ML20206S551
| ML20206S551 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 07/02/1986 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206S545 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-412-85-98, NUDOCS 8607070379 | |
| Download: ML20206S551 (49) | |
See also: IR 05000412/1985098
Text
..
-
.
.-
- .. ___
_.
.
i
,
4
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
!
REGION I
i
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE
.
REPORT 50-412/85-98
DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY
BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 2
(Construction Phase)
,
ASSESSMENT PERIOD:
APRIL 1, 1985 - MARCH 31, 1986
BOARD MEETING DATE:
MAY 12, 1986
.
1
l
i
9607070379 860702
9
l1
ADOCK 05000412
'l
G
- )
i
i
,
.
. . -
- _ .
.
. . .
. . .
,.
__
_
. -
-. . .
..
- -____ _
=
~
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I.
INTRODUCTION.........................................................
1
1.
Purpose and 0verview............................................
1
2.
SALP Board and Attendees........................................
1
3.
Background......................................................
1
II.
CRITERIA.............................................................
5
III. SUMMARY OF RESULTS...................................................
7
1.
Facility Performance............................................
7
2.
Overall Facility Evaluation.....................................
7
IV.
PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS.................................................
9
1.
Containment and Other Safety Related Structures.................
9
2.
Piping Systems and Supports.....................................
11
3.
Safety Related Components.......................................
14
4.
Support Systems.................................................
16
5.
Electrical Power Supply and Distribution........................
18
6.
Instrumentation and Control
Systems.............................
21
7.
Licensing Activities............................................
23
8.
Preoperational/Startup Testing..................................
26
9.
As s u ra nce o f Qua l i ty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29
V.
SUPPORTING DATA AND SUMMARIES........................................
32
1.
Construction Deficiency Reports (CDRs)..........................
32
2.
Investigation Activities........................................
32
3.
Escalated Enforcement Actions...................................
32
4.
Management Conferences..........................................
32
TABLES
Table 1 - Construction Deficiency Reports
Table 2 - Violations (Summary)
Table 3 - Inspection Hours Summary
Table 4 - Inspection Activities
ATTACHMENT
Attachment 1 - Enforcement Data
'
.I
-
.- -
-
.
.
--
.=
V
.
.
,
.
I.
INTRODUCTION
.
1.
Purpose and Overview
The Systematic Assessnient of Licensee Performance (SALP) is an integrated
j
NRC staff effort tc collect the available observations on a periodic
,
basis and evaluate licensee performance based on those observations with
'
the objectives of improving the .NRC Regulatory Program and licensee per-
,
4
formance.
4
The assessment period is April 1, 1965 through March 31, 1986.
The prior
assessment period was April 1, 1984 through March 31, 1985.
Significant
findings from prior assessments are discussed in the applicable Perform-
,
f
ance Analysis (Section IV) functional areas.
Evaluation criteria used
'
during this assessment are discussed in Section II below.
Each criterion
.
was applied using the " Attributes for Assessment of Licensee Performance,"
!
contained in the NRC Manual Chapter D516.
2.
SALP Board and Attendees
,
i
R. Starostecki, Director, Division of Reactor Projects (DRP) and SALP
l
Board Chairman
'
W. Johnston, Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Safety (DRS)
4
T. Martin, Director, Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards (DRSS)
i
W. Kane, Deputy Director, DRP
-
L. Rubenstein, Acting Deputy Director, PWR A, NRR
E. Wenzinger, Chief, Projects Branch No. 3, DRP
!
J. Durr, Chief, Engineering Branch, DRS
L. Tripp, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 3A, DRP
P. Tam, Licensing Project Manager, NRR
,
Other Attendees
1
L. Prividy, Resident Inspector, Beaver Valley Unit 2
R. Urban, Reactor Engineer, DRP
3.
Background
Duquesne Light Company was issued a Construction Permit (CPPR-105) to
'
build Beaver Valley, Unit 2, (Docket No. 50-412) on May 3, 1974. The
,'
l
Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) is a 2660 MWt Westinghouse PWR with
,
l
three loops; the Architect / Engineer (A/E) is Stone and Webster.
At the
end of this assessment period, fuel load was scheduled for May'1987.
Construction was estimated by the licensee as 93.6 percent complete as
i
of March 31, 1986.
t
i
1
. - . -
, . -
..
, _ , _ - , , . -
,,
. . . _ , , , ,
,,_r
_ , _
..
,,
. , - , , , , ,
7
. ..,
._ __ ___ - _
.
-
2
a.
Licensee Activities
In general, the work force increased in all areas during the as-
sessment period.
On March 31, 1985, there were 2,338 craft workers,
compared to 2,845 craft workers on March 31, 1986; an increase of
21 percent.
Total second and third shift activity increased from
570 to 630 during this period.
Weekend activity increased from an
average of 5 to 1050 workers total per day (mostly Saturdays).
The
licensee's Quality Control Department staffing increased from 361
to 450, an increase of 24 percent.
Stone and Webster supervisory,
engineering and administrative personnel on site increased 5 percent;
from 650 to 683 people.
At the end of the assessment period, Stone
and Webster sehior engineers in all disciplines were located on site.
Early in the assessment pericd, the licensee retained the services
of the Management Analysis Corporation to review the project organi-
zation and to provide recommendations on the desirability of adding
additional key personnel to assist in the completion of the project.
