IR 05000443/1990013

Safety Insp Rept 50-443/90-13 on 900521-25.No Violations Noted.Deficiencies Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Maint & Surveillance Programs & Implementation,Work Package Reviews & Sys Walkdowns

ML20055G768
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	07/13/1990
From:	Bessette D, Drysdale P, Woodward C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20055G760	List: IR 05000443/1990013 ML20055G759
References
50-443-90-13, IEIN-89-050, IEIN-89-50, NUDOCS 9007240154
Download: ML20055G768 (14)

Text

.- -. y- -, . -

,

m .. .

• . s-'.

g g. ,

a

,

'

f  ;.,

( .

gm;. ,

p '

'

b QE

'tf

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,

i-i REGION I (,

t:

' Report N /90-13-l Docket No.- 50-443'  !

License No. NPF-67 ,.

Licensee: Public Service Company of New Hampshire d P~.0, Box 300

,

.Seabrook, N6w Hampshire 03874 -

E p ~ '- Facility Name:. Seabrook Unit 1

.l

' Inspection At:

.

Seabrook, New Hampshire '

, Inspection Conducted: May 21-25, I T - '

,

'

Inspectors: */Oma k 4n 7['M90 1

[

P. Drysdale, Senior Reaccor Engineer, DRS Date .

[n ,I &ne/{t .4, ~ 7/i3/So f C. Woodard, Reactor Engineed, DRS- ' 'Date A / baouk

^

' Approved by:'

-) 7['hb i

Dav'id Bessette, Chief, Ope"ational Programs 70 ate Section, Operations BrancF,LDRS ,

t l Areas Inspected: A routine tafety inspection was conducted to review the '

licensee's m;intenance and surveillance programs and their implementatio Work: package reviews and system walkdowns were performed for maintenance-conducted during the recent. plant outage. In addition, direct observations

-

L' were m e of surveillance and test activities performed on the EDGs and the 125'

>

VDC station batterie Re: o' t s : Overa'il, the licensee's maintenance and' surveillance programs and Tiiipie' mentation were 'found to be satisfactory. -However, specific deficiencies

. that'warrcnt management attention were identified in the areas of post-mainten-ance system restoration, sys:em and component identification tagging, high numbers of . outstanding Request for Eng'reering Services (RES) documents, and !

j< -in-dequate' response to unresolved items related to maintenance practice ,, e

M07240134 900716

~

.gDR AaOOK 05000443

-

PDC N' ,

W7 . .

+

L: . v ..

4 ,

..  ;

.<. .

i; > 'I DETAI'LS'

s J 1.0 PersonsContacted(NewHampshireYankee}

~, !

"

• • H. M. Anderson,;Radwaste/ Utilities Surervisor

.R, C. Bjornson, Maintenance Training Coordinator "

e~ LR. M. Cooney, Maintenance Department Supervisor

. +R. - E. . Cyr,. Maintenance Manager

M. R. David,

Shift Superintendent ,

& +E. W. DesMarais,- Independent Review Team Manager

, + A. DiProfio, Assist. Station Manager ,

,~ **B. L. Drawbridge, Executive Director NuclearnProduction

, M. D, Harrington, Material Requirements Department Supervisor 9 R. F. Hayden, Relay. Working Foreman .

G. A. Kahn, Program Support Department Manager .!

+M.-E. Kenney,' System Support Department Manager

+R.' L. Krohn, NRC Coordinator R. K. Mahler, Engineering 1 Analyst  !

'

C- N. Molis, Planning and Scheduling Department Supervisor

,

+D. E. Moody, Station Manager J. 0.- Rocs, Lead Engineer - Electrical ,

.R.~ Savage, Electrical Supervisor ';

R. J; Sherwin, Planning, Scheduling, and-Outage Manager ['

A. Smith, Assistant Engineer C.'J. Vincent, Quality Control Department Supervisor i

i United States Nucl ear Regulatory Commission L

• N. ,Fi Dudley, S'enior' Resident Inspector, Seabrook

• • R. L. Fuhrmeister, Resident Inspector, Seabrook

• Attended the May 21st Entrance Meeting

• • Attended the May 25th Exit Meeting

.+ Attended both the May 21st and May 25t' neetings The team also-interviewed and had discussions with other administrative, maintenance,~ contractor, operations, and technical personnel; and with

.various supervisors anu .ianager ,

r

<

.-

m

, ]]

,, o ,= 2 ,

h:,."' .  ;

.

