IR 05000334/1988015
| ML20151G968 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 07/14/1988 |
| From: | Gray E, Strosnider J, Winters R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151G959 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-334-88-15, 50-412-88-10, NUDOCS 8808010077 | |
| Download: ML20151G968 (9) | |
Text
'
-
.
'
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-334/88-15 50-412/88-10 Docket Nos 50-334 30-412
,
License Nos.
OPR-66 NTP73 Licensee:
Ou_quesne Light Company P.O. Box 4 Shippingport, Penn;ylvania Facility Name:
Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 & 2 Inspection At: Shippingport Pennsylvania Inspection Dates: June 6-10, 1988 Inspectors:
U%
2/6'/88 aE. H. Gray, Lead Reactor En<fineer, MPS, date EB, DRS, Region I (/h
& /?M/P & mic.5 7/8/96 R. W. Winter >, Reactor Engineer, MPS, EB, date ORS Regi I
_
_
.
7/[f///
Approved by:
i
. Strosn der, Chief, Materials & Processes date ection, Engineering Branch, DRS, RI Inspection Summayr : Routine announced inspectien on June 6-10, 1988 50-334/8 8 3 0-412/88-10).
Areas Inspected: Inspection of the Corporate Engineering support program for Beaver ValTey Units 1 & 2.
Areas inspected included organization and staffing, quality assurance, training, and management support and comunications.
Results: No violations or deviations were identified.
I 9[
p DO O
O i
.
-
.
,
.
.
.
DETAILS i
1.0 Persons Contacted Duquesne Light Company T. Bolcshazy, Electrical Engineer
- F. Cavalier, Director, Project Management Section R. Dambaugh, Electrical Engineer
- C. Davis, Director, Quality Assurance W. Emery HVAC Engineer
- P. Farrington, Management Services R. Hansen, Director, General Engineering
- J. Kasunick, Site Maintenance Director l
l
- C. Kirschner, Quality Assurance Supervisor l
- S. Lipchick, Senior licensing Engineer
- R. Martin, Director, Nuclear / Mechanical Engineering K. McCutcheon, Senior Records Clerk
- S. Nass, Supervising Engineer
-
- 1. Noonan, Plant Manager D. Schmitt, Director, Electrical Engineering J. Starr, Engineering Management Services
- D. Szucs, Senior Engineer, Licensing
- N. Tonet, Manager, Nuclear Engineering Department
- S. Vassello, Director, Licensing Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation
- K. Halliday, Superintendent of Nuclear Engineering
- N. Kokot, Nuclear Engineering Department, Engineering Assurance
- R. Wittschen, Nuclear Engineering
<
i
!
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
t
- J. Beall, Senior Resident Inspector l
- 5. Pindale, Resident Inspector
- P. Wilson, Reactor Engineer
,
'
i
!
- Denotes those attending the 9xit meeting.
The inspectors also contacted other administrative and technical
!
personnel during the inspection.
.
2.0 References / Requirements
-
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion III Design Control
"
Final Safety Analysis Reports for Units 1 and 2
i
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
,
.
.
-
3.0 INSPECTION SCOPE The scope of this inspection included engineering activities performed at the Duquesne Light Company, Nuclear Engineering Department office in support of activities at Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 & 2.
4.0 ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING Occument/ Activities Reviewed Current organization charts for the Duquesne Light Company
--
Engineering Department, Management Services Department, and the Stone and Webster Engineering Department.
Engineering Procedures Manual
--
NEAP 2.1, Revision 0, Station Hodsfication Requests NEAP 2.3, Revision 0, Classificatien of Structures, Systems and Components NEAP 2.8, Revision 0, Engineering Drawings and Shetches UAP 1.1, Revision 1, NERU Organization and Responsioilities UAP 2.2, Revision 1, Design Change Control VAP 2.10, Revision 0, Design Verification UAP 3.3, Revision 0, Contracted Engineering Se* vices UAP 6.7, Revishn 0, Records Update Control Site Administrative Pro:edures Manus)
--
Design Control Packages (DCP)
--
514 576 750 977 821 l
964 (SWEC)
,
1046 (SWEC)
1036 (SWEC)
Details of the Review The inspector reviewed the above documentation and held discussions with engineering management personnel to determino the organization and the adequacy of the staffing level of the department.
The inspector also reviewed training, qualification and experience levels of assigned personnel in various positions, and inten tewed the staff I
engineers and managers to assess their knowledge of and familiarity with their assignments, j
The procedural control of work in the department and a sample of
{
Design Control Packages (DCP) were reviewed to assess the adequacy and effectiveness of engineering procedures and control of design interfaces.
The procedures were reviewed for detail and clarity of
_
-
.
,
t
.
requirements, levels of responsibility and authority assigned to various gioups and positions.
The DCPs were reviewed to verify the implementation of these procedures.
.
,
findings Based on the above review and discussions, the inspector determined that the licensee's engineering department has four divisions including General and Plant, Electrical and Control, Nuclear and Mechanical, and Materials and Standards.