As a result of this review, Duquesne Light Company made significant
changes in the project organization in December, 1985.
Several
new positions were created and these positions were filled by ex-
perienced individuals.
The Manager of Engineering and Construction
was assigned to the site to report to the Vice President - Nuclear
Group on all matters relating to Engineering, Construction Cost
and Schedule.
A Deputy Manager of Quality Assurance was assigned
to the prcject with responsibility for QA/QC of startup activities
and reports to the Manager of Quality Assurance.
Coordinated with
these management changes was the relocation to the site of the
Duquesne Light Company Nuclear Construction Division.
During this assessment period, the major construction activities
included installation, welding, examinations, flushing and hydro-
static testing of main steam, feedwater, residual heat removal,
safety injection systems, and other large and small bore piping and
supports; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning and fire pro-
tection systems continued to be installed; pumps, motors, control
panels and residual heat removal pumps and motors were installed
and connected.
Electrical cable trays were installed and signifi-
cant amounts of cable were pulled and terminated plus instrumenta-
tion sensing lines and associated hardware were installed.
Insula-
tion of tanks and piping continued during this assessment period.
j
Painting / coating occurred throughout the site.
Closure of the tem-
{
porary construction opening in the containment building's exterior
wall was accomplished in October 1985.
.
l
l
I
!
I
i
l
)
1
- _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
.
-
3
Transition of the project from the construction to the testing phase
progressed steadily during the assessment period with system turn-
overs keyed to several major milestones - steam generator secondary
side hydrostatic test (December 1985), initial operation of diesel
generators (December 1985), and reactor coolant system cold hydro-
static test.
As of March 31, 1986, of the total 473 subsystems
required to be turned over, 292 subsystems have been turned over
and accepted by the Duquesne Light Company Startup Group for proof
testing.
Preparations were being made at the end of the assessment
period to conduct the reactor coolant system cold hydrostatic test
in April 1986.
2
b.
Inspection Activities
One NRC senior resident inspector and one resident inspector were
assigned to Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2, for the entire
,
assessment period.
Also, the NRC senior resident inspector assigned
'
to Unit 1 devoted part of his inspection efforts to the test program
activities at Unit 2.
Resident inspector activities included the
accomplishment of assigned inspection requirements including obser-
vations of work in progress, follow-up of licensee events, reactive
4
inspections and evaluation of licensee responses to NRC identified
concerns.
1
Twenty-three inspections were performed during the assessment period;
eleven were independently conducted by resident inspectors and
twelve were conducted by region-based specialist inspectors.
There
,
were 2,444 hours0.00514 days <br />0.123 hours <br />7.34127e-4 weeks <br />1.68942e-4 months <br /> of inspection of which 1,775 were by the resident
inspectors and 669 were by region-based specialists.
The specialist
inspection activities were in the following areas: concrete con-
struction pertinent to the containment building's exterior wall,
preservice inspection program including welding and welder qualifi-
cation, structural supports, electrical and piping supports, in-
stallation of mechanical equipment, installation of instrumentation
and electrical equipment, installation of 125 V DC systems, preven-
tive maintenance program for the emergency diesel generators and
associated equipment, the quality assurance program for preopera-
,
tional testing, and a review of the preoperational test programs.
4
l
c.
Licensing Activities
4
The Safety Evaluation Report was issued in October, 1985, in advance
of the ACRS full committee hearing which was held on November 8,
1985.
Prior to the ACRS full committee hearing, the Beaver Valley,
!
Unit 2 Subcommittee met on October 31 and November 1, 1985.
At that
time, the NRR staff had identified 11 open issues and 44 confirma-
,
tory issues.
Since the ACRS meeting, NRR and DLC Licensing Division
.
d
.
- - - , - - - - -
7
--
,
g
.
'
4
personnel have continued correspondence and meetings-.to resolve many
of these issues.
This included site visits made by NRR personnel
>
to observe the actual installed condition of the hardware.
.c
l
,
._.
.
~
5
II.
CRITERIA
Licensee performance is assessed in selected functional areas, depending on
whether the facility is in a construction, preoperational or operating phase.
Each functional area normally represents areas significant to nuclear safety
,
and the environment, and are normal programmatic areas.
Special areas may
be added to highlight significant observations.
The following evaluation criteria were used to assess each functional area.
1.
Management involvement and control is 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 reportable events.
6.
Staffing (including management).
7.
Training and qualification effectiveness.
Based upon the SALP Board assessment, each functional area evaluated is clas-
sified into one of three performance categories.
The definitions of these
performance categories are:
,
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 so 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 conteaned with nuc-
lear safety; licensee resources are adequate and reasonably effective so that
satisfactory performance with respect to operational safety or construction
is being achieved.
Category 3.
Both NRC and licensee attention should be increased. ' Licensee
management attention or involvement is acceptable and considers nuclear safety,
but weaknesses are evident; licensee resources appear to be strained or not
effectively used so that minimally satisfactory performance with respect to
operational safety or construction is being achieved.
,
The SALP Board also assessed each functional area to compare the licensee's
performance during the last quarter of the assessment period to that during
the entire period in order to determine the recent trend for each functional
area. The trend categories used by the SALP Board are as follows:
'
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
- -
-
-
- -
.
