IR 05000443/1985099

Forwards List of Attendees at SALP 850321 Meeting & SALP Repts 50-443/85-99 & 50-444/85-99 for Jul 1983 - Dec 1984. Util Performance Acceptable Re Safe Completion of Facility. Shortcomings in Electrical Equipment Noted

ML20128P071
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	05/28/1985
From:	Murley T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Harrison B PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Shared Package
ML20128P076	List: IR 05000443/1985099 ML20128P093
References
NUDOCS 8506030454
Download: ML20128P071 (5)

Text

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

.

t t

. ,.

MAY 2 81985 Docket Nos. 50-443 50-444 Public Service of New Hampshire ATTN: Mr. Robert J. Harrison President and Chief Executive Officer P. O. Box 330 Manchester', New Hampshire 03105 Gentlemen:

Subject: Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP)/ Report Numbers 50-443/85-99 and 50-444/85-99

.This refers to the SALP for the Seabrook Station, conducted by this office on February 19, 1985 and discussed with you and your staff at a meeting on March 21, 1985. The list of meeting attendees is attached as Enclosure 1. The NRC Region I SALP Report is provided as Enclosure 2 and covers the period July 1, 1983 to December 31, 1984. Your response dated April 16, 1984, submitted pursuant .to our letter of March 13, 1985, provided comments on the SALP Repor These_ letters are provided as Enclosures 3 and Our overall' assessment of construction activities at the Seabrook Station is that your performance has been acceptable and is aggressively oriented toward-safe completion of the facility. We found a high degree of management support of Quality Assurance, a quality conscious philosophy, and strong management initiatives toward improving organizational interfaces and strengthening management controls. You are to be commended for such active management involvement, particularly where high levels of performance were noted in the areas of structures and supports, auxiliary systems, quality programs, preoperational testing,.and operational readiness. Some performance shortcomings were observed, however, in the electrical equipment and cables i area. Also, management attention to improving the performance trend in both the safety-related mechanical components and instrumentation areas is warrante In the meeting on March 21, 1985, we discussed our assessment of your

~

regulatory performance and received your comments on the SALP Program and our-

~

assessment. We have considered your letter of April 16, 1985 and found no major differences of opinion. With regard to your adoption, interpretation, and use of ASME Code Case N-302 at Seabrook, Region I inspectors have independently verified the conduct of the required fit-up inspection and have discussed with site management the qualifications of those personnel authorized to conduct such inspections. We have concluded that your current program for confirming the adequacy of in process pipe support welding, by way

' '

of welder visual examination of the tack welds, independent inspection of the fit-up operation, and QC surveillance and mandatory hold point sampling, is

. acceptable. We also note that all safety-related pipe support welds receive a final inspection by QC personnel and that your improving trend in the piping systems and supports area reflects a pipe support fabrication program consistent with qualit OFFICIAL RECORD COPY SEABROOK S n p - 0001. ggg5 [

e5

,

Of[ f Ii a a

_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _

__ ____ ________ - - - - - - -

.

, t

.

Public Service Company of New 2 Hampshire MAY 2 8 1985 While our overall SALP conclusions have not changed since our letter of March 13, 1985 forwarded to you the SALP Report, we have amended Section III.2 of the enclosed report to document an improving trend in the plant licensing area and thereby establish consistency with the Section IV.9 trend. We have also made minor editorial and typographical corrections that did not affect our assessment or conclusions. We consider that our meeting and subsequent interchange of information were beneficial and improved mutual understanding of your activities and our regulatory progra In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and its enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room. No reply to this letter is required. Your actions in response to the NRC Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance will be reviewed during future inspections of your licensed activitie Your cooperation is appreciate

Sincerely, dH4 $_d d '

I Thomas E. Murley Regional Administrator

Enclosures:

1. SALP Management Meeting Attendees 2. NRC Region I Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance, Seabrook Station, February 19, 1985 3. NRC Letter, T. Murley to R. J. Harrison, March 13, 1985 4. PSNH Letter, SBN-791 (SALP Report Comments) to Region I, April 16, 1985

REGION 1 0 631 PARK AVENUE

g,***** ,o'g KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406 MAR 131985 Docket No License Nos. CPPR-135 50-444 CPPR-136 Public Service Company of New Hampshire'

ATTN: Mr. Robert J. Harrison President and Chief Executive Officer P. O. Box 330 Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 Gentlemen: *

Subject: Systematic Assessment of Licensee Perfonnance (SALP); Report Numbers 50-443/85-99 and 50-444/85-99 The NRC Regicn I SALP Board conducted a review on February 19,1985 and evalu-ated the performance of activities associated with Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2. The results of this assessment are documented in the enclosed SALP Board report. A meeting has been scheduled for March 21,1985, at the Seabrook Station, Seabrook, New Hampshire to discuss this assessment. This meeting is intended to provide a forum for candid discussions relating to this assessmen At the meeting, you should be prepared to discuss our assessment and your plans l

'

to improve pe.formance where weakness was noted. You are specifically requested to be prepared to discuss those actions planned or implemented regarding NRC l con erns in the electrical equipment & cables area, particularly with regard l to the conduct of required retrofit insoections and rework. Also, you'should be prepared to discuss the adoption, interpretation, and use of ASME Code Case N-302 at Seabrook and the impact that this Code Case, as well as other productivity oriented program changes, have upon 0A controls and directio Additionally, you may provide written coments within 20 days after the meetin Your cooperation with us is appreciate

Sincerely, l

V -

Thomas E. Murley - -

Regional Administrator Enclosure: As Stated Oc~n,. , , ,t ,t , ,,

" ' N I L{ yu n a r --~