! ! l
h I . . - - - - - - - - -
-_.-. - - -.._ - - _ .- - - - - .. . _.
- - -- . ! '
!
l ~
a d
-- Changes or differences were or are to be reported to the NRC as required by the TS.
4.2 Staffing and Organization The New Hampshire Yankee (NHY) Division which is responsible for the l operation and technical support of the station comprise of five de-partments.
Reporting to the NHY Vice President Nuclear Production . l (VPNP) are Managers of Radiological Assessment, Training, Nuclear Services, Production Services and Station. This department is re- ) sponsible for day-to-day plant operations.
The Engineering Depart-
ment managers of Licensing, Reliability, Engineering Programs, Plant ] Engineering and Configuration Management report to a Director of En-gineering.
This department provides technical support for plant oper- ' ations.
The Directors of Corporate Services and Management Control are responsible for all other support. The Quality Programs Depart-J 'j ment is discussed in Paragraph 5.
The heads of all these departments report to the Senior Vice President and Chief Operations Officer of ) Public Service Company of New Hampshire. An analysis of the types i and numbers of employees in the Nuclear Production and Engineering Departments was performed to assure the capabilities and readiness for operations of those groups.
Discussions on authorized staffing levels were held with various managers.
It was noted that the Manager of Plant Engineering has four super-visors and four Senior Engineers allocated to his group.
The Manager
stated that additional resourses is available from Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC), on an as needed basis through a "Second .l Memorandum of Understanding" between the two companies.
It was
verified that such an agreement exists, f j 4.3 Personnel Qualifications ! j Resumes and training files were reviewed and interviews were held ! with selected personnel in the following positions to verify ' qualifications and experience conformed to that required by the TS and FSAR.
-- Principle Operating Staff First Level Supervisors -- Technical Engineering Staff -- . -- Plant Craftsmen (e.g. mechanical, electricians) ! Plant Operators . -- l NDE Examiners -- Support Technicians (e.g., Health Physics, Chemistry, Instrument
-- ! and Control, Radwaste)
i \\ %e t
. _ _ _ _ _ _ - _.. _. _ __. . _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ ! .
11 ' - i ] 4.4 Conclusions ' Based on the review of this area, it was determined that the onsite ! operations and support staff was adequately staffed with respect to their assigned responsibilities. Active recruitment is ongoing to fill several vacant positions and licensee representatives stated the intent is to do so as quickly as practicable.
The level of exper-ierce for'almost all of the staff well exceeded the requirements with
a few persons at the miniraum acceptable level.
!
No violations were identified, however, one unresolved item is dis-cussed below.
FSAR Section 17.2 states that the QA Program will be fully implement-ed 90 days prior to issuance of the Operating License (0L).
FSAR Section 17.2.10.7 further states that the personnel performing veri-
' fication are independent of the s.upervisor directly responsible for performing the work. The organizational structure of the Maintenance group is a pool of maintenance mechanics who report to a pool of Work-ing Foremen who then report to one of two Supervisors of Maintenance.
, This arrangement is such that the in-line reporting can change from a given job to another. Additionally, procedures do not provide clear guidance so as to prevent a foreman from inspecting and accepting i work in which he was involved. Also, there are no safeguards to as- ! sure management that this pooling of human resources would not result '
in deviations from the FSAR commitments.
This concern was discussed
with licensee management who acknowledged and agreed to take actions I to resolve this inconsistency promptly.
During a May 8, 1986 tele-phone conversation, licensee representatives provided the following
j additional information.
! The position descriptions for working foreman specifically esta- -- j blish these individuals as members of licensee's supervisory
staff (i.e., non-union).
i i -- Appropriate administrative controls and/or plans will be developed ! and issued prior to core load.
< i Administrative controls will assure individuals from a. group --
other than the one responsible for performing the work will do l required NDE (Non-Destructive Examinations).
-- A working foreman other than the one responsible for performing , the work will review selected aspects of that work.
l The QC routine surveillance effort _ will verify the independence t -- of working foreman that perform inspection / review.
>
. ASME Code related work will receive priority for QC surveillance.
-- , i
- %e
3 . .- _ _ . -. . - - . .. 'l i +
. -.. _ - . _ _ - -. - - - - - - -. ! ~ l
- i, This item is unresolved pending verification that administrative con-trols have been established to assure the independence of foreman doing inspections; and, that QC Surveillance is planned and/or imple-
! mented, including prioritization, to assure the independence of such ! working foremen (50-443/86-23-01).
l 5.
Quality Assurance / Quality Control Overview i 5.1 Program Review
~ Quality Assurance (QA) program documents were reviewed to verify that the following administrative controls have been established for the QA/QC overview effort.
-- Independence, qualification and training of QA/QC personnel i -- Documentation and review of corrective actions
-- Surveillance of ongoing activities l -- Quality trending , 5.2 Implementation and Organization T The Vice President-Directorsof Quality Programs reports directly to the Senior Vice President of New Hampshire Yankee (NHY). One of four managers in this department is the Operations-Nuclear Quality Assur- ' ance Manager who is responsible for the QA/QC overview of station , activities. A QC Supervisor and twelve inspectors; a QA Supervisor <
and six engineers; and an Audit and Evaluation Supervisor and three engineers report to this manager.