,.

,

_-_ .. {

"

. 5' i s .

1. • ,

'

2.0 !!aintenanceProgramandImplementation(IP 62700, 62702, and 62705)-

o .

,

q 2.1 ' Plant Material Condition, System Walkdowns, Maintenance Work-Package Reviews, and Maintenance Work Observation 2. Containment Closecut Inspection

'

f '

The inspectors accompanied the Shift Superintendent who performed the-reactor contair, ment building closecut inspection required prior to'

~

-reactor startu The inspectors noted overall that the general-material . condition of plant systems inside- containment has been-wel !

<

maintained; that s.vstems and equipment hardware were intact; thati mobile equipment was properly stowed; and that housekeeping throughout I

. containment equipnent 3 paces had been ef fective in keeping these -

areas clean and free from debri Certain items, however, were observed by the inspectors which raised concerns about post maintenance / surveillance equipment restoration: r as follows:

1) A circuit breaker panel cover had beer left unsecured, in that' '

most of.the fasteners on'the panel cover'were-not made up and-the panel internals were exposed to the external environmen ) Protective covers for the seismic accelerographic instruments-(1-SM-XT-6710) on.the contairment operating floor had not been reinstalle ,

I o

3) Caps and plugs had not been rieinstalled 'on several valves and-pipes inside-instrument cabinets within containmen Some caps! 1 and plugs were left lying nevby their installed locations -and-- ;

others were missing and could not be located. This concern was 1 previously documented by the licensee in-Request for Engineering _ l Services (RES) 88-0048 which was written in carly 1988 to request .!

that a method be developed for controlling pipe caps. Tais RES-was written in' response to a previous NRC inspection finding and ]

assigned a P.riority' Level 2 (i.e., response required to achieve i plant performance, personnel safety, or exposure ALARA goals; or-to meet a mode change prerequisite) and was still outstanding at .l the time of this inspectio '

The above items were brought to the attention of the Shift Superintenden .

"

who ~. subsequently required that shif t personnel restora this equipment 1 to a serviceable condition,

The-inspectors. reviewed the field Work Closeout Sheets which are required to be performed in conjunction with all Work Requests (WRs)

and Repetitive Task Sheets (RTSs). It was noted that these check sheets require verification that electrical junction boxes have been e x i

r j ,-

o

!

U :

{ ~t . g p M 3

E . , ' ,

<

d w. ,

y b

.-

-

.

. s

.

restored. However, the restoration of breaker panel doors and covers, land the reinstallation of equipment protective covers,. valve pipes and vent plugs are not addressed by thesel closeout sheets. Re'storation instructions are often included in maintenance work procedures; however,

,

those tasks which are directed only by a WR or RTS, without explicit

_

instruction other than the closeout sheets 'could allow equipment and, components to be-left not restored to a normal ccndition, Subsequent"

~

to the containment closeout, the inspectors also observed several

.

large electrical panels-in the main switchgear rooms which had panel ] .

cover. fasteners unsecured, although the panel internals were not exposed, a

The. equipment-noted above-which had not been fully restored reflect either or both' a iack of procedural control -or supervisory nyersight

'

'

to ensure that equi,, ment is restored during maintenance / surveillance work closecut. The inspectors presented the concern to station management ^who' acknowledged the need for increased attention to t achieve a timely resolution of these matter '

During the containment closecut inspection, the inspectors als observed that several valves located inside instrument racks did not have identification tags installe The identification label for one=

instrument rack (1-MM-IR-11) was also damaged and not legible. The inspectors questioned this lack of identification oa system components

-

(valves & cabinets) and were informed that-in some cases, the components ,

were part of systems that were no longerLin use (abandoned, daactivated, '

etc.). Although the licensee has no method or program for . identifying ;

retired or abandoned equipment, the-program described.in Maintenance Manual Section MA 4.7 indicates that the plant component identification i program is stil1 being developed and is not due for completion until "

the plant achieves " Commercial Operation." Although the majority of plant systems and components appeared to-have identification labels i as of this inspection, the concern for unlabeled components was also expressed in RES 89-1007 which noted that many plant components lacked identification-tag T' s RES was given a priority level 3 (i.e.,

