ML20091L265
| ML20091L265 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 08/18/1995 |
| From: | George Thomas DUQUESNE LIGHT CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9508290068 | |
| Download: ML20091L265 (2) | |
Text
'
i Beaver Valley Power Station p go;"e % PA W N 4
- (412) 643-8069 FAX s o e Pres dont Iu$rioNrSvision August 18, 1995 t
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001
Subject:
Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 2 Docket No. 50-412, License No. NPF-73 Special Evaluation of Activities By letter dated June 19,1995, the NRC forwarded information concerning activities at the Beaver Valley Power Station. Duquesne Light Company was requested to review and respond to the subject matter.
The NRC letter requested that information and subject matter be controlled and i
distribution limited to personnel with a "need to know," and that the enclosure to the NRC letter be considered Exempt from Public Disclosure in accordance with Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 2.790(a). It was also requested that the Duquesne Light Company response contain no personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so it can be released to the public and placed in the NRC Public Document Room. provides the Duquesne Light reply, as requested, and is not exempt from public disclosure as per Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 2.790.
If there are any questions concerning this matter, please contact Mr. Nelson Tonet at (412) 393-5210.
Sincerely, C h sep George S. Thomas Enclosure c:
Mr. L..W. Rossbach, Sr. Resident Inspector Mr. T. T. Martin, NRC Region I Administrator Mr. D. S. Brinkman, Sr. Project Manager t
9508290068 950810 DR ADOCK 0500o412
}i PDR J
l
+ L' Attachment 2 i
! Suggested NRC Response Page 2 3.
The Independent' Safety Evaluation Group (ISEG) at the Beaver Valley Power Station-conducted'an investigation into the information and subject matter described:by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission letter dated June 19, 1995.' Although the.information supplied by the Commission letter did not conclude that any deficiencies had actually.
j occurred, an evaluation of the information was perfonned.
No evidence could be identified which suppo:ted the allegation. In addition,' extensive component, instrument and system testing were conducted during post-installation field verification, component testing and preoperational testing of Unit 2, prior to commercial operation, and during _the subsequent eight years of operation to verify that safety
' systems and components function in accordance with design requirements.
1 1