Each of these groups was headed by a director who reports to the Manager, Nuclear Engireering.
In addition the licensee has contracted with the plant construction contractor, Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC), to maintain an engineering organization on site.
In this arrangement SWEC performs as another division of the licensee's engineering t
organization, with project supervision performed by a licensee
'
engineer.
The inspector determined that the licensee's staff including SWEC was adequate for routine and scheduled work and for the completion of tasks remaining from the Unit 2 construction. On an as needed basis this staff is augmented by consultants and engineering contractors for highly specialized or manpower intensive work. This policy appears to be effective. The DCPs reviewed were found to be well organized, complete, and in accordance with the records update procedure.
OCPs generated by SWEC were processed in accordance with the licensee'i
'
procedures and were observed to be cumplete and well organized.
In
<
addition to the licensee's reviews these SWEC generated DCPs had
,
received similar reviews by SWEC.
The inspector observed that the engineering drawing and valve operation number diagrams in the control room were of the correct revision and distributed by Document Control. OCPs and drawings
'
requested from document control were readily retrieved, complete and
'
the drawing revisions the same as thot, found in the control room.
Conclusions
,
The licensee's system for the generation ano control of DCPs and drawings was observed to be functioning in accordance with applicable
,
l procedures and guidelines.
Review of DCPs for projects, such as the l
HVAC installation in the RG/ Rod Control, Cable Tray Room, and Switchgear areas, that had been in process over extended time periods showed continuity in the performance of both the design and j
installation records.
Staffing was adequate for both scheduled modifications and completion of outstanding work to be done on the Unit 2.
Provisions were in place for temporary additions to the staff through the use of contractors for specialized projects.
l s
- -
- - - -
-
. -
-
.
-
.
-. -
-
.
,
'
S.0 TRAINING Document / Activities Reviewed Engineering Procedures Manual
!
--
UAP 1.6, Revision 0, Training Program Nuclear Group Directive No. 42, Nuclear Technology Training for Technical Staff and Managers
.
NERU Reading Checklist
,
Details of the Review The inspector reviewed the above documentation and held discussions with licensee engineering and training management end SWEC personnel to determine the extent and type of training provided for. engineering department individuals.
The basic licensee requirements are delineated in the Nuclear Group Directive and training procedure listed above.
The training file database was reviewed for selected licensee and SWEC individuals. The master reading list was reviewed and a typical reading list for engineers was reviewed for content and completeness in showing applicable administrative, quality assurance, and engineering procedures.
The inspector observed the training facilities and discussed the training program with the Training Director.
,
Findings
.
Based on the above reviews, discussions, and interviews the inspector
-
determined that the licensee has established an adequately staffed training department to implement the coordinated training policy for
'
technical and nontechnical personnel.
The licentes has developed a comprehensive training policy for individuals at all levels in the organtration.
The permanent training staff is supplemented by individuals from various disciplines assigned as instructors.
Training commensurate with the individuals
,
responsibilities is provided for all levels in the organization including management personnel.
If required, consultants are retained
'
for specific courses.
With regard to the continuing training of licensee engineering personnel, the engineering department supervisors are responsible for determining the necessary training 'or individuals on their staff.
The licensen has established a guideline of training requirements for i
,
!
!
-
-
-
-
-
.
,
'
various levels of personnel in different organizations. A series of courses covering plant systems that is scheduled on a two year cycle has been developed.
The first cycle of courses covering the safety related systems has been completed and the second series covering non-safety related systems is scheduled to begin in July 1988.
SWEC personnel have a mandatory reading list that is oriented toward the construction procedures applicable to Unit 2.
SWEC is in the process of developing a training program that conforms to the licensee's Nuclear Directive No. 42 and includes selected items on the licensee's engineering department reading checklist.
This SWEC.
training program is scheduled to be initiated by the end of July 1988.
The courses and lesson plans are developed in house by the training department or contracted to other organizations if necessary due to
.
the complexity and need for specialized instruction.
The training department maintains records of training provided to personnel, either inhouse or by consultants / contractors, to document the training given to each individual.
Conclusions The licensee has developed a well organized and documented training policy to assure all members of the engineering staff receive training as appropriate to maintain and upgrade their skills.
For SWEC engineers the level of training appears to be satisfactory for the current activities.
6.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE Document / Activities Reviewed Audit BV-1-86-40, October 21-28, 1986, OLC Audit of OLC Nuclear
--
Engineering and Construction Unit
.
Audit CV-C-87-03, July 8-22, 1987, OLC Audit of OLC Nuclear
--
Engineering and Records Unit
,
.
Audit BV-2-87-03, August 3-7, 1987, Joint OLC and SWEC Audit of
--
SWEC at Beaver Valley Unit 2 i
i Audit BV-2-87-08, September 29 - October 2, 1987, OLC Audit of
--
SWEC Boston Office Audit Boston Audit No. 1 April 25-29, 1988, Joint OLC and SWEC
--
Audit of the SWEC Boston Office
'
i
,
'
-
..