- response required for significant cost benefit, human factors-enhancement, or increased operational capabilities) and was not ase'gned a'due date for completio ,

During the containment closecut inspection, the inspectors also noted that several large chips of paint (approximately 2 inches square) were-found loose on the containment floor at the elevation of the recirculation sump It was apparent that many areas on

'

containment floors, particularly around structural pedestal supports, had paint which had cracked and chipped. Although the total extent of this cracked paint did not appear large enough pose a threat to the containment sump screen flow area, the licensee is not currently ,

monitoring and correcting the amount of potential paint debris inside

- containment on a regular basis. The inspectors expressed this concern

-

to the Radwnste/ Utilities Supervisor who agreed to initiate an RTS

,

d

-.u-.- - _ _, - - - . - -

y -

,,

gy 3 r .,

l It? -

'

l '

3. ; - '

,

-

W

,. g-

[ ..

!

,

i requiring that a preventive maintenance task.be performed during-modes-5 of 6 to inspect, repair, and repaint. surfaces inside . ntainment.

L as necessary.

!

2. I'. 2 - Work Package-Reviews and System Walkdown '

.

.

.The inspectors performed _ work package. reviews and-system walkdowns for major maintenance activities which occurred during tne recent i_ plant outage. Work packages for the EDGs, PORVs, MSIVs, and Contain-ment Air Compressors were reviewed to evaluate the quality and completeness of work instructions and to observe the correct -

implementation'of the prescribed work. Attachnent A provides a #

,

'

listing of the subject work packages. The effectiveness of-. maintenance- -

work controls was examined by ensuring that work. packages were ?

, properly _ prepared,. reviewed, and authorized; and that completed work ,

was inspected and properly _ accepted. Post Maintenance testing was

'

reviewed where applicable and documentation of' acceptable results was ascertained. _The inspectors also physically observed the material condition of the EDGs and the Containment Air Comp ors after the maintenance work was completed. No deficiencies were noted in these-work packager.- s

'

2.1. 3 - Maintenance Work Observation Station Batteries t The inspectors observed the weekly maintenance surveillance / testing of 125VDC safety related battery 1-EDE-B-IC. This' surveillance was q conducted utilizing the current approved maintenance procedure MX0506.02-

" Weekly Battery Surveillance," Revision 2. dated April 26, 1989. ~A .i review of~th s procedure disclosed that it provided well defined-objectives;)properreferences;prerequisitesrequired;alistof *

approved test equipment to be used; proper precautions and clearly A

written' step by step instructions for conducting the surveillance including- acceptance criteria and the' prompt notification requirements if the. criteria are not me :

Observations were made of the surveillance / test personnel utilizing current calibration instrumentation in making the required test measurements, inspecting the battery terminals for corrosion, and inspecting -the overall physical ~ condition of the batteries, battery

rack, and cable connection From these observations and from discussions held with the surveillance / test personnel the inspectors found that the personnel were experienced and knowledgeable in the conduct of this procedure. There were no deficiencies observed in-the canduct of this surveillanc ~

, ,

{ j ,, ,.

-

<

!

W ,

,

-

b

..

2.2: Preventive Maintenance (PM) Program 2.2.1. PM Program Integration

'

c The inspectors reviewed the PM program at Seabrook Station with particular emphasis upon the efforts currently underway in accordance with Maintenance Group instruction-(MGI) - 300, "PM Developmentiand Review." This' instruction was written as a program development-document'with the purpose of integrating the PM activities of the'-

three maintenance department divisions (Maintenance,.I&C, and Radwaste/

Utilities) under common administrative PM instructions. This program is also designed to def.ine a PM program with ' generic guidelines for-o ' conducting consistent PM work control activities at Seabrook. - The MGI-300 activities in progress are divided into four categories of systems and are designed to provide a comprehensive review of all system PM work instructions and maintenance procedures specified ..

by each maintenance division to ensure that all PM work is specified, planned, defined, scheduled, controlled, reported, and inspected in a consistent manner. The inspector noted that this effort has been ..- J underway for.only a few months and that only about one1 quarter of the plant system PM requirements had been revised to date. The efforts o to accomplish the instructions c* MGI-300 were, however, being completed in a methodical and careful manner t:: ensm that all requirw PM activities for ~each plant system were being properly addresse The inspectors noted that four department managers were currently N held:to commitments' identified on the Integrated Commitment Tracking System (ICTS) to ensure that the efforts prescribed by MGI-300 will be completed by mid-199 q 2. Plant, Check Valve PM Activities

