IR 05000443/1988011

Insp Rept 50-443/88-11 on 880829-0902.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Procedures & Records Re Mods, Engineering & Overall Technical Support.Unresolved Item Re Control & Completion of Designated Mod Work Noted

ML20204E131
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	10/03/1988
From:	Eapen P, Moy D, Prividy L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20204E070	List: IR 05000443/1988011 ML20204E064
References
50-443-88-11, NUDOCS 8810210292
Download: ML20204E131 (7)

Text

__ ________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

o .

.. .

i U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COV. MIS $10N REril0N !

Report N /88-11 Docket. N License N NPF-56 Dermit No. CPPR-135  !

Licensee: Pubite Service Company of New Hampshire ,

1000 Elm Street i Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 Facility Name: Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1 Inspection At: Seabrook, New Hampshire L

Inspection Conducted: August 29 - Septeeber 2, 1933 Inspectors- .

_, _

/0 f anief 7. Moy, Readter Engineer date !

• '

W l0 b eonard J. Prividy, Reactor Engineer ate ~ l Approved by: L f. K. Espen', Chief, SPE iaT iest

~

/ 0 d![

date Programs Section l

!

Inspection Surena y: Routine Unannounced Inspection August 29 - Sept (mber 2, 1931, t (feportNoT50443/88-11)  ;

Areas Inspected: Procedures and records pertaining to medifications, ergineering and overall technical suppor Results: No violations were identified. $<xtion 6 discusses ore unresolved I i

T~ tem pertaining to control and completion of dr 9nated modification work items, Most of the engineering work reviewed was tsic,uply cone. N) significant ,

problems were encountered with the larple of eraiitering work inspected, l

l

'

l 1 <

h

I I

gio%is fu8N13 I O

!

[

- -

,

. .

l l

.. .

j l

DETAILS Persons Contacted Public Service Company of New Hampshire S. Buchwald, QA Supervisor

• M. Chiasson, Systems Engineer W. DiProfio, Assistant Station Manager

• H. David, Shift Superintendent J. Grillo, Operations Manager

• G. Kline, Technical Support Manager

• A. Legendre, Licensing Supervisor

• J. Martin, Plant Engineering Manager

• D. Perkins, Licensing Coordinator

• N. Pillsbury, Manager, Independent Daview Team

• Temple, Licensing Coordinator

• P. Tutinas EQ Engineer

• J. Vargas, Manager of Engineering

• L. Walsh, Mahager of Operational Support

• J. Wasnock, Nuclear Quality Manager U.S. Nuclear, Regulatory Commission D. Ruscitto, Resident Inspector

• Attended exit meeting conducted on September 2, 198 Interviews and discussions with other licensee and contractor personnel were also conducted relative to the inspection of items documented in this repor . Inspection Scope The general purpose of this inspection was to evaluate the engineering and technical support of various site activitie The inspectors accomplished this evaluation as follows: The Engineering organization was reviewed to determine currerz

.toffing levels and current as well as projected training needs, The performance of the engineering and technical support function was evaluated by reviewing many of the activities accomp?lshed to date concerning the major modification to the Control Building Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) System. This modification is designated as Engineering Design Change Request (EDCR)87-615 and

,is discussed in Section 4 of this report.

Work requests were sampled to d9termine the adequacy of engineering i support for certain activities.

l l

t t

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

. .