-
-
-
-
- -
-
- -
- -
-
-
-
_ __. .. .
. -
.
'
6
Improving:
Licensee performance has generally improved over the last quarter
of the current SALP assessment period.
Consistent:
Licensee performance has remained essentially constant over the
.
last quarter of the current SALP assessment period.
Declining:
Licensee performance has generally declined over the last quarter
'
of the current SALP assessment period.
!
4
-
I
1
i
'!
l
I
a
b
a
!
i
- - - ,
_.
-.- _,
. , - - _ _ .-, -__
_ . - - _ ~ . _
.
- _ _ - - - -
.
~
7
III. SUMMARY OF RESULTS
1.
Facility Performance
i
Category
Category
Last Period
This Period
(4/1/84-
(4/1/85-
Recent
Functional Area
3/31/85)
3/31/86)
Trend
1.
Containment and Other Safety-
Related Structures
1
1
Consistent
i
2.
Piping Systems and Supports
2
2
Consistent
3.
Safety-Related Components
1
1
Consistent
l
4.
Support Systems
1
2
Consistent
5.
Electrical Power Supply
and Distribution
2
2
Consistent
6.
Instrumentation and Control
Systems
2
1
Consistent
>
7.
Licensing Activities
2
1
Improving
8.
Preoperational/Startup
Insufficient
Testing
2
2
Basis
!
9.
Assurance of Quality
2
2
Consistent
2.
Overall Facility Evaluation
Some improvement in the overall level of performance was demonstrated
during this assessment period.
Licensee / contractor activities initiated
in response to weaknesses noted in previous SALP assessments have gener-
ally helped achieve resolution of such problems.
These initiatives in-
clude the Integrated Construction Support Group (ICSG), Constructability
.
Review Teams (CRTs), Engineering Confirmation Program, Quality Improve-
ment Management Program (QIMP), establishment of a separate Quality As-
surance Group responsible for QA/QC of startup activities, adding a nett
position to be responsible for Engineering and Construction, and use of
_ _ _ _
__
_ _ _
_
.~
__
. _.
.
_
_ _ - _
.
~
8
an Electrical Plan to track and resolve outstanding electrical /instru-
mentation problems.
Such programs appear to have been successful in
i
responding to programmatic NRC concerns.
Notwithstanding the above, individual problems were noted in several
^
functional areas during this assessment period which indicate that more
attention to detail is needed by workers in many departments (i.e., En-
gineering, QC, craftsmen, etc.).
Collectively, these problems indicate
that additional attention and/or overview is needed before higher level
performance can be sustained in several functional areas.
4
Although the licensee has shown more initiative during this assessment
period in self-identification of problems, such as through the MAC re-
views, most licensee initiatives were triggered by NRC expressed con-
cerns.
NRC continues to identify problems that should have been identi-
fied and/or prevented by licensee controls.
Licensee evaluation, re-
solution, and followup in response to NRC identified concerns is typic-
ally very thorough. However, licensee overall review and control acti-
vities are too narrowly focused on "backend" activities (i.e., QC in-
spection to assure that installation is in accordance with specifications
,
and drawings).
"Frontend" activities that are often the root causes of
!
problems do not always receive adequate review and management attention.
For example, more emphasis should be placed on whether design /installa-
tion meets criteria and is capable of performing its intended function
satisfactorily.
More licensee aggressiveness in self-identification of
problems with "frontend" activities should improve performance.
!
-
.
__
_
_
- _ _ _
.
~
9
IV.
PERFORMANCE ANALYSES
i
1.
Containment and Other Safety-Related Structures (4%, 112 hours0.0013 days <br />0.0311 hours <br />1.851852e-4 weeks <br />4.2616e-5 months <br />)
a.
Analysis
No significant problems were noted in this area during the prior
assessment period. Work on containment and other safety-related
structures was generally of good quality.
The licensee was thorough
in followup corrective actions to NRC concerns by making required
repairs to containment electrical penetration welds.
Three inspections were made in this area during this period.
The
major work activity performed during this assessment period was the
closing of the containment building temporary construction access
opening.
The opening (30 feet by 31 feet) required welding in the
containment liner and associated nondestructive examinations, in-
stallation of reinforcing bar and cadwelding to existing bars, and
pouring of the concrete to form the wall.
Concrete pours were com-
pleted in October 1985.
NRC found that excellent controls were
exercised during this assessment period with no major problems ex-
perienced.
The work activities in this area are now substantially
complete.
One instance was identified which indicated a possible weakness in
the licensee's involvement in the design review process.
The NRC
expressed a concern that the 12-inch stagger of Cadweld mechanical
splices between adjacent rebar in the temporary construction opening
wall did not meet the more conservative stagger criteria given in
the FSAR and that this change should be supported by engineering
analysis. The licensee is in the process of addressing this concern.
Licensee actions demonstrated responsibility and assured management
involvement and control.
This was evident in the effective licensee
action to oversee the quality of the remaining concrete used onsite.
An offsite batch plant was utilized for concrete placements to close
the containment building temporary construction access opening.
>
The licensee provided for proper qualification of this offsite batch
plant to supply concrete in accordance with engineering specifica-
tions.