,

The inspectors reviewed licensee activities currently'in progress to '!

create and implement a separate PM program solely for plant check valves. In response to Significant Operating Event Report (SOER) 1" 86-03, " Check Valve Failures or Degradation," the licensee has created i a task force to develop an appropriate formal response and to formulate recommended actions within the maintenance organization. These

-

.

recommendations are due for completion by September 30, 1990; however, ~

interim recommendations have been made in the interest of initiating check valve preventive maintenance tasks which already appear to be y nbcessary. To date, the licensee has identified a need for eight new ,

maintenance procedures for check valves and one existing procedure which requires extensive rewriting. In addition, ten new check valve test procedures have been identified and 25 existing 9rocedures require rewriting. All identified procedures are due for issue by i October 30, 1990 and the responsible Engineering and Technical Support organization managers have formal commitments listed in the ICTS'to-achieve this date. So far the program has addressed 227

! '

fm

?.

~i ,

. ,

.

4N

'

,

.

r- .

g;

e- ,

,

y plant check valves and preliminary indications suggest that some >

9 system or? valve design changes may.be.nocessary in order to fully E ~ implement SOER 86-03 recommendations. The inspector noted that although'

'

there appeared to be some delay in developing a formal-response to this SOER, the actions identified so far appear to be adequate and

~

!

will be in effect soon after the plant achieves full operatio <

!

2.3~ Maintenance Training Qualification Program The inspectors reviewed the licensee's program as described in the Yankee Qualification Manual, Chapter 2 " Maintenance Group Qualifi-

, cation Program." This chapter describes the qualification program in detail and includes the administrative. policies and practices which ,

are used to implement and administer the program. It includes the processes whereby the maintenance personnel develop and maintain the

knowledge andiskills required to comnetently. perform specific maintenance

_ tasks / processes (self-study, classroom training, on the job training, >

etc.). The program provides the guidelines and procedures to be used i to establish the qualification of each maintenance employee. It also establishes controls of the qualification records including the .

authority that is required for making qualification changes (additions, deletions, upgrading and downgrading).

The inspectors determined that the qualification program described by th ;

~

- manual was still in development; however, the maintenance department <

-has already begun to implement most of the program requirements, and of ficial implementation is scheduled for the first week- of June, _199 ;

Based upon the review o' the licensee's qualification-program, the assessment of 1.ts implementation, and the results of interviews

, conducted with maintenance personnel, the inspectors determined that the qualification program was effective in achieving ~1ts objective .4 Maintenance Work Request and Requests for Engineering: Service Backlog The inspectors reviewed the system utilized by the Planning, Scheduling,_

and Outage Group to report and track outstanding work requests. -By definition, " backlogged" VRs refer only to those which are currently

, working or ready to be worked. Those WRs which are not available fo work (i.e., in preparation, awaiting parts, awaiting engineering, etc.) _are not considered to be officially part of the WR backlog. An extensive statistical breakdown and tracking system for all categories

, of WRs is being maintained by the Planning, Scheduling, and Outage

, Group in a weekly report which is distributed to all department ,

managers. This report provides a listing of; all categories of  ;

outstanding WRs and trends each cr u gory over the previous 12 month .WRs are also ranked according ta s .fety significance, priority, and i age. This tracking mechani r ar. eared to be a detailed, thorough,

and effective management itz, in t9 d the total number of " backlogged" i ,

'

m

\

n f'

pn= ; _ ,

f-L

. .

i ,- .

<

-

( .  ;

'

10-WRs T has-trended downward for the past 12 menths and is currentl t slightly above the

station target. level'ot 750-WR However, the inspectors ~' express'ed a concern that the. total number in some _ categories-of open WRs (i.e., not_ " backlogged") appeared to be large and there

_

+

- were no defined target levels for managing _these numbers. For example,- ..f as of th.is. inspection, 150 out of 485 WRs-were:not'available for work, s because they were " awaiting-parts." Likewise,: approximately. 35 were :

,

" awaiting engineering."  !