3 Engineering response to generic issues identified in NRC correspondence (e.g., IE information notices and bulletins) was evaluated, Engineering involvement with the root cause analysis of the failure of "A" RHR pump thrust bearing was reviewe Discussions were held with various licensee and contractor personne Various documentation reviews were conducte Equipment and system reviews and inspections were conducted in the plant and in the warehouse for several items recently modified or planned for modification within the next several month The subsequent sections of this report provide additional detail pertinent to the specific reviews that were accomplishe . Engineering Organization Staffing and Training The inspectors conducted discussions with the Manager of Engineering, the Technical Support Manager, and others concerning the engineering organization and training. The licensee's design engineering organization is aligned consistent with the systems engineer concept where four groups (systems, A3rhanical, electrical, and I&C groups) ac,omplish the wor Personnel in 'ese groups interact with on site engineering personnel in the Technical Support organization to implement modifications. Most of the design engineering personnel are located in the General Office Building adjacent to the sit Other design engineering personnel are from the Yankee Atomic organization located in Framingham, Massachusett The level of staf fing is a6 quate as evidence by the timely and thorough responses to most engineering issues reviewed during this inspection. The proximity of most of the design engineering personnel to the site has a positive influence in achieving this performance and is a definite strengt While most of the engineering personnel have much experience with most of it at Seabrook, training is still essentia In this regard the inspector noted that the licensee had a technical staff training program (not INPO accredited yet) under development sone of which was currently in us Many engineering personnel were currently enrolled in a Plant Reference Materials course which is devoted to acquaint personnel with Tech Specs, FSAR material, plant drawings, and computer codes, et The inspector noted that Request for Engineering Services #88-224 had been erroneously issued due to a lack of proper training of a relatively new engineer in the Technical Support group (hired in Janurry 1988). The engineer requested engineering resolution of valves listed in TP-14 for the critical operating times for certain SI valves. However, the infor-mation questioned had already been revised and was available on a computer

,

tracking system on which the engineer had not been trained. The licensee ,

considered this to be an isolated cas i i

<

- __ _ - __ _ _ _ _ _

__ _

,_,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

- .

.. .

The inspector noted that management attention is needed to ensure that the technical staff training program is fully develop!d and implemented for the current staff and especially for new employee . Review of Control Building HVAC Modifications The control Room HVAC system is comprised of: Ncrmal Makeup Air subsystem Emergency Makeup Air and Filtratio" subsystem Exhaust and Static Pressure Control subsystem Each of these subsystems is being modified. The Normal Makeup Air Sub-system is being modified to provide a bypass line around the normal makeup air fans. A new redundant filter u.11t is being added to the Emergency Makeup Air and Filtration Subsystem. This new filter unit has an integral fan which will replace an existing fan. Also, the Exhaust and Static Pressure Control Subsystem is being upgraded to include a new redundant exhaust isolation damper along w'th fan trip circuitry modification The inspector reviewed many of the details of the design for this modification as described in EDCR 87-61 The ncdification design has been basically finalized and the licensee was just initiating implementation of the design. The OCR implementation plan is the procedure utilized to change the existing hardware. The inspector attended a meeting on <

September 2, 1988 where the various groups involved in the project had a good interchange of developing informatio In parallel with the review of the various modification documents, the inspectors visited the warehouse where the new filter unit was in storag Also, the inspectors walked down the applicable control building and diesel generator building areas with the cognizant engineers. As a result of these reviews, the inspectors had the following comments and observations:

a Mechanical engineering personnel were closely coordinating the proper placement of the major equipment by adequately detailing the supports for this equipment. For example, adverse interaction between the relatively heavy wall fresh air intake piping (18-inch) and the lightly constructed backdraft dampers (OP-1061A&B) mounted in this piping is being avoided by independent piping supports at the inlet and outlet of the dampers, The cognizant engineers were familiar with the modification f.etails and were able to provide timely response to the inspectors' comment Electrical engineering personnel adequately demonstrated to the inspectors how electrical cable separation criteria would be met relative to the electrical modification a L

