IR 05000412/1982003
| ML20052E758 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1982 |
| From: | Lester Tripp, Walton G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20052E755 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-412-82-03, 50-412-82-3, NUDOCS 8205110415 | |
| Download: ML20052E758 (25) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No.
50-412/82-03 Docket No.
50-412 License No.
DPR-66 B
Priority Category
--
Licensee:
Duquesne Light Company be'h01h,*NkSub8
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15205 Facility Name:
Beaver Valley Power Station. Unit 2 Meeting at:
Shippingport, Pennsylvania Meeting Conduct d:
March 25, 1982 Inspectors:
. h.
A A 6l D
9 '. A. Waltbh, L'nior Resident Inspector date' signed
e
]
date signed date signed
/. b. NN k$f[8L Approved by:
/
f. E. Tri#, Chief, Reactor Projects date signed Section 2A, Division of Project and Resident Programs Meeting Summary:
Meeting on March 25, 1982 (Meeting Report 50-412/82-03)
Scope: Special management meeting to discuss the results of the NRC Region I assessment of the licensee's performance from September 1,1980 to August 31, 1981 as part of the NRC's Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) program.
Areas addressed included: Soils and Foundations, Containment and Other Safety Related Structures, Piping Systems and Supports, Safety Related Components, Support Systems, Electrical Power Supply and Distribution, Instrumentation and Control Systems, Licensing Activities and Management Control of Contractors.
8205110415 820426 PDR ADOCK 05000412 G-PDR Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
-
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Licensee Attendees L. E. Arch, Senior Q.A. Engineer C. E. Ewing, Manager, Quality Assurance R. Coupland, Director, Quality Control E. F. Kun t, Licensing Manager J. D. Sieber, Manager, Nuclear Safety and Licensing, Nuclear Div.
H. M. Siegel, Manager, BVPS #2 Engineering R. J. Swiderski, Superintendent, Construction N. R. Tonet, Manager, Nuclear Eng. Department J. Walsh, Manager, Construction R. Washabaugh, Project Manager D. H. Williams, Start-up Engineer E. J. Woolever, Vice President, Nuclear Construction 2.
Stone and Webster C. R. Bishop, Resident Manager W. H. Bohlke, Project Manager 3.
NRC Attendees D. A. Chaney, Project Manager, BVPS #1, NRR E. L. Doolittle, Licensing Project Manager R. C. Haynes, Regional Administrator, Region I R. W. Starostecki, Director, DPRP, Region I L. Tripp, Chief, Projects Section 2A, DPRP G. A. Walton, Senior Resident Inspector, BVPS #2 R. H. Wessman, Chief, Reactor Construction Program, IE
.,
4.
Discussion A brief suninary of the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Perfonnance (SALP)
Program was presented to explain the basis and purpose of the program.
'
The NRC Region I assessment was discussed, including the assessment period, evaluation topics and methods, and assessment results. The licensee discussed actions taken and planned to continue perfomance improvements.
The SALP assessment report will be issued separately pending receipt and review of the licensee's response letter as discussed in an NRC Region I letter to the licensee dated March 18, 1982 and in accordance with the guidance of NRC Manual Chapter 0516, Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance.
j
r
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Region I SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2 March 11, 1982
.
.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 2 t
FUNCTIONAL AREA Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 1.
Soils and Foundations X
2.
Containment and Safety-Related Structures X
3.
Piping Systems and Supports, (Includes Welding, NDE and Preservice Inspection)
X 4.
Safety-Related Components (Includes Vessel, Internals, and Pumps)
No Basis 5.
Support Systems (Includes HVAC, Radwaste, Fire protection)
No Basis 6.
Electrical Power Supply and Distribution X
7.
Instrumentation and Control Systems No Basis 8.
Licensing Activities No Basis 9.
Management Control of Contractors X
'
,
- _
_
. _ _, _, _
_. _ _ _
. _..,_
__
.
.
III. CRITERIA The following evaluation criteria were applied to each functional area:
1.
Management involvement in assuring quality.
2.
Approach to resolution of technical issues from a safety standpoint.
3.
