ML20137X243
| ML20137X243 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 11/26/1985 |
| From: | Starostecki R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Carey J DUQUESNE LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8512100450 | |
| Download: ML20137X243 (9) | |
Text
-
DodJ M~
f.
NOV 2 61985 Docket No. 50-412 Duquesne Light Company ATTN: Mr. J. J. Carey Vice President, Nuclear Group Post Office Box 4 Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077
~Gentiemen:
Subject:
Licensee Requested Meetings Concerning Beaver Valley Unit 2 Two meetings were held on October 8, 1985 at the NRC Region I Office to discuss Duquesne Light Company's progress and plans for Beaver Valley Power Station,
. Unit 2.
The meetings were requested by Duquesne Light Company (DLC) to specifically address the progress of corrective actions associated with the June 7,1985 Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) Report and to
. discuss plans for licensing of reactor operators.
The morning meeting addressed SALP corrective actions and is documented in Enclosure A.
The SALP Report had identified problems in the Electrical Power Supply and Distribution functional area including cable denting, unsupported cable lengths, separation of cabinet internal wiring to meet Regulatory Guide 1.75, and electrical support plate shims.
You and your staff stated that, except for_the issue of using tie wraps to vertically support cables, these problems have been resolved technically, and the corrective actions are being implemented in the field. Concerning the tie wraps, either the tie wraps will
-be demonstrated to be technically acceptable or Kellem grips will be installed.
In either case, the effect on the construction schedule is expected to be minor.
The afternoon meeting addressed your plans for licensing of reactor operators and is documented in Enclosure B.
Your intention is to license sufficent operators on Beaver Valley Unit 1 such that the operators eventually licensed on. Beaver Valley Unit 2 could be drawn from this pool and would have at least one year of operating experience. Also, you intend to maintain separate staffs of licensed reactor operators (R0s) for operating Unit I and' Unit 2.
- However, as some of the licensed senio'r rector operators (SR0s) will have duties on both units, you plan to licen'se SR0s on both units. Discussions were held on the design differences between the two units and'the effect these differences would have on the operator licensing process. There was also discussion on whether operator training instructors need to have SR0 licenses. You agreed to make future'submittals on the topics of dual unit licensing for SR0s and licensing of instructors that will address the design differences between the units and the SR0 equivalency of the instructors's qualifications, respectively.
8512100450 851126 PDR ADOCK 05000412 e
O PDR
'ICIAL RECORD COPY OL MTG BV2 - 0001.0.0 g
h 11/13/85
,6
Duquer..a Light Ccmpany 2
The above meetings were held for status and discussion purposes.
No licensee recommendations were made for approval, and no NRC approvals or actions were taken.
The meeting was beneficial and improved our understanding of your SALP corrective actions and your operator licensing plans. We appreciate your initiative in arranging these meetings.
Sincerely, Original 5 4 4 Q :
Richard W. Starostecki, Director Division of Reactor Projects
Enclosures:
A.
SALP Corrective Actions Meeting B.
Operator Licensing Meeting cc w/encls:
E. J. Woolever, Vice President, Nuclear Construction Division E. Ewing, Quality Assurance Manager R. J. Swiderski, Manager, Startup Group R. E. Martin, Manager, Engineering E. F. Kurtz, Jr., Manager, Regulatory Af fairs P. RaySircar, Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation Public Document Room (PDR)
Local Public Document Room (LPDR)
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
NRC Resident Inspector Commonwealth of Pennsylvania bec w/encls:
Meeting Attendees Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)
Management Assistant, DRMA (w/o encl)
ORP Section Chief DRP Licensing Assistant T. Rebelowski, SRI, Millstone 3 W. Troskoski, SRI, BV-1 B. Singh, LPM, NRR ORP Plant File RI:DRP P
RI:
- (IRP h
RP RI:ERP Meyer/gcb ip K
r nzinger Kifte Staro tecki gg g wg
- ee 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY OL MTG BV2 - 0001.0.1 11/13/8e
n i'
l l
L BV-2 SALP CORRECTIVE ACTIONS MEETING i
1.
Introduction l
l A meeting was held at the Region 1 office on October 8, 1985 at 9:00 A.M.
The meeting had been requested by Duquesne Light Co. (DLC) to discuss L
their corrective actions for construction problems at Beaver Valley Unit 2 identified in the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP)
Report. The following people attended the meeting.