Another indication of licensee involvement and control in
assuring quality was the licensee evaluation program relating to
loosened expansion anchors.
In a prior assessment period (December
1, 1982 through March 31,1984), the NRC had identified a concern
in this area since there was a lack of a formal procedure for con-
trol of Hilti expansion anchors following a loosening or removal
of bolt nuts or baseplates during construction.
The licensee in-
l
stituted a positive program to ensure that any future baseplates
which were loosened by construction would have anchor bolts re-
torqued and witnessed by QC.
Existing supports with associated
,
Hilti anchor bolts were evaluated by a systematic statistical
.
. . . .
_
- . _ _ _ _ . _
_
. _ _ .
.
_
. - _ . _ _ _ .
.
'i
i
10
sampling program with appropriate retorquing in selected areas.
,
The licensee performed a 100 percent reinspection of supports with
>
other types of bolting.
Licensee actions in this area have been
1
effective.
j
In summary, this area has shown consistent management involvement
and controls.
The licensee has exercised proper controls as the
'
project has progressed such that no major problems occurred this
,
period.
'
b.
Conclusion
4
i
Category 1, Consistent.
1
.l
c.
Board Recommendation
!
Licensee
None.
NRC
No further evaluations are needed in this functional area.
i
i
1
i
i
.
.
'
f
_ . .
.
.
-.
_ . - _ _ _ _ _ . -
- - . . -
-
. , . . _
. _ . . _ , _ _
-,
>
.
11
'
2.
Piping Systems and Supports (25%, 606 hours0.00701 days <br />0.168 hours <br />0.001 weeks <br />2.30583e-4 months <br />)
a.
Background
During prior assessment periods, the licensee and Stone and Webster
implemented numerous programs in the engineering area to address
concerns identified in those assessments.
This included the forma-
tion by Stone and Webster Engineering of the " Integrated Construc-
tion Support Group (ICSG)" made up of engineers located in the Con-
struction Buildings to provide easier access and instructions to
the construction personnel.
Another program implemented by Stone
'
and Webster Engineering was the "Constructability Review Team (CRT)",
to review mechanical and electrical drawings and assure they were
precise and clear.
A third program titled " Engineering Confirmation
Program", involved both Stone and Webster Engineering and Duquesne
Light Engineering and was implemented to review engineering specifi-
cations, calculations and other technical concerns.
A fourth pro-
gram titled " Quality Improvement Management Program (QIMP)" was im-
plemented to concentrate efforts and control on the amount of rework
on items such as piping and supports.
This effort was directed
toward items where trending indicated an increase in the reject rate.
The last SALP evaluation recognized these programs as strong cor-
rective actions that should be effective in eliminating past iden-
tified weaknesses.
However, at the time of that assessment, the
implementation was too recent to assess effectiveness of these in-
itiatives.
Implementation has now been in effect during this entire
assessment period.
During this assessment period, the licensee placed major emphasis
on the completion of piping and installation of the associated pipe
supports to support system turnover.
This effort has been effective
in the completion of many of the piping systems.
Some piping sup-
!
ports, however, still remain to be installed even though the pre-
liminary turnover of the system may have occurred.
testing has been completed on many of the major systems, including
the piping associated with the secondary side of the steam genera-
tors.
Flushing has also been routinely performed on many of the
piping systems.
b.
Analysis
This functional area received major inspection coverage.
NRC in-
spections placed particular emphasis on reviews of the ICSG, CRT,
QIMP, and Engineering Confirmation Program to assess their effec-
tiveness in resolving and eliminating the Engineering / Construction
l
interface problems discussed in prior SALP assessments.
'
,
.
"-n
y
.
12
Major improvements have occurred as a result of the implementation
of the licensee and SWEC programs discussed above.
Generally, the
interpretation by construction of engineering drawings and specifi-
cations which could lead to construction problems was not a problem
this period.
This is attributed to the major past efforts of the
CRT, the strengthening of the Engineering / Construction interface
by ICSG personnel and updating of specifications. Also, good con-
trols were exercised in the areas of weld material controls, radi-
ography, design and installation of Category II seismic supports,
and hydrostatic testing.
Overall, quality of workmanship was found
to be very good as noted during considerable NRC inspections /obser-
vations.
Records to support the installation were also found to
be acceptable.
Periodic interviews with the craftpersons have found
the workers morale positive regarding quality and no allegations
were made regarding piping and supports. Overall management con-
trols in this functional area were considered to be acceptable.
.
Notwithstanding the above, some minor problems were identified by
NRC in this functional area which are attributed to lack of atten-
tion to detail to specific conditions or requirements rather than
programmatic problems as identified in earlier SALP assessments.
A violation was issued after construction replaced a valve and, in
the replacement process, the piping was moved off location and per-
manently secured such that an installed, adjacent, and previously
quality control accepted pipe support failed to meet the drawing
requirements.
This problem was attributed to poor work control on
the part of the piping contractor.
Another problem involved in-
stallation of safety-related piping under and through non-seismic
designed stairs which was contrary to the coinmitments to Reg Guide 1.29.
It was attributed to lack of attention to detail to technical
requirements on the part of engineering.
This problem is similar
to the crane monorail issue discussed in Functional Area 4.
