IR 05000334/1979006
| ML19289E808 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 03/28/1979 |
| From: | Kister H, Markowski R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19289E805 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-334-79-06, 50-334-79-6, NUDOCS 7905290126 | |
| Download: ML19289E808 (6) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No.
50-334/79-06 Docket No.
50-334 Category C
License No. DPR-66 Priority
--
Licensee:
Duquesne Light Company 435 Sixth Street Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Facil.1cy Name:
Beaver Valley Power Station - Unit 1 Inspection at:
Shippingport, Pennsylvania Inspection conducted: February 27 - March 2, 1979 Inspectors:
5)?? OL h&;fd 2:
7?
R. Markowski, Reactor Inspector date signed date signed date signed d-MO [
Approved by:
,
'H. KisteV, Chief, Nuclear Support date signed Section 2, RO&NS Branch Inspection Summary:
Inspection on February 27 - March 2,1979 (Report No. 50-334/79-06)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by a regional based inspector of previously identified unresolved items (Report No. 50-334/78-26); and, the sequence of events associated with the recent high river water level.
The inspection involved 25 inspector-hours on site by one NRC regional based in-spector.
Results:
No items of noncomplia.nce nor deviations were identified.
2047 JS9 Region I Form 12 7905290126 (Rev. April 77)
.
.
_ DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted F. Arnold, Construction Specialist
- R. Burski, Senior Engineer
- J. Carey, Technical Assistant - Nuclear
- C. Ewing, QA Supervisor
- W. Glidden, QA Engineer
- E. Kurtz, QA Engineer
- F. Lipchick, Station QA
- A. Mazukna, QC Supervisor R. Mafrice, Supervisor - Onsite Engineering Group
- R. Swiderski, Superintendent - Construction
- J. Vassello, Training Supervisor
- J. Werling, Plant Superintendent
- D. Williams, Results Co-ordinator
- denotes those present at the exit meeting.
2.
Previously Identified Unresolved Items a.
Reference Letter:
C. N. Dunn to B. Grier, " Additional Information
--
Requested - Inspection 50-334/78-26", Items 1, 3 and 4, November 28, 1978 (referred to below as "the referenced response").
b.
Actions Taken to Date The inspector reviewed the licensee's actions to date as stated in the referenced response with respect to the subject unresolved items.
It was determined that, although the actions taken are not complete to date, the work / planning necessary has been substantially completed; therefore, no items of noncompliance nor deviations were identified.
How-ever, the items remain unresolved as discussed below.
204/ #0
(1)
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (334/78-26-01):
Deletion of pro-cedural provisions from SEPs' for design performance by the Power Station Engineering Group (PSEG).
The inspector reviewed the proposed modification schedule dated February 21, 1979, the design change status list dated January 3,1979, and reviewed various design modifications.
During this review the inspector did not identify any planned category 1 modifications which were being performed by the PSEG; therefore, item 1 of the referenced re-sponse was verified to have been completed.
However, it was noted that the revision to the SEP's were not com-pleted as stated in item 3 of the referenced response.
The inspector reviewed the draft revisions of the SEPs'
and observed that as presently written the provisions for category 1 design performance by the PSEG have been deleted.
During discussions with the licensee, the inspector was informed that due to a recent decision to redefine the organization which will conduct and administrate the activities associated with plant modification, the SEP revisions could not be completed until responsibilities had been fully defined.
The licensee stated that the procedures to be used by the PSEG have been rescheduled for issue by May 1, 1979.
Pending review of the issued procedures by RI, this item remains unresolved.
(2)
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (334/78-26-02):
Interface control associated with Design Document Control and Field Change Administration.
As stated above the organizational align-ment for conducting modifications is presently being es-tablished.
The inspector determined that based on dis-cussions with the Superintendent-Construction, Supervisor 2047 hl
.
Onsite Engineering Group, Senior Engineer-PSEG, Plant Superintendent, and QA Department representatives and review of draft procedures that:
'
an onsite group of the Construction Division will be
--
responsible for the construction management of the upcoming modifications, and will be directly respons-ible for technical document control and field change administration the PSEG will not have any direct interface re-
--
sponsibilities associated with field change admini-stration or installation of Construction Division managed category 1 modifications, but will be the interface between the Construction Division and the Site Operating Organization for post installation acceptance and pre-operational, functional testing the Onsite Engineering Group (an onsite group of
--
the Engineering Division) presently is not planning to be fully functional until after the presently planned outage the Nuclear Services Quality Control Group (NSQC)
--
is presently anticipated to be the responsible group for conducting quality verification functions (inspection and/or surveillance) of the installa-tion activities, and may be supplemented with or by contractor personnel the NSQC procedures are presently under internal
--
review to determine their adequacy to perform the above mentioned quality verification functions It was further determined that the administrative pro-cedures to be utilized by the Construction Division group are presently under revision.
Discussions with the Superintendent-Construction indicated that the minimum procedures to be utilized to conduct the modification will be issued by April 4, 1979, and will be further developed as required consistent with the schedule for accomplishing the activities.
2047 QA2
.
.
Pending review of the Construction Division's admini-strative procedures by RI, this item remains unresolved.
(3)
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (334/78-26-03):
Transmittal of completed Design Change Packages (DCP) to the Project Manager. The inspector determined that all completed category 1 DCPs' had not been physically transferred to the Project Manager by February 28, 1979 as stated in item 4 of the reference response letter; however, the inspector determined on a sampling basis, that except for two DCPs' (0233 and 0234), the verification and physical preparation for transmittal had been completed.
The licensee stated that the two DCP's will be physically prepared and 11 remaining Category 1 completed DCPs'
would be physically transmitted to the Project Manager by March 15, 1979.
Pending verification of the completion of these tasks by RI, this item remains unresolved.
3.
Sequence of Events Associated with the Recent High River Water Level The inspector reviewed the watch supervisors' log, the control room operators' log, and temporary logs associated with Ohio River water level monitoring along with a licensee representative and established the following sequence of events:
--
February 26, 1979: 6:33 a.m. - river level at 680'; 10:34 a.m. -
commenced reactor shutdown; 12:17 p.m. - reactor shutdown; 6:12 p.m. - commenced a reactor plant cooldown;
--
February 26, 1979: 2:00 p.m. river level at 682';
e February 27, 1979: 4:00 a.m. - river level at 680'; 10:11 p.m. -
--
commenced reactor startup (river level at approximately 673')
The above logs and sequence of events were reviewed for conformance with Technical Specifications.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
2047 #3
-
.
u 4.
Exit Interview On March 2,1979, the inspector met with licensee personnel denoted in Paragraph 1.
The scope and findings of the inspection were presented.
Subsequent to this meeting, a telephone discussion was held between Mr. H. Kister and Mr. R. Swiderski.
The committed completion dates as stated in this report were confirmed during the meeting and the referenced telephone discussion.
Since the licensee's proposed corrective action for items 334/78-26-01 through 03 had not been completed as specified in the li-censee's response letter to the NRC (see Paragraph 2), the inspector reminded the licensee that dates given for interim and full com-pliance in official responses to the NRC are regarded as commitments for the accomplishment of the specified activity.
If they are to be significantly delayed, another letter to the NRC requesting an extension and specifying the reasons for the request should be sent, prior to reaching the commitment dates where possible.
If the corrective actions are to be only slightly delayed in accom-plishment, the facility Project Inspector or his Section Chief should be contacted to inform him of the delay and the reason (s)
for it.
The Plant Superintendent acknowledged the inspector's statement.
2047 # 4