.o .~

5 Visual inspection of the new filter unit evidenced a product with good welding and overall workmanship. In addition to a full external visual inspection, two access openings were unlocked to enable internal inspection of the uni The inspectors concluded that there was good overall engineering support and performance concerning this major modificatio . Engineering Response to Generic Issues In conjunction with the inspection of the Control Building HVAC modification noted in Section 4, the inspector discussed NRC Bulletin 80-03 for applica-bility to Seabroo This bulletin notified licensees of problems encountered at another facility with charcoal media escaping from filters due to a poor retention screen / frame design. By the end of the inspection, the licensee indicated that this was not a concern at Seabrook. This conclusion had been reached as a result of conducting on-site inspections of the filters and specific requirements placed in the filter procurement document Specifically, the filter screens for Seabrook are attached to their frames in most cases by spot welding with a maximus spacing of spot welds on 2-inch centers. The problem filters identified in NRC Bulletin 80-03 were of riveted construction with the rivets spaced on 6-inch centers attaching the screen to the frame. The inspector had no further concerns on this ite The inspector determined that the licensee had conducted several reviews in response to industry check valve concerns identified in NRC Information Notice 86-01 and 'lNPO SOER 86-03. This area had been evaluated by both the Independent Safety Engineering Group and Engineering. Engineering evaluation number 87-012 dated June 30, 1987 provides a check valve list-ing which will be used to confirm the adequacy of check valves at Seabroo The licensee intends to use this check valve listing in conjunction with a check valve application guid The inspector concluded that the licensee's engineering group is adequately responding to generic issue . Engineering _ Support of Maintenance Activities and Known Problems The inspector sampled several work requests (WR) and nonconformance reports (NCR) to determine the adequacy of the engineering involvemen The inspector reviewed the dispositions to NRC 87-0075 concerning exceptions to the portable battery charger and WR 88W004229 on a leaking snubber. The inspector had no adverse comments on these items and considered these dispositions to be generally satisf actor .

-=

. .

... .-

The inspector had a concern during the review of WR 88W001043 regarding work on flow transmitter 1-CC-FT-2103 for Train A for the Component Cooling Water system. This instrument is not required until the reactor is in Mode 4. Engineering Change Authorization (ECA) 05/112374, Rev. C had been issued on May 1, 1986 to make modifications for upgrading the EQ status of eleven instruments. Some of the work in this ECA was found to be incomplete by a Technical Support Engineer who identified certain problems concerning several instruments in Request for Engineering Services #87-1467 originated on December 23, 1987. The licensee initiated WR88W001043 on March 8, 1988 to properly complete ECA 05/112374. The inspector was concerned that possibly other instruments were involved in this uncompleted work. Also, the inspector was concerned that this problem may have a wider scope such that other modification work items were ceing reported as complete when they actually were incomplete. In this regard, a prior similar open item (50-443/87-24-01) had existed which concerned several engineering discrepancies and configuration control problems in the electrical are This open item was recently closed in NRC inspection report 50-443/88-06 on the basis that the licensee's engineering and QA personnel comprehensively assessed the problem and concluded that no generic problems were presen The licensee considered that the incomplete work associated with ECA 05/112374 and WR 88W001043 was an isolated cas This item is unresolved (50-443/88-11-01) pending the licensee's verification that the work associated with ECA 05/112374 and WRSSWOO1043 is complete and justification that this omitted work was an isolated proble The inspectors discussed the status of the evaluation concerning the "A" RHR pump thrust bearing tailure of November, 1937. No final conclusions have been made yet and further testing was planned with the NSSS and pump vendors on site. The inspectors determined that the licensee's troubleshooting efforts and evaluation of this item ta date have been quite extensiv . Conclusions In summary, as indicated by the overall results of this inspection, the engineering organization is performing well. Problems noted during the <

inspection were considered to be either minor in nature or isolated and they were not indicative of the overall performance of the engineering organization, Unresolved Iten Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to ascertain whether they are acceptable, deviations or violation One unresolved item was identified during this inspection and is discussed in section _ _ - _ _ .

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

I

. .

... . ,-

7 9. Management Meetings Licensee management was informed of the scope and purpose of the inspection at the entrance meeting conducted on August 29, 198 The findings of the inspection were discussed with licensee representatives during the course of the inspection. An exit meeting .:. conducted on September 2, 1988 at the conclusion of the inspection (see section 1 for attendees) at which time the licensee management was informed of the inspection result At no times during this inspection was written material provided to the licensee. The licensee did not indicate that proprietary information was involved within the scope of this inspectio ,