The inspectors also noted that the total number of' outstanding Request ,

,

for Engineering Se'rvice (RES) documents appeared to be large. Many- !

- outstanding requests (approximately' 19%)-'were written in 1986 and t

<

.1987, however, most (approximately 73%) were initiated in 1988 and 1989. Out of a total of app ~roximately 3900.RES documents written since'1986, approximately 900(23'4) were unresolved as of this inspection. The total number of outstanding RES documents has been trending . upward during the past 12 month perio The inspectors discussed the above concerns with station managers and emphasized the need for management attention in all areas of outstanding work especially since many of these WRs and RESs pertain directly to'

maintenance. 'Many RESs were generated because replacement spare parts originally specified by manufacturers or vendors are no longer available, and acceptable substitutes have not been identified. Many other.RESs apply directly to the EDGs. Station managers acknowledged that the total number of unresolved RESs was too high and indicated that a task group has been formed to define and manage those actions required-to reduce the number. Attention-will also be given to reassessin the priorities assigned to these RESs in order to. ensure the most important ones are resolved as soon as possibl Another category of WRs tracked is the number of new WRs cancelled . .

Historically, this category was noted to be relatively high (5-30%)

and was-reported at 25% during the week of this inspection. Maintenance and Technical Support personnel indicated that many new WRs are cancelled due to redundant reporting of deficient plant conditions .

and that the system. engineer who authorizes issuance of the WR is *

usually the _only individual who is aware of all problems and deficient-conditions' reported on his system. The licensee has developed a deficiency tagging system to help reduce the number of redundant WRs written; however this program has not yet been implemented. The, program requirements have been included in the draft vtesion of the i next major revision to the Maintenance. Manual due for iaproval by June 1, 1990. It is expected to take several weeks after that date j before plant personnel hava time to implement and use the tagging system properl t

W7 + .

33 ,

A

, .:

.

'

91 11-o.-

<

1r 2.5 Emergency Diesel' Generators (EDG) Maintenance Program ,

y

_2. lEDG Eighteen Month Surveillance '

sThe licensee had recently completed the 18 month / shutdown maintenance activities ~for the EDG units. In order to ass' the adequacy'of the maintenance conducted, the inspector first review.u the periodic

. maintenance recommended by the EDG manufacturer and then compared it :

,

"

to the maintenance scheduled / conducted by the licensee. The inspector found no deficiencies in this are "

.

The 18 month maintenance was cond.cted by the licensee under Repetitive Task Sheet (RTS) Number 90RM045826 The RTS included the EDG '

,. maintenance. procedures which were required and had been completed. A detailed step by step review was made of the completed procedure Procedure steps which involved critical items such as engine timing, bolt torquing, clearance dimensions, protective trips were verified; to include QC hold / witness points. The inspector found no deficiencies ,

in the'18 month EDG maintenance conducted under this RT In order to further assess'the licensee's EDG maintenance program, the inspector reviewed the overall operations / maintenance surveillance schedule. This schedule ranges from such short term items as the ,

weekly verification of the adequacy of the lube oil out to the ten year-inspection / cleaning of the fuel oil tanks. .No deficiencies were noted in this schedule. A walkdown -visual inspection of the EDG units including their support systems (air, fuel, water, electrical, exhaust) did not. reveal any deficiencies in the maintenance of this system and its equipmen ,. 2.5.2- EDG Maintenance Replacement Parts Procurement The licensee'has experienced problems in acquiring Class 1E qualified parts from'the EDG manufacturer. Previously parts were' procured from another company who no longer supplies these parts.- This problem has been temporarily alleviated by on-hand spares both in' stores and from the spare;EDG units on !!te. The inspectors reviewed reports on the coordinated efforts of sevsral of the utilities working with the '

manufacturer to establish a uniform parts dedication program for the

' ass IE qualification. The manufacturer's representatives recently

- esented'their program to tie licensee for their approval. Based upon the manufacturer's prop.am, the licensee plans to release: trial care parts order The orders are to be processed, except for shipment, until the results of a planned July 1990 audit of the manufacturer are know fi

^

,

ew

'

