IR 05000412/1982005
| ML20053A051 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 05/07/1982 |
| From: | Ebneter S, Paolino R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20053A047 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-412-82-05, 50-412-82-5, NUDOCS 8205240492 | |
| Download: ML20053A051 (5) | |
Text
_. _ _
_
.. -
_. _
,._
._
.
.
!
,
,I '
!
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Region I
!
!
Report No. 50-412/82-05 i
l Docket No. 50-412 License No. CPPR-105 Priority
--
Category A
Licensee:
Duquesne Light Company 435 Sixth Avenue
,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219
Facility Name:
Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2 Inspection At:
Shipp_ingport, Pennsylvania Inspection Conducted:
April 5-8, 1982 l
. Inspectors:
. (/-J f-8 h
R. J.
aolino, Reactor Engineering Inspector date signed
O h-. 0
.
'
'
l date signed
_ 1 daw 8-7-9 L
Approved By:
_'Ebneter, Chief, Engippering Programs date signed e ct
.
.
Branch, DETP b
fespection Summary,:
'
inspection on April s-8, 1982 (Report No. 50-412/82-05)
. Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by one regional based inspector
of activities pertaining to the installation of safety-related cables, cable
!.
trays / conduits.
The inspection involved 29 inspection hours onsite for one
!
region based ~ inspector.
!
Results:
No items of-noncompliance were identified.
I i
,
.
!
'
i
!
i
8205240492 j
gDR ADOCM o h [2 PDR
_.
. -
,
. -.
-
-.. -. - -.
---
--
--
.. - -
.... -
-
-.
-_
,
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Duquesne Light Company
,
- R. Coupland, Director QC
- N.
Crooks, Jr., Assistant Director QC
- C.
Davis, Director QA
- C. Ewing, QA Manager
- W. Glidden, Senior QAE
- E. Kurtz, Manager Regulatory Affairs
- S. Majumdar, Senior Electrical Engineer
- J. Proven, Construction Engineer M. Siegel, Director Engineering (via conference call)
- R. Swiderski, Superintendent Construction
- K. Woessner, Engineer Regulatory Affairs Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation M. Bendiksen, Assistant Project Engineer (Boston)
- C. Bishop, Resident Manager
- E.
Farino, Engineer, Electrical R. Matherwiez, Lead Electrical Engineer (Boston)
- A. McIntyre, Head SEO N. Sacco, Engineer, Mechanical (Boston)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- G. Walton, Senior Resident Inspector
- denotes personnel present at exit meeting.
'
2.
Facility Tour The inspector observed work activities in progess, completed work and construction status in several areas. Work items were examined for obvious defects and for noncompliance with regulatory requirements and licensee commitments.
Specific work activities and completed work observed by the inspector included installation of cable, cable trays and conduit.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
{ Closed) Unresolved Item 80-0S-02 (CDR80-00-05] pertaining to defective welds on cable tray crossover sections.
The inspector reviewed licensee inspection procedures and controls placed on reworking defective welds.
In addition, the inspector examined completed repairs and determined them to be acceptable.
To prevent reoccurrence, vendor drawings were i vised to include specific weld requirements.
This item is close.
.
3'
(Closed) Unresolved Item 80-08-03 pertaining to the use of threaded bolts in lieu of the knurled or round shank bolt specified for bolting cable tray splice plates. The inspector reviewed licensee calculations (C-2)
performed in justifying the use of threaded bolts.
The data was found to be acceptable.
This item is closed.
(Closed) Unresolved Item 80-08-04 pertaining to the Seismic Qualification data used in qualifying the cable tray installation.
Licensee engineering personnel reviewed engineering data presented by the A/E for qualifying the cable tray system.
Licensee letter of February 4,1982 finds data presented by A/E to be acceptable. The inspector had no further questions.
This item is resolved.
(Closed) Unresolved Item 81-05-02 pertaining to the adequacy of licensee vendor audits in identifying vendor fabrication deficiencies and quality control problems.
The inspector reviewed licensee letters DLCQA-3350 of August 18, 1981, 2DLS-12448 of September 28, 1981, 20LS-12701 of November 11,1981 and 2DLS-13192 of January 19, 1982 regarding measures to be taken to assure that negative vendor information will be passed on to PQA for vendor surveillance and classification.
The inspector had no further questions.
This item is resolved.
(Closed) CDR 80-00-01 pertaining to galvanize spikes in cable trays.
The inspector reviewed licensee final report to the NRC and the commitment to inspect the installed trays and all other trays prior to installation.