Responsiveness to NRC initiatives.
4.
Enforcement history 5.
Reporting and analysis of 50.55(e) and Part 21 items 6.
Staffing (including management).
7.
Training effectiveness and qualification To provide consistent evaluation of licensee performance, attributes associated with each criterion and describing the characteristics applicable to Category 1, 2, and 3 performance were applied as discussed in NRC Manual Chapter 0516, Part II and Table 1.
The SALP Board conclusions are defined as follows:
Category 1 Reduced NRC attention may be appropriate.
Licensee management attention and involvement are aggressive and oriented toward nuclear safety; licensee resources are ample and effectively used such that a high level of performance with respect to operational safety or construction is being achieved.
Category 2 NRC attention should be maintained at normal levels.
Licensee management attention and involvement are evident and are concerned with nuclear safety; licensee resources are adequate and are reasonably effective such that satisfactory performance with respect to operational safety or construction is being achieved.
Cate,ory 3 Both NRC and licensee attention should be increased.
Lic-see management attention or involvement is acceptable and considers nuclear safety, but weaknesses are evident; licensee resources appeared strained or not effectively used such that minimally satisfactory performance with respect to operational safety or construction is being achieve.
.
IV. PEFORMANCE ANALYSIS 1.
Soils and Foundations a.
Four NRC inspections by a region based inspector of concrete placement activities were conducted during this assessment period. Three CDRs related to concrete structures were received. The licensee later determined that one CDR wasn't reportable.
It dealt with a possible breakdown in the QA program for authorizing substitution of grade 60 rebar instead of grade 40. After investigation, the licensee determined there was no safety significance to the change. Minor changes were required to QC procedures.
The second CDR (80-00-07) dealt with seismic calculations of several Category I structures. This was reported because the calculations were similar to those used at another nuclear site which had found discrepancies in their seismic calculations. After review of drawings and other considerations, it was reported that no structural deficiencies resulted from the analytical procedure used.
The third CDR (81-00-02) dealt with a discrepancy found between Stone and Webster design calculations and field drawings for the control building. As a result of this discrepancy, the number of rebar was not installed.
Under some of the loading conditions stated in Section 15.2.4.1 of the PSAR, possible stresses could exist beyond the SAR/ACI code allowable. The condition involved the control room roof and three floors of the control building. The analysis is complete and corrective actions are in progress.
The reporting of the above demonstrates management's involvement and concerns about items which could have safety implications.
It also shows responsiveness to NRC requirements.
NRC inspection 81-07 determined that the licensee is also responsive to NRC Circulars which do not require a response to the NRC.
Circular 81-08 on foundation material received extensive review and analysis by the licensee. The licensee is also doing a continuous monitoring program for settlement of foundations and backf111s.
No enforcement action was needed in this functional area.
b.
Conclusion Category 1
.
.
2.
Containment and Other Safety-Related Structures a.
Two NRC inspections in this area were made by the resident inspector during this assessment period. One enforcement item was issued which was associated with the modifications to the Control Room.
When the noncompliance was identified by the resident inspector, S&W took immediate corrective actions by issuing a stop work order.
Licensee activities included repairs to neutron shield tank at Babcock and Wilcox Company - CDR (80-03), and modifications to the Control Room building - CDR (81-02).
One inspection was conducted by NRC using the Region I NDE Van to perform direct examination (nondestructive) on the neutron shield tank welds. This inspection required 232 hours0.00269 days <br />0.0644 hours <br />3.835979e-4 weeks <br />8.8276e-5 months <br /> by the resident, one regional inspector and two NDE technicians. The inspection generally confirmed weld and material quality, however, ASME Section VIII weld quality deficiencies were found by radiographic examination of one weld. The licensee is presently redefining the code boundaries in the FSAR to more clearly establish NDE requirements.
b.
Conclusion Category 2 l
,
-
.
-
-
.
.
3.
Piping Systems and Supports a.
Two inspections (one by a regional based inspector and one by the resident inspector) were performed during this assessment period.