NRC Attendees T. Murley Regional Administrator R. Starosteckt Director, Division of Reactor Projects (DRP)
S. Ebneter Director, Division or Reactor Safety (DRS)
E. Wenzinger Chief, Projects Branch 3, DRP J. Durr Chief Engineering Branch, DRS L. Tripp Chief, Project Section 3A, DRP C. Anderson Chief, Plant Systems Section, DRS J. Wiggins Chief, Materials and Processes Section, DRS G. Walton Senior Resident Inspector, BV-2 G. Meyer Project Engineer, DRP Duquesne Light Co. (DLC) Attendees J. Carey Vice President, Nuclear Group E. Ewing Manager, Quality Assurance R. Martin Manager, Engineering J. Hultz construction Liason E. Horvath Site Project Engineering-Electrical Stone and Webster (S&W) Engineering Corp. Attendees.
P. Wild Director of Engineering
.C. Richardson Project Engineer C. Wilbur Assistant Project Engineer
'A. Wong Lead Structural Engineer DLC and S&W personnel presented the plans and progress of corrective actions for the problems below. NRC discussions were limited to under-standing the presentations. No actions or approvals were requested or given.
2.
Cable Denting DLC reviewed the problem of denting in the insulation of electrical cables which can occur at the ends of cable raceways and conduits. Based on the cable manufacturer's recommendations, specification 2BVS-931 has l
t 2
i r
been revised to Itmit dents to less than half of the outer jacket, l
l DLC has reinspected over 3,400 cable transitions for denting and has found 15 unacceptable dents. These nonconformances are being corrected.
i NRC Inspection Report 50-412/85-15 dated August 14, 1985 reviewed this l
area under Unresolved Item 84-19-01. The report found the DLC resolution acceptable, and the item was closed.
3.
Unsurported Cables r
DLC reviewed the problem of unsupported electrical cables in vertical raceways and outside of raceways. The unsupported cables have the i
potential to adversely affect the structural adequacy of the raceway and its support system during a seismic event and the electrical integrity of l
the cable.
l To address these concerns, DLC has established lower bounds on acceptable installations in specification 2BVS-931. The National Electric Code (NEC) was used in determining the limits.
Site Quality Control (SQC) is reinspecting installed cables using the' specification.
These criteria I
screen out possible problems, as acceptability is dependent on many j
factors of the installed configuration (e.g., number of cables, cable I
i size, vertical or horizontal orientation, etc.).
Installed cables which do not meet the screening criteria are written up as Unsupported Cable Reports (UCRs), and an engineering review is performed.
t DLC reviewed Table 1 (attached) which summarizes the status of the cable l
reinspection. Approximately 3,000 UCRs are projected. Based on the engineering reviews to date, a large majority of UCRs have not required any additional supports to be added to the cables or raceways. The major issue to be resolved is the acceptability of tie wraps in providing i
vertical cable support. S&W is performing further evaluation to resolve i
l this issue.
If the installed tie wraps are unacceptable, Kellem grips, l
an alternative vertical support, will be used. DLC estimates that approximately 200 locations would require Kellem grips under worse case resolution. As shown in Table 1 DLC projects about 800 cable locations could require other support rework. DLC stated that the potential support rework and Kellem grip installation are manageable construction jobs and would not be expected to impact the existing fuel load schedule.
4.
Separation of_ Electrical Cables _and_ Cabinet Wiring I
L l
DLC reviewed the status of the resolution of electrical separation issues. Separation criteria, revised from the previous Regulatnry Guide 1.75 commitments, have been justified based on a testing program e
implemented by DLC. The revised separation criteria resulted in the following reductions in rework.
Cable tray covers necessary for tray to tray separation have been reduced by 75 percent.
I
[
[
i i
Cable tray covers necessary for tray to conduit separation have been i
eliminated.
1 Cable protection wrapping has been reduced by 50 percent.
l l
' Allowable separations of one inch (versus previous six inch) for cabinet internal wiring will greatly reduce rewiring.
DLC stated that the above separation criteria and resultant work reductions were verbally approved by NRC (NRR) on August 20, 1985 at a meeting between NRC, DLC, and S&W personnel.
5.
Base Plate Shimming l
DLC reviewed the problem of electrical support base plates with excessive f
gaps between the plate and the concrete mounting surface. An engineering i
review determined that gaps of one-eighth inch or less are acceptable, and specification 2BVS-931 will be revised to incorporate this ilmit.
I This revised gap criteria should minimize installations which need shims to less than 3 percent of base plates.
'Further, SQC inspection of 460 base plates found 20 base plates without i
the necessary tack weld on the shim and 9 base plates with excessive gap. DLC is correcting these nonconformances and is continuing to inspect the ramaining 2500 base plates.