Documents reviewed include licensee letters DLC-SQC2 #0613C of October 2, 1981, VSS-4098 of September 28, 1981, DLC-SQCL #0613B of October 1,1981 and DLC-SQC memo of July 28, 1980.
This item is resolved.
4.
Electrical Cable--Records Review The inspector reviewed pertinent work and quality records of category 1 safety related cables to determine whether the records reflect work accomplishments consistent with NRC requirements and licensee commitments in the area of receipt inspection, material certification and qualifications.
Documents reviewed for this determination include:
--
Purchase Order No. 2BV-389 for 600 volt control cable.
--
Certificate of Compliance dated April 19, 1978 and June 13, 1978.
__
_ - -. _.
=
-
-
-
.
-
.
.
..
.
4
i c
Certified Electrical / Physical Test Report for 10 Nos. 8A412, 8A413,
--
8A414, SA415 through 8A420.
"
--
Vertical Flame' Test Report per IPCEA-66-524, section 6.12B for IE i
Nos. 8B202, 8A750,.8A751,~8A752 and 8A775.
f No items of noncompliance were identified.
5.
Cable Tray Separation--Work Observation j
The inspector reviewed licensee PSAR commitments and cable tray installa-tion criteria 2BVM-41 to ascertain whether adquate separation or barriers
.
are specified between redundant class'IE cable trays / conduits and non-class l
IE/ class IE circuits.
PSAR section 8.5.1-Sa and licensee reponse to question 8.14(5) states, in part:
"When trays are installed with vertical
'
separation, the minimum separation will be 30 inches as measured from the bottom of one side rail to the bottom of the side rail in the tray above.
Horizontal separation will be 1 ft. minimum as measured from the outer i
edge of one tray to adjacent outer edge of the other tray.
In areas where internally generated missiles are possible, vertical and horizontal
,
j spacing will be a minimum of 48 inches unless missile barriers are provided."
!
!
Licensee design criteria 2BVM-41, dated November 15, 1979 - addendum No.
1, paragraph 2a states, in part:
" Tray Vertical Separation...shall be designed with vertical separation of 32 inches minimum to safety trays of another color and 16 inches minimum to nonsafety system trays...This-separation is measured from-the bottom of one side rail to the bottom of
,
the side rail of the tray above. Barriers are required...when the above
.
separations are not possible....The above vertical separation shall be dsed in the design of the' tray system."
,
~
Vertical separation measurements taken as indicated above mean a vertical s'eparation between trays (4~ inch deep tray) of 26 inch and 44 inch re-
,
spectively with barriers to be added only if these dimensions cannot be-maintained.
Licensee document change request of April 6, 1981 proposes to update the licensing document (PSAR)'to reflect the design criteria delineated above
in 2BVM-41.
The inspector informed the licensee of its commitment to
IEEE-279-1971 which requires independence and physical separation between
!
channels that provide the same protective function and that the criteria
!
in IEEE-384-1977 was an acceptable method for separation of cables, cable trays / conduit. The inspector pointed out the difference noted above in
separation design critera of the PSAR, 2BVM-41 and the following IEEE
examples indicating that the criteria used by the licensee is less re
.
,
strictive than that acceptable to the NRC.
For example:
!-
section 5.1.4 General Plant Areas, states, in part: ".. minimum separation shall be determined by 5.1.1.3 (analysis) er where 5.1.1.2 is met shall i
be 3 ft. between trays separated horizonta.lly and 5 ft. between trays
~ separated vertically.
Section 5.1.3 Cable Spreading Area, states, in
'
part:
"The minimum separation distances between class IE (redundant)
i
'
-. -
-
-..
-m.,.
--,--.m__
<. _.. _.,. -,
,. _.., _ -
..
..._-,, __.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
________
....
cable trays shall be..1 ft. horizontally and 3 ft. between trays verti-cally."... Vertical separation is measured from bottom of top tray to top of side rail of bottom tray.
The licensee was asked to compare the site design separation criteria with IEEE-384-1971 and where the two differ to I
provide adequacy and justification for using the less restrictive separa-tion criteria either by test or analysis.
This item is unresolved pending NRC review of licensee evaluation I
(50-412/82-05-01).
l l
6.
Unresolved Items
'
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, or items of non-compliance. An unresolved item identified during this inspection is dis-cussed in paragraph 5 of this report.
7.
Exit Meeting The inspector met with licensee and contractor personnel (denoted in Details Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on April 8, 1982.
The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection as described herein.
.
_ - _ - _ _ _. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. -. _ _ _