, = ;s ,

, l

,

t . ,

'12

,

2. EDG Maintenance Mechanics Qualification

-

Each of the EDG maintenance procedures which were performed as 'a part -

'

of'the'18 month surveillance required the services of personnel who ;

were-qualified to' perform the specific tasks required. In order,to assess the effectiveness of the implementation of the licensee's-maintenance employee qualification program, the inspectors selected

-

the names of maintenance employees who either signed ther procedures as mechanics or as. supervisors and then verified-their qualification From.the qualification files, the' inspectors were able to determine ~

-

the qualification of each individual selected including the fact-that '

each had been specifically qualified to parform on the EDG maintenance-procedures which were being reviewed. The inspectors determined that several of the key maintenance personnel had attended training conducte a

, by_the EDG manufacturer and the governor manufacturer. Interview *

-also were conducted with selected E0o maintenance personnel in order-to perform a more in-depth assessment of their knowledge and qualifi -

cations to_ perform the maintenance required, Maintenance personnel were found to.be-well trained and qualified to perform tasks requir'ed-for the EDG 18 month surveillanc .0 Surveillanc'e Work Observation of Nuclear Instrumentation (NI)

[IP 61705 and 61726)

The inspectors observed the operations surveillance / testing of the

" Source Range NI Shutdown High Level Trip" alarm bistables. The inspectors verified that the surveillance was performed utilizin approved Procedure IX1656.912 - Source Range Channel Operational Test. -Test instrumentation was verified to be proper for the test

.and.their' calibration was curren From the observations and from discussions held with the surveillance /

test personnel, the inspectors concluded that the procedure was, adequate- ,

to conduct the surve'llance and the personnel were knowledgeable and-experience There were no deficiencies observed in the conduct of this surveillanc .0 Review of Licensee Action on previcus NRC Inspection Findings-

'l (IP 92701)

'

' Information Notices (ins):

'

A review was made of the licensee's internal response to NRC

.

" '

Information Notice 89-50 - Inadequate Emergency Diesel Generator

.

(EDG). Fuel Suppl I

'

I t

<

> ,

l C-

E' -Tc, -

rst I

,

+

, _

3"

u.: .

r...

,

,

-13:

f

l The inspectors found that_the licensee's' response was madeLin accordance with an established Correspondence Action Tracking Repor System. A review of the' detailed " Action Taken": technical analysis SBP-90-019' revealed'that the licensee's calculations to determine th ',

adequacy of the fuel oil' storage were properly ~made in accordance with the' guidelines established in Regulatory Guide 1.137 and as recommended by.the IN. Based upon the analyses and its conclusions

- which demonstrate the adequacy of the fuel oil supply, licensee management approved the " Closeout" of this' ite The inspectors found the licensee's system for handling-Informatio Notices and the analyses and closecut of IN 89-50 were sufficient to ;

adequately address this item. However the review offthe EDG fuel oil system revealed an error in P&ID drawing 1-DG-020459 " Diesel s* ~ Fuel Oil System Train A." This drawing incorrectly .shows the ,

capacity of the day tank as 15000 gallons (should be 1500) and che i

'

storagestank as 7500 gallons (should be 75,000).

The licensee took prompt action to correct this: error. There appears to-be no' safety implications from this error since the' plant procedures _;

and the installed gages reflect the proper capacit The corresponding train 8 drawings were correc .2 Unresolved items (UNRs)

The inspectors reviewed closure packages for unresolved items generate during NRC inspection report 50-443/90-0 '(0 pen):UNR 90-05-03:

This item involved problems assoc'iated_with two non-safety related s instances of failure to comply with procedural requirements. One '

problem identified portions' of scaffolding' erected around circulating <

water pumps which were not properly controlled by plant' tagging - *

requirements. Another problem involved a temporary sump pump installed in the circulating water pump house that was not installed as a '

temporary modification and'had not been installed in accordance with applicable station operating procedure The c)crure package contained copies of the: administrative and s

,

procedatal requirements related to these two instances; however, insufficient information was p ovided to indicate how these item were resolved. Therefore, the inspectors considered the available information to be incomplete and not adequate for final review. This-item remains ope .

