IR 05000444/1986001

Insp Rept 50-444/86-01 on 860414-18.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Activities Re Maint & Preventive Maint on Installed & Uninstalled Equipment During Const Shutdown

ML20198S591
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	05/29/1986
From:	Varela A, Wiggins J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20198S553	List: IR 05000444/1986001 ML20198S549
References
50-444-86-01-01, 50-444-86-1-1, NUDOCS 8606100492
Download: ML20198S591 (7)

Text

, .

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report No. 50-444/86-01 Docket No. 50-444 License No. CPPR-136 Priority Category A Licensee: Public Service of New Hampshire

'

P. O. Box 330 Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 Facility Name: Seabrook Station Unit 2 Inspection At: Seabrook and Newington, New Hampshire Inspection Cond ted: April 14-18,_1986 Inspectors: ).

A. A'. VaFela, Lead Reactor Engineer NA)/ 2 8, Fids date Approved by: <

M'C d 9 85 i

j J./ T .' Yi ggi ns / Chlef, Materials and Frocess SecN'on, EB, DRS date Inspection Summary: Inspection Report No. 50-444/86-01 on Aoril 14-18, 1986 Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection by a region-based inspector of licensee, A-E and contractor activities relating to maintenance and preven-tive maintenance on installed and uninstalled equipment during the Seabrook Unit 2 construction shutdown. This report includes the maintenance of com-ponents and equipment stored at the Seabrook site and the Newington warehouses and yard areas. The licensee's quality assurance and the A-E's quality control activities for maintenance and preventive maintenance during the extended construction delay are addressed.

-

Results: No violations were identified.

_

86G6100492 860529 PDR ADOCK 05000444 Q PDR 4 e g - -

wg - -+ , - .-.- m-.-wc- ,--4w- - - - ,--, - -----g,

.. . ..

.

,

DETAILS 1. Persons Contacted J. O. Azzopardi, QA Engineer F. X. Bellini, Licensing Engineer D. L. Covill, Field QA Surveillance Manager

• R. F. Cyr, Maintenance Manager J. Day, QA Surveillance / Maintenance

• W. Johnson, Vice President Quality Program

• R. L. Lussier, Unit 2 Maintenance Coordinator

• W. T. Middleton, QA Staff Engineer

• J. F. Mcdonald, Construction QA Manager

• D. W. Perkins, QA Engineer

• J. W. Singleton, Assistant QA Manager

• V. W. Sanchez, Engineer Licensing

• W. Sullivan, Senior QA Engineer

• J. Warnock, Nuclear Quality Manager United Engineer and Construction (UE&C

• B. E. O'Connor, QC Engineer J. Gries, Preventive Maintenance Supervisor M. Robbins, QC Inspector Maintenance /Newington W. Chapman, QA Engineer, Maintenance /Newington J. Parks, Subcontractor NRC

• P. K. Eapen, Chief, QA Section, Region I

• G. Napuda, Lead Reactor Engineer, Region I

• H. Gregg, Lead Reactor Engineer, Region I

• D. Ruscito, Resident Inspection 2. Inspection Purpose and Scope The purpose of this inspection was primarily to review the quality control plans, instructions, and procedures and to review accomplished maintenance actions undertaken on stored in place equipment, warehoused equipi..ent and open ared/ yard stored safety-related supplies. This effort addressed the preservation and protection of safety-related equipment, supplies and parts as required by supplier and vendor warranty. Because of the reorganiza-tion of site activities which occurred after Seabrook #2 entered an extended construction delay following the construction shutdown of April, 1984, this inspection was directed to equipment maintenance require-ments established and the ongoing practices undertaken by the new project administration. Physical inspection was performed of in plant, site ware-housed, off-site warehoused and yard stored equipment and parts. The inspector performed sample reviews of records of equipment maintenance

,

prior to and after the shutdown, following the requirements instituted

,r----

rw-- - , , y.-.- --- - -

,--r. o---- . - - - - - . - . . . . - . _ - - - - , , --

.. .

. .

,

under the new administration. The inspector was informed that about 2% of

equipment is in place in plant stored, 30% is site stored and about 60% is off-site stored at Newington. A small percentage of Unit 2 equipment has not yet been delivered.