One of the inspections, 81-02, included storage and identified a repeat noncompliance in the storage of safety related piping. The common link in the storage noncompliances involves piping in temporary storage.
It was found that Quality Control had observed and reported the deficiency but a lack of enforcement by the constructor and contractor management allowed the conditions to persist.
Corrective actions were taken in this area by having S&W Construction Management, the contractor's Project Managers, officers of the contractor's companies, and representatives of the licensee's Quality Assurance Management address the general foreman and foremen on the site, emphasizing responsibilities'and the project's determination to maintain the necessary storage requirements.
Inspection by the Resident Inspector has verified that this has generally produced adequate corrective results.
A recently concluded (February,1982) two week extensive inspection in this area, using the Region I NDE van and equipment as an independent measurement and check of quality, resulted in generally favorable findings. Two violations were identified involving controls on shop weld ferrite content and failure to achieve a code required OD transition for one field weld joint between piping of different diameters. A detailed review was performed of licensee records for sampled welds. Comparison was made between information in the records and NRC generated results.
It included comparison with shop and field fabrication / construction records, base and weld materials certifications, QC information and NDE results.
Excellent correlation was found with licensee records providing assurance that documentation is being generated that records accurately worA. that has been accom-plished. This experience further supports the.ibove analysis concluding that performance is satisfactory in this area, b.
Conclusion Category 2
.
.
4.
Safety-Related Components a.
No inspections were performed-during this assessment period.
The major NSS components, i.e., vessel, steam generators, pressurizer, and pumps were not installed by the end of this assessment period.
One CDR (80-00-06) was received on motor operated gate valves. The licensee is still investigating.
,
b.
Conclusion None.
Insufficient basis.
^
.
t t
i i
!
,
I l;-
i
,
f
,,
,, - - - - -. ~
-,, - - - -..
r-,,
,,,,-., -.,_,
-. -.,.,.,.,
--,----,,----,,---.-..r
.,, -.,.
.n-
. - - - -
-
A A
A AA-.e- - - + + -+-
--*J-i-4.
h-
,.-KmJ-.
A 4 42 ya-da
- -
s
.--
.M*
e-
+a.
-
,
.
!
,
5.
- Support Systems, (Including HVAC, Radwaste and Fire Protection Systems
3 a.
No-inspections were performed during this assessment period.
Minimal
}
activity occurred in this functional area.
b.
Conclusion
,
None.
Insufficient basis.
il
i
,
I i
l
$
4 L
e i
i
8 I
i i
i f
+e---
-,
r w -,-
+ - -
e-.
.,,,w-.
,,w.-,--w,,-
,
.... -
,--..g.m--~,-----,-.,
,-,,,np,
,-,-- - -, --n,w-
,-
,,-wr.-w
,,,
--.ve--,~,--
.
6.
Electrical Power Supply and Distribution a.
One inspection was performed by a region based inspector during this assessment period.
No items of noncompliance were issued. The licensee commenced safety-related cable pulling during the latter part of this period.
One CDR (80-00-05) was received for inferior welds on cable tray fittings. This item was identified by an NRC inspector in an inspection conducted prior to this assessment period. Subsequent to the NRC inspector's findings, S&W engineers inspected both installed and uninstalled " tees" and " crosses" and found that a number of welds were deficient with excessive porosity and discontinuities, and were not in accordance with the manufacturer's drawings.
The trays are Category 1, safety-related cable trays.
It was determined that the welds in question might fail during a seismic event with the potential for puncturing the cable insulation. The licensee issued a stop work order on installation of all safety-related cable tray fittings.
Extensive rework on approximately 200 crossover sections has taken place on all defective welds.
Although the licensee did take subsequent corrective actions to restore quality in the cable trays, quality assurance program deficien-cies did exist in allowing a fabricator to produce and ship defective welds and to allow installation of defective material in the plant that went undetected until identified by an NRC inspector.
b.
Conclusion Category 2
.. _.
.
......
_
.. _...
_ _.
_. _. _.
_.
.
. _ _ _ _..
!
,
.
.
4 7.
Instrumentation and Control Systems
..
a.
No inspections were performed during this assessment period. Minimal j
construction activity occurred in this area.
b.
