IR 05000443/1988012

Insp Rept 50-443/88-12 on 880907-09.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Readiness to Resume Start Up Testing

ML20205J688
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	10/20/1988
From:	Eselgroth P, Prell J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20205J662	List: IR 05000443/1988012 ML20205J658
References
50-443-88-12, NUDOCS 8810310459
Download: ML20205J688 (5)

Text

m'

..

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS3 ION

REGION I

Report N /88-12 Docket N License No. NPF-56 Licensee: Public Service Company of New Hampshire P. O. Box 330 Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 Facility Name: Seabrook Station, Unit 1 Inspection At: Seabrook, New Hampshire Inspection Conducted: September 7 - 9, 1988 Inspectors:

Jar Mk A. Prell, Senior Operations Engineer

_j0 1M da Approyed by: jff [

selgroth.hh

///.J<'*[88 ffpRter PWR Section date Inspection Summary: Routine Announced Inspection Conducted On

~

September T 9 f9887 Report No. 60-443788-12)

Area Inspected: Licensee's Readiness To Resume Start Up Testing Results: No violations were identifie {DR ADOCK 05000443 FDL

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

,

e *

.. ..

r

. .

DETh!LS 1.0 Persons Contacted:

ilew Hampshire Yankee Personnel

• S. Buchwald, QA Supervisor R. Connolly, Jr., QC Lead Technical Inspector D. Covill, QA Quality Surveillance Supervisor E. Desmarais, Independent Review Team Staff J. Grillo, Assistant Operations Manager P. Gurney, Reactor Engineeritc "cpt. Supervisor

• G. Kahn, Program Support Manager

• J. Malone, Operations Administrative Supervisor

• D. Moody Station Manager V. Pascucci. QC Inspection Supervisor

• D. Perkins, Licensing

• N. Pillsbury, Independent Review Team itanager

• W. Temple, Licensing Coordinator P. Upson, QA Audit and Evaluation Supervisor

• C. Vincent QC Departnent Supervisor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• Ruscitto, Senior Resident Inspector (Acting)

• Denotes those present at the exit meeting conducted on September 9,1988 2.0 Overall Startup Test Program 2.1 References / Requirements

-- Regulatery Guide 1,68 - 1978 Revision 2, Initial Test Program for Water - Cooled Nuclear Power Plants

--

Seabrook Station Final Safety Analyses Report, Section 14 Initial Test Program 2.2 Program Review On October 17, 1986 Seabrook Station, Unit 1, received a license, NPF-56, "to lead fuel and perform precritical tests..." Subsequent to loading fuel and performing certain initial tests, Seabrook placed Unit 1 in Mode 5. Cold Shutdow The purpose of this inspection was to determine the licensee's readiness to resume their startup test program. The following areas were inspected against the requirerents referenced in paragraph 2.1:

-- Present status of the S/U test program

.

_

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

I .< * *

,

'

.

--

Outstanding items needed to be resolved prior to resuming the S/U test program

--

Organization / training of personnel involved in the S/U test program

--

Administrative controls governing the S/V test program

--

Surveillance test controls

--

Qa/QC involvement with the S/U test program

--

Upper management's involvement with the S/V test program 2.3 b gram Implementation It was verified that the licensee had completed the first 14 S/U tests identified in Table 14.2-5 of the FSAR, plus some additional ones prior to going into cold shutdown. These tests were reviewed, ,

monitored and the results checked by the NRC (See inspection reports, Nos. 50-443/86-48 87-01, 87-05, and 87-09).

The only outstanding item to be resolved was in regards to the problems identified during preoperational testing with the Emergency Feedwater System. As a result of these identified problers the system was subsequently modified. All that remains is for the system

,'

to be retested while the plans is in a Hot Standby conditio The inspector reviewed the approved Special Test Procedure (STp) - 101, Rey, 1, "Turbine Driven Emergency Feedwater Start Verification Test,"

to determine if it would satisfy the concerns raise' luring preoperational testin The licensee has identified those persons which will be involved with the S/U test program. The individuals include personnel from operations, engineering, quality assurance and quality contro '

These personnel will receive 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> of training per week for 6 weeks prior to resuming S/V testing. The training will review all cpplicable administrative controls to be followed during S/U testing as well as each test that will be performed. The instector reviewed the "Startup Test Program Description," Revision 2, which is used to administratively control the S/U test program. The inspector aisc reviewed the resumes of four QC :nspectors who will be involved with reviewing the test procedures and witnessing the proposed test Discussions were held with Operations, QA, QC and the S/U test r.anagement to ascertain their responsibilities and duties in the S/U test progra The licensee has both a manual system and an automated system for controlling surveillance test In addition the Operations derartment uses a Mode Change Check List to identify surveillances which need to be completed prior to making a mode change.

h _ - . , , --

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

t .. :

. .

Prior to entering Mode 4 and resuming S/U testing, ?95 technical specification 18 month surveillances need to be completed. The licensee has a total of 2700 surveillances they perform and feel that the proposed schedule allows plenty of time to complete the needed surveillance The inspector reviewed the responsibilities of the Independent Review Team (IRT) which has been tasked to perform a self assessment of the Low Power Testing program. For this assessment, the IRT will report directly to the President and CE0; Vice President Engineering, Licensing and Operationst Vice President Nuclear Production and the Station Manager. In addition the IRT will provide periodic update *

to the NRC Resident Inspector. The IRT will investigate nine topical areas, such as plant operations, surveillance and testing, maint-enance, quality assurance, plant chtnistry and HP. The IRT team will consist of both NHY and consultant personnel and is scheduled to take 17 weeks to complete. Personnel assigned to the team will spend a minimum of 30% of each work weak working in their assigned area Periodic written or oral reports are scheduled to be given to upper managemen .4 QA/QC Interface The QA department and QC department's responsibilities related to the S/U test program were looked at by the inspector. This incleded holding discussions with QA and QC management, reviewing manpower schedules and staffing levels, reviewing the cualifications of certain QC personnel, and reviewing the scheduled task .5 Findings As a result of the above reviews, two corcerns were identified:

-- The QA department had not formulated any plans for providing a level II oversight review of the proposed S/U test progra After the inspector's concern was made known, the QA department comitted to performing a S/U test surveillance program which had been planned two years previously. The inspector reviewed this program and found it applicable and appropriate. Also the QA department comitted to directing their efforts to look at the S/U test program during a scheduled December "Test t.ontrol" audi The QC department has the responsibility of reviewing the S/U test procedures for technical adequacy and performing surveillances of each S/U test. Based on a review of two of four resumes of QC inspectors assigned to the S/U test program, the inspector developed a concern over the qualification and capability of some of the QC inspectors to perform an adequate

. _ _ -

'

8 o ts

'

t technical review and monitoring function of some of the more complicated low power physics tests. As a result of this concern, the licensee stated that following actions would be implemented:

1) QC inspectors would receive an additional two to three hours of training on reactor theory in addition to the 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> / week for 6 weeks training program to be provided all S/U test personne ) QC inspectors would be included in all briefings which occur prior to a particular test being performed, and 3) QC inspectors would not be assigned to monitor tests for which they were not technically qualifie .0 Exit Interview An exit interview was held on September 9, 1988 to discuss the inspection scope and findings as detailed in this report. (See paragraph 1.0 for attendees.)

At no time was written material given to the licensee. The licensee did not indicate that any proprietary information was utilized during this inspection.