Other
concerns which further indicate a lack of attention to detail in
meeting quality standards are as follows: (1) there was failure to
specify or provide adequate clearance around the periphery of welds
subject to inservice examinations; and (2) loose clamps on piping,
loose lock nuts on rigid sway strut supports, and insufficient
tightening of lock washers.
Another example was the licensee sub-
mittal of a potential 50.55(e) item regarding installation of a
safety related piping elbow that was not fabricated from safety-
related material.
Although indicative of problems in material
identification and control, this item was subsequently determined
to be of little safety significance and not reportable.
The licen-
see has taken good corrective actions on each identified deficiency
by implementing reinspection programs, rework measures and/or addi-
tional engineering evaluations where necessary.
Collectively, the
above items indicate additional attention and/or overview is needed
to avoid these types of recurring problems.
. _ .
.
'
13
Staffing for the PSI /ISI program was adequate for the existing
workload.
Individuals responsible for the program development were
noted to be competent and qualified to perform the assigned duties.
The licensee was actively involved in this area as evidenced by
their efforts to resolve problems associated with the ultrasonic
examination of weld overlays.
In summary, the licensee and Stone and Webster Engineering have im-
plemented programs which have effectively addressed the prior SALP
concerns regarding the Engineering / Construction interface problems.
However, better controls are needed by engineering, construction,
and QC to reduce the types of the concerns identified during this
assessment period.
More management focus on "frontend" engineering
and installation activities is needed to achieve greater attention
to detail if such identified deficiencies are to be avoided.
b.
Conclusion
Category 2, recent trend consistent.
Overall improvement has been
shown in this functional area over the past several SALP assessments.
c.
Board Recommendation
Licensee
Continue emphasis on attention to detail during engineering, con-
struction, and inspection to further reduce deficiencies.
NRC
None.
l
l
2
l
___
._,
_
, _ _ _
.
-
--
__
.
.
14
3.
Safety Related Components (17%, 427 hours0.00494 days <br />0.119 hours <br />7.060185e-4 weeks <br />1.624735e-4 months <br />)
a.
Analysis
No significant problems were noted in this area during the prior
assessment period. Work on safety-related components was found to
be well controlled; a Category 1 rating was assigned.
Most of the inspection activities in this area were by the resident
inspectors; six inspections performed by the resident inspectors
included coverage of several facets of safety-related components.
The licensee's work activities in this area included completion,
trial fitting, and cleaning of the reactor vessel internals; com-
pletion and start-up of the emergency diesel generators; valve and
pump installations, rework of the main steam isolation valves,
hydrostatic testing of the steam generators (secondary side), and
numerous other installations of safety-related components.
Good controls were in place for installation activities regarding
reactor vessel internals, preparation for start-up of the diesel
generators, fastening of the diesel generator exhaust silencers and
fuel pool heat exchangers and shot peening and eddy-current testing
of steam generator tubes.
Records were complete and good controls
were in place for maintenance and protection of component cooling
pumps, pressurizer safety valves, and service water pumps.
No
violations were issued in this area.
The installation of safety-related mechanical equipment was well
planned and involved all levels of management.
For example, super-
vising personnel and crafts performing the work appeared well
trained and knowledgeable in the performance of the task which in-
volved extensive repair work in installing the main steam isolation
valves. The work performed was effectively monitored by quality
control personnel.
The coordination and planning was evident in
the resulting high quality workmanship by capable crafts personnel.
Maintenance of installed equipment was being performed monthly as
scheduled.
Examination of diesel generator equipment areas indi-
cated specified maintenance requirements were being met.
Historically, there has been a reluctance to report deficiencies
when encountered at the construction site.
For example, the re-
portability per the requirements of 50.55(e) for limitorque operator
problems was questioned by the NRC which prompted the licensee to
subsequently issue such a report.
However, resolution of such de-
ficiencies has typically been thorough; at the end of the assessment
period, rework on the affected operators was being satisfactorily
addressed.
Another example of such thoroughness involved a previous
Construction Deficiency Report (85-00-02).
In this case, followup
activities were expanded to reflect additional problems that had
developed with the latching mechanisms for the main steam isolation
-
-
.
.
.
-.
-
.-__
.
15
valves (MSIVs). When two (2) bearings failed due to material de-
fects, the licensee was actively involved in problem resolution and
ultimately directed its vendor to provide new bearings which will
be proof-tested for acceptability.
One allegation was received in this area regarding the possibility
of dirt and dust contaminating pumps and valves located in the Con-
tainment Building.
NRC followup established that all equipment
sensitive to dust and dirt, such as pumps and valve operators, was
adequately protected by plastic covering to prevent entry of un-
desirable contaminants.
In summary, overall performance in this functional area was very
!
good.
The high performance levels noted in previous SALP assess-
ments were maintained.
b.
Conclusion
Category 1, Consistent.
'
c.
Board Recommendation
Licensee
None.
.
NRC
None.
,
__.
,
.
16
4.
Support Systems (7%, 158 hours0.00183 days <br />0.0439 hours <br />2.612434e-4 weeks <br />6.0119e-5 months <br />)
a.
Analysis
No significant fabrication problems were identified in this area
during the last assessment period.
The licensee had good controls;
a Category 1 rating was assigned.
,
The four inspections performed in this area were performed by the
resident inspectors and covered HVAC supports, design of crane
monorails and installation of HVAC fire dampers.