Conclusion
!
'
None.
Insufficient basis.
t
'f i
!
e i
.i
!
-,
>
t i
i
.I i-t
>
i
i i
i i
a
[
r
!'
- _,. - - -.,. -,. - -,
., ~ -. _ - - - -, - _. _, -
-. _,. _,,,, _.,,, _ _,
. _.... _, -,.., _ _ _ _ -.,,,.,., -,, _.. -.,, - -. _,,,.
- -
-
.. _ _ _ -
_ - _. - -.
!
,
.
.
12
,;
i a
i'
8.
Licensing Activities a.
The applicant did'not make any submittals to NRC during this assessment period. The FSAR is being prepared for submittal ~later this year (December.1982).
b.
Conclusion None.
Insufficient basis.
l i
<
I j.
,
e f
i i
l
,
l
- - -. -. -
- -
.
..
_
...,.. _
. _,... - _ _. _, _ _ _ _ _... _ _ _ _, _ _. _. _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
.r.
_, _ _.., _
_ _ _, ___,_ _. _ _
_
.
.
9.
Other (Management Control of Contractors)
a.
The licensee is using a different approach than most construction sites for management of field quality control efforts wherein all field quality control personnel (including contractor and vendor QC) report functionally to the licensee's QC management. The licensee's QC management is aggressive in their interfaces with and control of contractor / vendor organizations in pursuit of quality matters and resolution of quality related problems.
Contractors receive firm direction with respect to' areas requiring improvement and desired actions on field identified potential problems. The licensee's active day-to-day involvement and coordination with their architect engineer was observed by both resident and region based inspectors to be a key factor in successfully resolving individual inspection related issues as they were encountered.
b.
Conclusion Category 1.
This strength in the licensee's organization contributes in a positive manner to rated performance categorization in several of the functional areas.
i
,
.-
,.,
., -
., - -
.
.
V.
SUPPORTING DATA AND SUMMARIES Assessment Period:
September 1, 1980 to August 31, 1981 a.
Immediate Action Letters None b.
Management Conference Held Meeting 81-04, May 19, 1981; a management meeting was held to discuss the results of the previous Regional SALP with the licensee.
c.
Licensee Activities Construction activity is progressing as scheduled.
The licensee estimates construction progress to be 44% as of August 31, 1981.
This is primarily structural activity The reactor vessel was placed in 1981, and completion of tha containment liner is planned in early 1982. The neutron shield tank was sent to Babcock & Wilcox
for repair of linear indi ations on the gib gussets and on the base gusset plates.
Repairs were completed in August 1981.
d.
Inspection Activities Eight inspections were conducted during the assessment period.
Seven of these inspections included specialists. Areas covered included concrete placement, structural steel welding, pipe storage, electrical and instrumentation installation procedures, and direct examination to the neutron shield tank. The facility received 536 inspection hours during the assessment period.
No inspection modules are overdue.
A rasident office was opened and the Senior Resident Inspector report August 5, 1981.
The NRC performed its first direct examinations using the Nondestructive Examination Mobile Lab on the BV-2 neutron shield tank at Babcock & Wilcox Company.
e.
Investigations None f.
Previous and Current SALP Statistical Data Overlap The current assessment period overlaps the last months of the previous period. The previous assessment period was March 1,1980 to February 28, 1981. The current period began on September 1, 1980. The following data was reviewed in both periods:
<
~
a l
a e
Inspection Reports: 80-09, 80-10, and 81-01.
Construction Deficiency Reports: 80-00-05, 80-00-06, 80-00-07, and 81-00-01.
g.
Number and Nature of Construction Deficier.:y Reports (CDRs)
~
During the assessment period, five (5) construction deficiency reports (CDRs) were submitted by the licensee. One (1) CDR resulted from a vendor /QC error, three (3) resulted from a design / fabrication error and one (1) resulted from a' component failure during preoperational testing.
CORs 80-00-05, 80-00-06, 80-00-07, and 81-00-01 were also included in the previous assessment period. No Part 21 reports were issued during the assessment period.