.
.
,
'
.
U Details of the Review The inspector reviewed the referenced audit reports and interviewed individuals in Quality Assurance, the licensee engineering department and the SWEC onsite engineering department to determine the effectiveness of quality assurance coverage of the engineering operations.
i Findings Quality Assurance monitors the licensee engineering department through annual audits.
The inspector reviewed the audit reports and check-lists for the past two audits and observed that these audits were comprehensive and performed to verify compliance to 10 CFR 50,
,
Appendix B, and the licensee's internal procedures. During these audits, the licensee identified several procedural violations.
However, these violations appeared to be isolated cases and no trend or indication
'
of a systemic breakdown was observed.
Engineering response and cor-
!
i rective actions were timely and complete.
i The licensee monitors the SWEC engineering effort through periodic audits. These audits are normally combined with a SWEC internal audit providing a joint licensee /SWEC audit team.
Both on site engineering
,
and the SWEC Boston office are audited in this manner. As with the
'
audits of the licensee engineering department isolated cases of procedure violations were found but no trend indicating a system
.'
breakdown was observed.
Responses to these audits by SWEC was timely
,
and corrective action taken to correct deficiencies.
The SWEC onsite l
engineering department had one resident inspector who reports to the engineering manager.
Conclusions The licensee has adequate monitoring of both OLC and SWEC engineering l
departments by quality assurance through regularly scheduled audits.
.
The inspector determined through the review of audit reports and checklists that audits were thorough and checklists comprehensive.
!
7.0 MANAGEMENT SUPPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
.
]
Document / Activities Reviewed Administrative Procedures Manual
--
Engineering Procedures Manual
--
i NEAP 2.1, Revision 0, Station Modification Request l
UAP 2.2, Revision 1, Design Change Control j
Daily Staff Meeting Minutes
--
- -
-
-
.
-
.
,
'
'
.
Guideline for Cognizant System and Hardware Engineer
--
Details of the Review The inspector interviewed management personnel and determined that the i
engineering department it fully staffed.
Approximately ten new engineers were hired during the past year.
Five of these individuals were entry
'
level. Overall the engineering staff was found to have long tern continuity with minimal annual turnover.
Two of the engineering r
directors hac been Senior Reactor Operators prior to their assig. ment
!
l in the engineering department.
The engineering office is located conveniently with ready access to the protected area. All engineers are badged for plant access.
Through review of meeting minutes and interviews with management personnel the inspector determined that engineering personnel
-
regularly attend the daily plant operational meetings. Meeting j
reports are prepared by the attending engine 6r(s) and distributed to engineering management.
The formal minutes of the twice daily
'
meetings for both Units are distributed to stettion supervisors and
managers including engineering.
Ir addition to the daily plant i
meetings, monthly meetings art held by engineering with the operating staff to establish plant project requirements and the priorities for these projects.
As the plant refuel cutage approaches these meetings are held weekly to report on progress.
s Engineering Memos (EM) are prepared by any organization on the site and are useu to request assistance in solving specific plant problems.
The EM is dispositioned by the engineering department.
If the i
engineering department determines that a modification to the station is required engineering prepares a Station Modification Request (SMR)
j and submits this SMR to the Station Manager for approval. When the
,
Station Manager approves the SMR a Design Change Package (OCP) is
initiated.
Findings The inspector determined that the system in place for initiating plant
,
modifications as discussed in paragraph 4.0 above was found
!
satisfactory.
Engineering support of plant operations was demonstrated by the response of tha engineering department to the i
plant trip that occurred during the inspection.
Engineering was j
immediately notified of the trip by plant operations and the engineeringresponseincludedassignmentofengineersfromdifferent disciplines from both the licensee s engineering group and the SWEC
engineering group to assist in evaluation of the trip cause and j
returning the plant to safe operation.
,
,
j
-..
.
-
c
-
..
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
The inspector evaluated the management support for engineerin' in the form of providing for staffing, office facilities, equipment (including computers), t.aining and involvement in national organizations relevant
,
to nuclear plant safety such as EPRI, INP0 and Codes and Standards commi-ees.
Concl us,1,on s
-
Manag. ment was found to be supportive of the corporate engineering function, and e,emunication channels between engineering, operations and plant maintenance were noted to be active by meetings, written coma.unications and interaction between individuals.
8.0 Manageme *._Meett s
.
Licensee inagement was informed of s he scope ar.d purpose of the
{
inspectian at the e trance interview or June 6, 1988. The fit:Jings of
'
'
- he insoection were discussed with licensee representatives during the
.
,
course cf the inspection and presented to licensee management at the
!
June 10. 1988 e..t interview (see paragraph 1 lor atter 'aes).
At no * 'me during the ir section was written material provided to the licensee by the inspector.
The licensee did not indicate that i
proprietary information was involved within the scope of this
inspection.
l
l
i
1 l
,
e
!
.
i Y
i d
!
/
~
.
.~