6.
QC Inspector Error _s The SALP Report covered DLC's resolution of their discovery of QC inspector errors. DLC reviewed their actions concerning the recent NRC discovery of additional QC inspector errors. DLC's initial evaluation has found the following factors involved in the errors:
Inspection performed in December,1984 was reported in March,1985.
i The inspector's original notes were lost.
The inspector was overloaded, but did not request assistance.
l DLC stated that the existing inspector review process had sampled other inspections by the inspector and had found them acceptable.
The inspector has been suspended pending the results of an investigation.
Review of other inspections by the inspector have found no other errors.
i Based on this, it appears the erroneous inspection was isolated. DLC is continuing the investigation and reinspection of his work.
l Attached: Table 1 f
i ie i
BV-2 OPERATOR LICENSING MEETING l
1.
-Introduction E
A meeting was held at the Region I office on October 8,1985 at 1:00 p.m.
The meeting had been requested by the Duquesne Light Co. (DLC) to discuss their plans for Itcensing of reactor operators on Beaver Valley Unit 2.
The following people attended the meeting.
,NRC Attendees R. Starostocki Otrector, Olvision of Reactor Projects H. Kister Chief, Projects Branch 1 L. Tripp Chief, Projer.ts Section 3A R. Keller Chief. Projects Section 1C i
D. Johnson Lead Examiner G. Walton Senior Resident Inspector, BV-2 l
G. Meyer Project Engineer D. Coe Examiner i
i N. Dudley Examiner B. Norris Examiner Duquesne Light Co. Attendees J. Carey Vice President, Nuclear Group J. Sieber General Manager, Nuclear Services t
T. Burns Director, Operations Training DLC personnel presented their plans for licensing of reactor operators t
forBeaverValleyUnit2(BV-2)asdiscussedbelow. NRC personnel discussed the potential operator licensing process-given current practices and manpower levels. No actions or approvals were requested or given.
2.
Offferences Between BV-1 and BV-2 r
To' ascertain its effect on operator Itcensing, NRC and DLC personnel dis-cussed the differences between the designs of BV-1 and BV-2.
NRC presented a preliminary listing of design differences (Enclosure 1). DLC l
agreed that the differences exist, but disagreed that they are sufft-ciently significant to affect plant operation and operator licensing.
OLC stated that Westinghouse is currently evaluating the design differ-i ences and their effect on plant operation and that the evaluation is expected to be completed in late October, 1985.
OLC proposed to meet with NRC in late January on this topic following their review of the evalua-tion. NRC agreed.
1
f 2
3.
Reactor Operators (R0s)
DLC stated that the R0s operating BV-2 will not operate BV-1, i.e., the R0s staffing the two units will be two separate organizations. NRC agreed that this approach is desirable from a safety perspective.
DLC plans to provide licensed operators for BV-2 that have been licensed on BV-1 and have one year of experience on BV-1.
The planned February 19E4 license examinations are needed to provide enough BV-1 licensed oper-ators to eventually staff both units.
NRC stated that if applicants for BV-2 R0 licenses have BV-1 R0 licenses and expertence, a licensing exami-nation modified to account for their previously examined knowledge would be appropriate.
Initial BV-2 R0 examinations are planned for December, 1986 to support DLC's plans of having a half crew of licensed operators on shift.
4.
Senior Reactor Operators _(SR0s)
DLC stated that dual licensing of SR0s on BV-1 and BV-2 based on a single examination would be preferable, because the shift supervisor, an SRO, will be responsible for both plants concurrently, and the control room will be a common room shared between the two units.
NRC stated that pending further evaluation of design differences, dual licensing of SR0s remains a possibility.
5.
Simulator Instructors OLC noted that six of the SRO examinations scheduled for February, 1986 would be for simulator instructors. NRC itated that an SR0 examination is unnecessary for simulator instructors nd represents inefficient utilization of limited NRC examining per.onnel.
Further discussion on this topic concluded that SR0 qualifications for simulator instructors could be established without an examination using the following process:
provide classroom training on needed theory and system knowledge provide simulator training document the above training and experience on an SR0 application test the candidate's knowledge using a 3rd party examination submit the above results to Region I for approval as simulator instructors DLC agreed to pursue the above and noted that the simulator instructors would not necessarily meet all eligibility requirements (e.g.,
expertence) for SR0 licensing.
Attached:
Preliminary Listing of Design Otfferences
r O
Preliminary Listing of BV-1/BV-2 Design Differences The following is a sampling of examples of plant differences that were considered major or significant.