(1) Type of Events a.
Vendor /QC Error
b.
Design / Fabrication Error
c.
Vendor / Component
(2) Causally linked Events None h.
Escalated Enforcement Actions Civil Penalties None Orders None
.-
.
N Table 1 CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCY REPORTS CDR Report No.
Date 80-00-05 10/15/80 Inferior welds on cable tray fittings 80-00-06 10/29/80 3" MOV gate valves in Safety Injection and Chemical and Volume Control System did not function properly during pre-operational test at another facility 80-00-07 12/4/80 Error in design seismic calculations for Category 1 structures
81-00-01 2/18/81 QA accepted change in design that did have proper authorization (evaluated not reportable).
81-00-02 4/16/8:
Control Room extension discrepancies between design calculations and field drawings.
81-00-03 11/5/81 Design deficiency of weld beam pipe supports (evaluated not reportable).
I 81-00-04 11/20/81 Turbine driven Aux. Feed Pump wear rings cracked.
81-00-05 12/11/81 Welders not qualified for proper thickness (evaluated not reportable).
82-00-01 1/28/82 Electrical relays from vendor contained defective IC chips.
..
.-. -
-
-
_ - - - -
.
I
.
.
Table 2 INSPECTION HOURS SUMMARY
.
Functional Area Inspection Hours 1.
Soils and Foundations 65 hours7.523148e-4 days <br />0.0181 hours <br />1.074735e-4 weeks <br />2.47325e-5 months <br /> (12%)
2.
Containment & Safety-Related Structures 280 hours0.00324 days <br />0.0778 hours <br />4.62963e-4 weeks <br />1.0654e-4 months <br /> (52%)
3.
Piping and Hangers 53 hours6.134259e-4 days <br />0.0147 hours <br />8.763227e-5 weeks <br />2.01665e-5 months <br /> (10%)
4.
Safety-Related Components, Vessels, Internals 0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> (0%)
5.
Support Systems: HVAC, Radwaste, Fira Protection 0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> (0%)
6.
Electrical Power Supply & Distribution 27 hours3.125e-4 days <br />0.0075 hours <br />4.464286e-5 weeks <br />1.02735e-5 months <br /> (5%)
7.
Instrumentation & Control Systems 0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> (0%)
8.
Licensing Activities 0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> (0%)
9.. Miscellaneous 111 hours0.00128 days <br />0.0308 hours <br />1.835317e-4 weeks <br />4.22355e-5 months <br /> (21%)
536 hours0.0062 days <br />0.149 hours <br />8.862434e-4 weeks <br />2.03948e-4 months <br /> t
$
- --
- -.. - -.....
- -.
,, -.,,.
,
.
-n.
--..
._
.,
.
.
t Table 3 INSPECTION REPORT SUMMARY Report Inspector Areas Inspected-80-09 Project & Specialist Concrete placement, settlement records-,
QC procedure review.
80-10 Project & Specialist Concrete placement, records, cranewall repair records, neutron shield tank repair.
81-01 Specialist Concrete placement activities.
81-02 Project & Specialist Project turnover inspection, facility tour, storage.
81-03 Specialist Independent inspection of neutron shield t a r.k.
81-04 Project SALP review.
81-05 Project & Specialist Cable tray qualification data, electrical equipment storage & maintenance, neutron shield tank records.
81-06 Resident Pipe installation, facilities tours, electrical panels controls.
t 81-07 Specialist Concrete placement activities.
i i
-,
_
,,,,..
_
_._.-_ _-
,__.~,.._,.._._..-.-,,,c
_
.-r-
_. -
- -,. - - -
-
.;
.
' Table 4 NONCOMPLIANCE DATA September 1, 1980 to August 31, 1981 Cycle ll Noncompliance No.
Period of Insmection Reo.
Sev.
Code A rea 81-02 5/5 - 7/81 Failure to provide adequate storage B-Xill IV ENA
for piping in tempora ry storage 81-06-8/3 - 9/30/81 Failure to follow procedure for B-V IV ECA
protection or electrical panels when removing. welds
.
.
.
- S