Good controls were found in these areas; however, some concerns were
identified regarding Quality Control inspector error and design of
'
crane monorails.
A violation was issued when it was found by NRC
that a Q.C. inspection report that documented inspection results
of an HVAC support indicated no concrete anchors were installed in
the support baseplates, but sixteen anchor bolts were actually in-
stalled.
Licensee followup actions were typically thorough in
checking work by this inspector to demonstrate that this error was
apparently an isolated incident in that the quality of his other
work was good.
During the previous SALP assessment period, a
50.55(e) item also dealt with QC inspector error on HVAC supports.
Although subsequently resolved through dismissal of personnel and
rework of deficient welds, these incidents collectively indicate
some continuing problems in this area.
NRC identified a problem with non-seismic designed and constructed
monorails which were installed above safety-related equipment in
various buildings.
This indicated an engineering weakness in fail-
ing to ensure that potential adverse interaction between seismic
and non-seismic components is avoided. This problem is similar to
the safety-related piping through non-seismic stairwell issue dis-
cussed in Functional Area 2 and is another. example of how NRC con-
tinues to find problems that should have been prevented and/or
identified by licensee controls.
In summary, the licensee has adequate controls in this area.
b.
Conclusion
Category 2, Consistent.
c.
Board Recommendation
Licensee
More attention is warranted to assure Q.C. inspectors adequately
perform their independent inspections.
Also, as stated in Func-
tional Area 2, engineering disciplines need to emphasize and provide
,
c
- - -
-
-
+
.-
.
.-
.-
_.
,
.-
17
.
more attention to detail including commitments and specification
requirements as well as assuring that systems are able to provide
'
their intended functions under accident conditions.
NRC
.
1
None.
i
k
!
!
i
1
$
J
$
4
.
I
A
2
1
l
4
I
.
i
'
i
,
, - - .
-
_ - , _ _ _ .
.
, . .
.
.
.
, ,
,
. -
.
~
18
5.
Electrical Power Supply and Distribution (15%, 362 hours0.00419 days <br />0.101 hours <br />5.98545e-4 weeks <br />1.37741e-4 months <br />)
a.
Analysis
Construction and Quality Control inspection activities were con-
sidered to be under good control during the prior assessment periods.
However, numerous lingering engineering / construction interface
problems that affected hardware installation existed in this area
during the last assessment.
A noted improvement had occurred from
the prior assessment period (December 1, 1982 through March 31,1984)
when a Category 3 rating was assignad.
Inspections during this evaluation period concentrated on the im-
plementation of the ICSG, CRT, QIMP and Engineering Confirmation
Program, described in Functional Area 2 (Piping Systems and Sup-
ports).
These program objectives were to eliminate the Engineering /
Construction interface concerns discussed in the previous SALP as-
sessment.
Other NRC inspections covered open items, storage of
electrical equipment,125 Volt distribution system, cable pulling,
installation of condulets, installation of batteries and chargers,
rework controls and environmental qualification of electrical
equipment.
Cable trays, conduits and cable continued to be installed throughout
the assessment period with the major activities being cable pulling
and terminations.
Reinspection and rework activity on electrical
panels to meet Regulatory Guide 1.75 occurred throughout this period.
As of February 26, 1986, of a total of 311 electrical panels in the
program, 119 were final accepted by Quality Control inspections.
Staffing of technical and engineering positions related to the
electrical area was good.
QA personnel were adequately trained and
carried out the QA program relative to the installation of electrical
cables.
Management was obviously concerned with and involved in
assuring quality.
QC management was observed to be very active in
implementing good quality control of electrical related activities.
Good response was shown with regard to the resolution of problems
discussed in the previous SALP assessment.
Management took positive
steps to correct the previous problems in the areas of cable pulling,
cable separation, terminations and installation and to prevent the
recurrence of such problems.
Engineering installation and construc-
tion procedures were revised to provide more detailed instructions
in the areas of cable pulling (to properly calculate allowable pull
tensions), to provide for cable sheath protection and proper separa-
tion, and to properly insulate taped splices.
Installation and QC
personnel were trained in the procedures.
QC personnel were provided
with on the spot stop-work authority for improper cable pulls.
Management's aggressive efforts to revise construction and QA/QC
J
,
_
_
.
~
19
procedures to overcome problems in safety related cable installa-
tions, pull calculations and pull methods has resulted in improved
performance in these areas.
Other items discussed in the last SALP evaluation received manage-
ment attention and progressed satisfactorily during this period;
springnut retorquing was completed in 36 of a total of 47 seismic
areas; inspection for shims or the need to add shims, including tack
welding of same, installed under electrical baseplate supports, was
completed in 2 of 15 areas; identification of cable which exceeds
the established criteria for unsupported length was performed during
this period, and wrapping of external cable and installation of tray
covers to meet Regulatory Guide 1.75 commenced.
One concern was identified by NRC that involved installation of
commercial grade termination blocks in harsh environments where the
specification had specified installation of qualified termination
blocks.
This problem occurred due to failure on the part of engi-
neering to specify the correct termination block on field drawings.