1.
BVPS 1 has analog RPI with a rod drop alarm activated by the system.
BVPS 2 uses vertical rows of 39 LEDs to indicate rod position and no specific rod drop alarm was specified.
2.
BVPS 1 seal injection header may be isolated from the control room.
BVPS 2 SI header must be isolated locally.
3.
BVPS 1 BU heaters do not trip on an SI signal.
Unit 2 heaters do trip.
4.
Low steam line or pressurizer pressure SI signals can only be blocked in the BVPS 1 control room.
In Unit 2 they can be blocked at either the CR or ESP.
5.
BVPS 1 PORV block has no automatic isolation.
BVPS 2 has auto isolation of the PORV block at 2000 psig.
6.
BVPS 1 PORV indication is from a limit switch. Unit 2 indicates only open position.
I 7.
BVPS 1 PRT spray valve has no interlocks with PRT level or pressure.
BVPS 2 i
PRT spray valve will auto open or close on high-high level or high-high l
pressure.
8.
SVPS I alternate emergency boration path is locally operated.
Unit 2 alter-nate emergency boration path may be lined up from the CR.
9.
BVPS 1 does not have alternate minimum flow recirc for the charging pumps.
BVPS 2 has an alternate minimum flow recirc valves that open on an SI signal while the normal rectre valves close.
10.
BVPS 1 does not have remotely operated charging pump suction valves for long term recirculation, Unit 2 does.
- 11. BVPS 1 charging pumps cannot be racked onto the same bus simultaneously.
Unit 2 charging pumps may be racked onto the same bus simultaneously.
12.
BVPS 1 HHS! discharge valves used to provide a redundant path after auto transfer to recirc are manual. Unit 2's HHS! discharge valves for this mode are operated from the CR.
DVPS 2 has 2 MOVs to isolate its respective injection line.
14.
BVPS 1 LHSI pumps may draw a suction from the RWST or RB sump for HHS!
rectre.
BVPS 2 LHS1 pumps draw suction from the RWST only.
The recirc i
spray (RSS) pumps provide suction to the HHS! pumps during $1 recirc.
mm.-
.m m
a U
J
~
,M
)
.,f,
\\
}
s
l
~, '
4
(
g g.
TAKEI l*
't
, ~
s s
).
e {s q
\\
s 39
/
,neECm ESnMTB e
,f aararnam REM'ellf)
FluK l
SEM3MI E F TOTE FIRST STEP FTER FII4 EMIEER'M
, p 50C warrulaE GITDIA Et*SBEVIEE1' ER*S EMINEERINE EVALMTION STEP REVIEN IISP051'E4B A,
s e
+3 l
yt
~,I p
g
_' s CARLE MTSIF MCEMf
-TVPICAaY e
4 FT 4 14 M.C Il 164 250 FEE AllIEWIREENTS 75 CitLE SUPPORT,,
[
[
3 FT 4 Is (N,L)
M 4CTiiK CAK E EIGHT i
3 2 FT OUEt SIIEteIL s
+
tWesTITY BEPEnBEND ' 5 g.a ? f
.}.
l
- E RTICAL T H Y DITH 4 FT 6'IE (STRUCT.) <= 20 FT. e 44 60 ENSIEERINE REVIEN F CetLE 4PPORT Jt
^'
ELBOu FITTINE 25 FT (ELECT.I
) 20 FT.
11 20 ANACBIT TMY SirPORTS 15 REINF3tCE TMY ANI ICABLE, TIES (=25 FT.F TM Y SUPPORTS s.
VERTICAL T N T BIT W T 4 FT & In ISTRUCT.)
(s 26 FT. e N
100 REVIEN F TMY CAKE StrPORT M to MIFORCE IMT AM Elagu FITTIEE 25 FT (ELECT.)
) 20 FT.
45 70 Amt TM Y SirPORTS (CABLE TIES (= 25 FT.)
TMY StrPGRTS ERTICE CSIBilIT FROR 4 FT & In 356 530 REVIEN ACTilAL EIGHT 265 T O W -COWUIT CAK E LAST P91NT F StrPSET 3 FT 4 IE 836 1250 OF CABLE A M RACE M Y 250 SUPPORT (PIPE CLAIF)
FLEI IEETALLATIOuS 3 FT 4 In 458 600 COEIGINIATION 135 AN E C StrPORT IF REO*8 TOTE 2004 3000 000 ETE: MIRE titan sue IIllirPMTD INTENEE MV SNIN 811 ONE ER.
e FRIES IlSE F CAILE TIES