, i i The QC group has established a master plan that addresses specific i activities and those activities which will be surveilled, such as j quarterly review of valve manipulation records and the direct obser- > vation of the position of selected valves.
QC also reviews work or- { ders and can invoke hold / witness points.
Instructions for day-to-day i group activities are being developed.
l The QA Engineering group has developed a master plan that identifies
32 functional activities that will be surveilled during the next year, such as the procurement process.
This group will also review calcula- ! tions associated with drawings, specifications, etc. This group was l reviewed during a previous NRC inspection.
l_ The qualifications of several QA/QC personnel were reviewed and inter-l views were conducted. A few QC personnel were accompanied during their tours of duty.
> !
, ! )
,
.
5.3 Conclusions A review of this area determined that the operations QA/QC group was prepared to perform their assigned responsibilities; personnel were knowledgeable in their assigned discipline; and, individual qualifica-tions well exceeded minimum requirements.
No violations were identified, however, one unresolved item is discussed below.
Section 17.2 of the FSAR states that the Nuclear Quality Manager iden-tifies trends in quality performance.
The exact methodology for the trending effort has not yet been developed and implementing procedures cannot be written until this has been accomplished.
Licensee manage-ment stated this trending would be implemented by commercial operation.
This item is unresolved and will be reviewed further to verify the timeliness and adequacy of implementation of the quality trending effort (50-443/86-23-02).
6.
IRTU and RTD Circuit Board Testing During a review of the IRTV and RTD Conversion Cabinets, the inspector questioned tne licensee regarding potential interaction between the Train "B" associated inputs into the IRTU and RTD and the 120 VAC Train "A" as-sociated power supply into the cabinets.
The question which arose was whether or not a failure of this type would damage or degrade the class IE function of the field devices providing the inputs.
The licensee designed a test to simulate the described failure above and to document the affects on the class IE field devices. The test configura-tion represented circuit boards with a 120 VAC power applied to the points on the circuit boards where the D.C. power supply input is normally supplied.
Typical field sensors were utilized to provide the input signal. The cir-cuit board and input signal loop were verified operable prior to the appli-cation of the 120 VAC.
Parameters (voltages and currents) associated with the input signal and input devices were monitored prior, during and after the application of the 120 VAC. As anticipated, a circuit failure occurred when the 120 VAC was applied directly to the operating circuit, but there ' was no affect on the function of the field device connected to the circuit board input terminals.
The inspectors witnessed the above test and the preliminary data indicated that the field device functioned as designed. A complete test report will be prepared for review and evaluation for the NRC by the licensee.
7.
Unresolved Items i Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to l ascertain whether they are acceptable, violations or deviations.
Unresolved I
items are discussed in paragraphs 4.4 and 5.3.
I s I Y , ~,,.~w,. _,.. - ~..... - - ,,.,,,.,--..~--..v -~--e,.m,, . -.. ..m...vwm v-y, -,, - - ---m y ,.. _,, -,,...,.,,,,e- ,
.
- 8.
Exit Interview The scope and findings of this inspection were summarized with licensee management (see paragraph I for attendees) on April 18, 1986.
At no time during this inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspectors.
The inspection did not involve any proprie-tary information.
i i < S - - - . - - - -. . -. - . - - - - .. - - - -.. - -. - - -. - - -. -. - - - -
. . . ATTACHMENT A Requirements / References 1.
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion II 2.
10 CFR 55 t 3.
FSAR Chapter Section 13.1 and 13.2
4.
ANSI /ANS 3.1-1981, Selection, Qualification and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plant 5.
Training Center Management Manual .I 6.
Seabrook Station General and Specialty Training Manual
7.
Nuclear Quality Training Requirements Manual .!
l I .
! < .t
- .,
a
_ -, . _. _ -, - - -. - , ,,,,, ,., _ _ - _ _. _. - ,... ... .. - - _ ,. - _ _,
. .
ATTACHMENT B Occuments Reviewed 1.
Auxiliary Operator Training Program Description 2.
Center of Nuclear Studies Memphis State University Description of Shift Technical Advisors Program 3.
Charter for Curriculum Development Committee and the minutes to five meetings 4.
Third Party Audit by PQD Corporation PQS-85-94 (9/16/85): Subject: SR0 License Audit Examination 5.
Internal Audit Report No. 84-A05-2, Licensed Training, conducted May 14-24, 1984.
Issued June 7, 1984 6.
0A Audit Report No. 85-A04-1, General and Specialty Training, conducted February 22 - March 1,1985.
Issued March 13, 1985 7.
0A Audit Report No. 84-A04-01, Non-Licensed Training, conducted June 11-18, 1984.
Issued June 29, 1984 8.
Matrix of 0A/QC Functions versus Courses 9.
Internal Matrix of QA/QC Training Status 10.
S-23 QC Inspection (Receipt Inspector Training Course) l J
. ,,,- - -. _. - -. - - - - - -, - -.... - . , -. - -... . . - - - -. - ,. _,,,,,. }}