Other concerns identified during this period involved the field in-
stallation of loose oversize non-seismic condulets on instruments;
planned installation of electrical cable splices located below the
flood plane in containment (in the event of a LOCA) with splices
that were unqualified for submergence; and installation of terminal
blocks in a vented termination box in containment located below the
flood plane (in the event of a LOCA) that was not qualified for
submergence.
Flex conduit containing electrical cables that were
disengaged from their coupling was found installed and accepted by
the licensee. These hardware deficiencies indicate some continuing
problems in engineering in failing to provide specific and/or the
'
correct instructions necessary for compliance with the requirements.
One item, installation of a termination block in Containment that
was not environmentally qualified, indicated a problem in the con-
tractor's cable pull ticket (termination) office in failing to im-
plement a " check" system to assure rework was actually performed
in the field.
The licensee established an electrical plan and is in the process
of reworking the items discussed above in a systematic way.
The
numerous program implementations, along with strengthening of man-
,
agement generally resolved the Engineering / Construction interface
concerns, although some problems existed with engineering documents
which incorrectly translated requirements as discussed above.
In summary, Engineering / Construction interface concerns were re-
solved through new program implementation.
Management in the elec-
trical area was significantly stronger than was apparent in previous
assessments.
Engineering performed considerably better in most
areas, generally providing good technical direction to the field.
Disposition and corrective actions on deficient items were excellent.
- - _ _
.
.
20
b.
Conclusion
Category 2, Consistent.
c.
Board Recommendation
Licensee
A strengthening of the program is nee'ded which particularly addresses
,
more attention to detail by both the engineering and installation
contractors to eliminate the type of deficiencies discovered by NRC
inspections (similar to Functional Area 2).
Conduct additional in-
dependent overviews (design review) to eliminate these deficiencies
4
before the hardware is installed.
Need more aggressive self-iden-
tification of problems that could stop systems / components from per-
forming their intended function (s).
NRC
None.
i
i
i
,
-_
_
..
,.
.
.
21
6.
Instrumentation and Control Systems (15%, 364 hours0.00421 days <br />0.101 hours <br />6.018518e-4 weeks <br />1.38502e-4 months <br />)
a.
Analysis
During the last assessment period, control of onsite construction
and inspection activities in this area was generally considered
satisf actory.
A Category 2 rating was assigned.
Five inspections were performed in this area during this assessment
period, two by the resident inspectors and three by Region-based
specialists.
The inspections covered reviews of open items, speci-
fication reviews, welding and general installation of instruments,
lines and associated supports.
The licensee's installation of instrumentation and control systems
continued throughout the site during the evaluation period.
Acti-
vities in this area, with one exception as discussed below, were
!
conducted in a well controlled manner as contrasted to the previous
j
SALP assessment period when weaknesses were evident.
Orgoing in-
stallation and problem resolution activities were tracked well in
l
the Project Electrical Plan.
Good management and QC involvement
l
was evident.
No major problems were encountered by the contractor
and no 50.55(e) reports were issued.
The lack of any substantial
negative findings in this functional area despite considerable NRC
attention is considered to be indicative of improved performance.
One minor violation was identified by NRC relating to missing im-
pulse line slope requirements on instrument isometric drawings for
three safety related flow and level transmitters for the auxiliary
feed, ccmponent cooling water, and reactor coolant systems.
This
missing construction criterion and inadequate engineering design
review of construction drawings is another example of inadequate
attention to detail.
Previous initiatives to tighten engineering
controls appear to have been only partially effective as evidenced
by the violation noted above.
Subsequently, the licensee has con-
cluded that the as-installed conditions are acceptable without the
specified slope, but has clarified the specification to eliminate
any possible future misinterpretations.
Previously identified open items were resolved through active man-
agement involvement and concern for safety issues.
Licensee action
through revised procedures, walkdown inspections and review of con-
struction drawings for all previously installed impulse lines were
properly documented and findings were satisfactorily dispositioned.
.
I
No new significant concerns were identified in this area.
l
l
e
l
l
.
_..
.
.
.-
.
. .--.
..
..
,
.
22
In summary, no major problems were identified in this area.
In-
[
stallation progressed well.
Management ~and Quality Control were
effective in assuring installation of a quality product.
This area
has shown a significant improvement during this assessment period.
j
Good controls by engineering and construction are generally in place.
.
i
b.
Conclusion
j
Category 1, Consistent.
.i
i
c.
Board Recommendation
4
Licensee
i
None.
i
NRC
l
None.
,
i
%
!
i
4
!
4
i
!
(
i
i
1
1
I
.
1
1
i
, ~ - ~ , , . . , , - , , , -
~ - , , , , ,
-
.-,,-.,n,..
-~.--ne
,
,
.. , , . , . , , ,.n.~
, , - .n---n,
, . - . , . --
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _
__
._
._.
.-_
_ . .
__
_
f.
J
,
'
.
23
,
l
7.
Licensing Activities
a.
Analysis
.
1
This area was categorized as Categmy 2, improving, in the last SALP
assessment. Althoughratingswithrespecttoindividualcriteria
,
were variable, the licensee s performance in this area.had been
-
i
adequate and reasonably effective in addressing nuclear safety
considerations.
,
i
Throughout the review process during this assessment period, DLC's
activities generally exhibited evidence of prior planning and as-
-
signment of priorities.