3. Requirements for Protective Maintenance Prior to the construction shutdown, UE&C's FGCP procedures governed all maintenance actions relating to preservation and protection of equipment delivered to the site as well as that stored in off-site warehouses and buildings at Newington. After the April 1984 shutdown, UE&C revised FGCP-6 and established a position of Preventive Maintenance Supervisor (PMS) to coordinate the prever.tive maintenance program for equipment in storage as well as that installed in place. His responsibilities include compiling a preventive maintenance program and master schedule and main-taining preventive maintenance records for equipment covered by the pro-gram. The PMS, in conjunction with Area Superintendent, assures that storage areas conform to the storage level required by the manufacturer, ,

or as directed by Site Engineering. Also the PMS'and the Discipline

. . Superintendent must compile manufacturer information associated with the cleaning and preventive maintenance of the specific piece of equipment.

! FGCP-6 requires the UE&C Discipline / Area Superintendent to supply craft personnel to the PMS for training and for performing of prescribed main-tenance actions. The PMS is responsible for assigning QC Engineers to perform inspection of preventive maintenance activities and to assure that training adequately qualifies them.

Resulting from the Unit 2 construction delay following the 1984 shutdown and consequent reduction in personnes, UE&C proposed to NHY changes in the frequency of the maintenance actions on equipment supplied by NHY as identified in its letter of March 21, 1985. Vendors and suppliers of equipment identify the required protective and preventive maintenance .

oitributes and their frequency. These vendors and suppliers were indi-vidually contacted and requested by UE&C to approve changes in the fre-quency of designated maintenance guidelines and storage conditions. Where j suppliers accepted UE&C changes in their maintenance frequency or main-l tenance actions, without affecting the original purchase agreement and warranty provisions, the required protective and preventive maintenance

'

,

frequency was changed. Changes in equipment storage protection not l accepted by suppliers were not made, maintenance adhered to the original procedure agreement.

In 1985, NHY's new administrative managers inaugurated and incorporated into the Seabrook #2 maintenance program, special procedures for Storage and Maintenance of Equipment and Material. NHY procedure ASP-6 defines storage, preservation, general preventive maintenance and minimum storage

requirements for Unit 2 equipment, structures, and construction materials during the extended lay-up period. This procedure provides details and contains appropriate forms to insure that Unit 2 equipment, structures, and materials remain in an acceptable condition in accordance with regu-latory requirements, approved vendor recommendations and good engineering practices / judgement. The procedure was reviewed and discussed by the NRC I

_ _ _ _ _

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

- ~.

. .

! 4 r

inspector during his physical inspection and equipment record reviews.

Maintenance actions on significant safety related equipment was observed to conform to accepted supplier instructions and approved frequencies.

Additionally, FSAR commitment to Regulatory Guide 1.33, ANSI N18.7-76/

ANS 3.2 and N45.2 are prescribed in ASP-6. This procedure also provides for an NHY. Preserve and Protect Coordinator, whose duties are as follows:

-

in conjunction with UE&C engineering, perform periodic walk-downs of Unit 2

-

submit comprehensive monthly reports on the maintenance program's effectiveness

' -

observe potential deficiencies No violations were identified.

4. Inspection of Unit 2 Maintenance During Shutdown Walk-down inspections were performed of in place stored safety-related equipment and equipment parts in four buildings, in four site warehouses and three offsite (Newington) warehouses and buildings. Open stored / yard areas at the plant and offsite were included in the walk-down. Interviews were conducted during this inspection relating to specific equipment main-tenance storage actions, UE&C QC witnessing, and licensee QA surveillance.

The inspector observed that required levels of storage conditions were maintained, equipment and parts were adequately segregated, were readily accessible, equipment and parts were maintained as required by their respective preserve and protect instructions and indications / monitoring devices provided evidence of good housekeeping and orderliness. All

equipment was identified by " BLUE TAGS" containing QA sign-off for each date of the required maintenance actions. The inspector performed detailed maintenance record reviews of selected equipment to verify the required preserve and protect measurements and actions. These are identified in Table 1.

No violations were identified.