(0 pen) UNR 90-05-04:

~

This item refers to four separate cases of inadequate maintenance practices as follows:

I

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _._.l__ _.____ _____ _ __ __ _

p ,

n

H a;j , -;,s i

<4.- ,

. ,

t: p,

[ej n'7 ,

c

.;

s

- -- -

- . . ,

1)l .l Independent review of isolation tagouts not required by MA Vse of uncontrolled prints to verify the adequacy of. an electrical f' 2)L isolatio '

i b

l' 3) ' Improperly installed blank flange in'the Service Water ' A' train. .

.

l; 4)- _An I&C technician entered into an area protected by a safety-shield-under an EDG lined up for auto start. The component  ;

'

_g that the technician intended to work on was not located within this are <

F The inspector:found a lack of specific information in this package -

'

, which left.it unprepared for final revie In addition, the licensee reported:that the I&C technician-in item #4 had been counseled not to enter.behind a safety barrier around a system ali'gned for auto star However, the. licensee did not. intend to.take further action regarding the technician's lack of familiarity with plant component location- e aiid identification. In. view of the concerns noted above'(Containment Closecut); relating to. lack of component identification tags, and the consequent' potential for mistakenly working on unlabelled equipment, the~ inspectors consider the 1icensee's intention to not adress this:

concern further-to be an inadequate respons This item cemains'. ,

ope The inspectors discussed with station management'the need for specific and suf ficient information for resolving the- above identified Unresolved -Items. Management _ indicated that the

. -information necessary to resolve the above two items will b provided when the~ items are resubmitte'd for closur

5.0' Exit-Meeting  :

-The findings of this. inspection were presented to the Seabrook Station Management at the exit meeting conducted on May 25, 1990. _Those items recommended for management attention were noted and undertaken to determine appropriate corrective action *

At no' time was the licensee provided any written material by the inspectors,

-and.at no time did the licensee indicate that_ areas covered by this'

inspection' contained proprietary informatio >i

> '

. ,

tu -

.

Fs- .<

s ,

i

- *

,.

5

b-i Attachment A

'

' Documents Reviewed Work' Packages

" 90W002597, Fabricition of Limit Switch Actuator Arms'

for 1-MS-V-86, 88, 90, 92 s

-, - 90W002644,. Fabricate ieismic' Support Brackets and Weld to Block' Valves for N2 Switches for All Four MSIVs a 90 WOO 2645) -j 90 WOO 2646) Minor Mods90-565 and:90-5764

'

90W002647) for all MSIVs 90W002648)

90 WOO 2242, Replacement of Seat Assembly for 1-RC-PCV-456B ("B" train

'

PORV)

88 WOO 5915 Repair of 1-RC-V456B ("B" train PORV)

. 90W001506, Removal-and Replacement of Pipe Nipple Between Valve 1-CS-V-976 and Pipe Elbow (Packing leakof f for Valve CS-FV-7456)

'

90RM0458261 Repetitive Task Sheet for. Diesel Generators 18 Month Inspection-Engineering Documents and Instructions ,

Technical Support * System Listing, February 7,1990-DCR 90-0016, Heater Drain Tank Vent RES89-469, Containment Air Compressor Replacement Valves ,

Minor Mod 90-565, MSIV Limit Switch Actuator Arms Minor Mod 90-576, MSIV Pressure Switch Replacement T '

Procedure IX 1656.912 - Source Range Channel Operational Test

n MX 0506.02 - Weesly Battery Surveillance, Revision 2,. April 26, 1989

MX 0539.05 - Diesel Generator E gine Annual / Refuel Preventive Maintenance and In pection, Revision 5, August 2,1989 MS 0517.03 -

Installation of Piping, Pipe Supports, and Stow Supports

..

'

pt ,;cT: ,

-

, .o (" >

,

. .

,

'

. ;e  :

r, i' '  ?

.

'

, n' , .

. .

'

' J ;)

r

~

Yankee Qualification Manual,-Chapter 2--Maintenance Group Qualification-

-

-Program, Revision 0

-

,

-

.

'

New Harnpshire Yankee Qua'11fication Guide--Position: Seni6riMechanic' ,

Duty Areasi Diesel' Maintenance;: 1,

'

. , , March;26, 1990-

+

. .

.

. .

-

. Specification 5-5-1-E-009, Specification for.. Torque and Bolting Material

, , , . .

Substitution _

P

.

.- i

-

,

5. -

!

.

-'

l

,

'}

t

,

1 a i

E

>

.f

';i.; 4

+ , . i

'

,

I