,

, 5. Review of Administ-ative Controls of Protective and Preventive Equipment Maintenance The following licensee quality assurance activities relating to main-tenance and preservation of Unit 2 equipment were reviewed and discussed with respective personnel responsible for these activities:

-

NHY's Preserve and Protect Coordinator's monthly reports on main-tenance program effectiveness and recommendation of engineering evaluation of potential deficiencies - August 1985 through March 1986 i

,-- ,. - - . . , -. - . . -

_ _ _- . _

-

. .

-

NHY QA Surveillance reports / monitoring of preventive maintenance and minimum storage of in place permanent plant equipment, site open storage and warehouses and Newington, off-site open and warehouse storage and maintenance - monthly reports since construction shutdown.

-

NHY Audit of May-June 1984 to verify compliance by UE&C to their control procedures for storage and protective maintenance of Unit 2 equipment.

The inspector ascertained from his review and discussions that the main-tenance program is being effectively implemented by UE&C. The inspector noted evidence that, where deficiencies were identified, appropriate cor-rective actions were instituted. None of the deficiencies reviewed indi-cated that major program changes were necessary to assure that quality of safety related equipment would be maintained during the shutdown.

No violations were identified.

6. License Attendance of Nuclear Plant Layup and Equipment Workshop Two licensee engineers responsible for Unit 2 equipment preservation attended the subject Electric Power Research Institute sponsored Workshop conducted October 30, and 31, 1985 at

Dearborn,

Michigan. Attendees of the Workshop included 50 members from 20 utilities, 3 A-Es, 2 NSSS vendors and INP0. The inspector was informed this workshop's concentrated and well coordinated effort was significant to Seabrook's preserve and protect maintenance program.

7. Atmospheric Corrosion Monitoring Test Program NHY initiated an atmospheric corrosion monitoring test program in September 1985. This program is procedurally directed by administrative special procedure ASP-7 and measures the corrosive potential of the Seabrook site atmosphere on major exposed site materials by using weighed test specimens.

Test racks containing various carbon steel panels and rebar for corrosion rates and two wet chloride candle tests at two site locations indicate atmospheric salinity at grade level and at the elevation of containment dome over an extended storage period. The program is intended to deter-mine corrosion rates of representative site construction materials over a minimum five years exposure in order to predict the condition of Unit 2 exposed carbon steel structures during the shutdown.

8. Summary In summary, the inspector concluded that the programs established and being implemented by NHY and UE&C should satisfactorily assure that acceptable storage conditions are being maintained.

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

. .

9. Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee's representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)

at the conclusion on April 18, 1985, at the Seabrook construction site.

The inspector summarized the findings of the inspection. The licensee acknowledged the inspector's comments. During the inspection, no written material was given to the licensee.

.- - -.. - . . _ - - -_ . . -- .. . . .

. ... .

.

.

Table 1

, Unit 2 Equipment Inspected and Records Reviewed j In-Placed - Stored (

BUILDING UE&C Number

-

Diesel Generator -

diesel skid 2-DG-SKO-7A, 7B

< -

pump coolant back-up 2-DG-P-1228 Primary Auxiliary -

primary camp. cooling pumps 2-CC-P-11A,B,C,D

-

primary comp. cooling pumps 2-CC-P-11 i motors Reactor Containment - steam generators 2-RC-E 11A,B,C,D

-

pressurizer 2-RC-E-10

-

reactor vessel 2-RC-E-1 Site - Warehoused Equipment

! -

jacket water heat exchangers 2-DG-E-42A,B

]

-

motor operated gate valve 2-SI-V-0047

< -

emergency feed pump skid 2-FW-P-37A,8

-

reactor vessel head 2-RC-E-1

,

Newington - (off-site) Warehoused Equipment l

j -

6" - 150# motor operated 2-CBS-V-0053

. valve

! -

spent fuel pool heat 2-SF-E-15A exchanger

-

letdown chiller heat 2-CS-E-7 exchanger

'

-

8' motor operated gate 2-RH-V-0026

,

valve

.

l

I

, 1

$

I

,

i

$

't

, - - , , - - , - - ,--,,,-s,---v a ,,-r-w, - - , , , - - -.--+---,n.,- wa.-- w - . - - , - -, , , r-- w.,_,,,- , ,, n,..-.----,,+- --- n v..,,,,- r---- - - , , ~ ~ . , , ,w-g.,,- ,---.,,,m,