This was shown by the licensee's approach
to resolving numerous open items identified in the staff's draft
i
safety evaluation report (SER) to support issuance of the final SER.
j
The licensee's tracking program continued to identify and track the
!
status of each item and maintain internal schedules for resolving
each open item.
Generally, DLC management assigned the necessary
technical people to develop complete, high quality responses.
Also,
1
DLC management has taken significant additional initiative to assure
)
themselves that the design of the Beaver Valley Unit 2 station fully
complies with the NRC regulations and licensing commitments.
To
J
]
provide this assurance, DLC has performed a number of technical
j
design reviews using outside contractors, in-house DLC engineering
]
personnel, and Stone and Webster (SWEC) engineering personnel.
.
DLC's management demonstrated awareness of the licensing issues by
j
virtue of DLC's experience in the industry, technical expertise,
i
and active participation in owners groups.
The licensee's manage-
ment also consistently exercised firm control over its design con-
,
i
tractor's activities and maintained good communication between the
i
contractor, his own staff, and the NRC staff.
I
Strong licensee management involvement at the Vice President level
i
who is stationed at the site and is responsible for managing the
design, construction, startup, operation, and maintenance of Unit
2, has produced positive results. -Also, the DLC Regulatory Affairs
and engineering staffs have recently been relocated to the site.
As a result, in regard to licensing activities, there has been in-
creasing evidence of a closer working relationship with the site
staff.
The licensee continued to use a tracking system for. resolution of
,
i
licensing issues.
The tracking system includes all SER outstanding
and confirmatory issues, proposed license conditions, and TMI NUREG-
i
0737 issues.
In addition, any other. major issues requiring resolu-
i
-
tion (i.e., design and FSAR changes that require revisions to the
i
!
staff's safety evaluations) are also included. This tracking system
!
has been very helpful in tracking and resolving-the remaining lic-
l
ensing issues.
i
!
l
l ..
-
-
. . , .
- - . - .
. -
- -
- - - - - . . -
. . -
. - -
.
,
-
.
24
BV-2 is the lead plant in application of leak-before-break assump-
tion to balance-of plant piping.
The licensee has held frequent
meetings with the staff on this issue and has demonstrated good
technical understanding and a cooperative attitude in these meetings.
The licensee, in cases where generic questions arise, has made use
of industry owners groups to develop acceptable resolution to
licensing issues, e.g., resolution of Salem ATWS issues.
Open and effective communication exists between the NRC and DLC's
licensing staffs.
Effective dialog between both staffs usually
promotes prompt and technically sound responses to NRC initiatives.
Conference calls with the staff are promptly established and in-
cluded appropriate engineering, plant, and/or contractor personnel.
DLC staff demonstrated a good working knowledge of applicable regu-
lations, guides, standards, and generic issues pertaining to their
plant.
This was evidenced by their positive attitude and respon-
siveness to the NRC staff in addressing unresolved SER issues.
DLC
staff has always been prepared to meet with the NRC staff in a short
time frame to obtain the necessary understanding of NRC information
needs and has been successful, by preparedness and aggressiveness,
in expediting SER issue resolution in a timely manner.
During
meetings, the licensee demonstrated a thorough understanding of the
technical issues and effectively used the services of its architect-
engineer, SWEC, and other contractors as needed.
DLC's promptness
was especially demonstrated during its frequent meetings with the
staff.
The licensee kept the NRR project management generally in-
formed regarding plant completeness status and major milestones.
The Regulatory Affairs group appears to be adequately staffed.
Top
management has extensive experience in the area of nuclear tech-
nology.
The licensee has revised its organizational structure.
The new organization was designed to provide close working relation-
ship with Unit 1 staff, absorbing Unit l's experience as an operat-
ing plant.
In summary, overall strong performance was observed in the func-
tional area of Licensing Activities.
The licensee's trend toward
steady improvement in performance during the current rating period,
specifically, good performance in resolving several major issues,
increased responsiveness and cooperativeness with the staff, and
aggressive approach in resolving issues are the main factors in this
assessment.
b.
Conclusion
Category 1, Improving.
I
l
.
25
c.
Board Recommendation
Licensee
None.
NRC
None.
_ __
_ _ _
_
,_
__ ..
-
.=
.-
-
.
.
-
- -
. - . -
_ _ -
-
-.
.
.
26
3
3
8.
Preoperational/Startup Testing (17%, 415 hours0.0048 days <br />0.115 hours <br />6.861772e-4 weeks <br />1.579075e-4 months <br />)
i
a.
Analysis
!
In the last assessment, only programmatic and staffing aspects were
i
evaluated.
Some weaknesses relating to personnel qualification and
,
establishment of system turnover criteria were identified.
4
During this assessment, areas reviewed included preoperational pro-
'
gram development and implementation, QA/QC interface and overview
of test activities, development of test procedures, and conduct of
i
construction proof and preoperational tests.
During much of this
'
assessment period, Beaver Valley Unit 2 was in the process of re-
organizing from the construction phase to the preoperational phase.
All levels of management were involved in defining the scope of the
startup program, the organizational structure of the startup group,
i
and the QA/QC interface during testing.
The startup group was re-
organized a second time.
At the end of the period, the organization
was well defined, but finalization of its line organization, divi-
,
sion of responsibilities, and development of support group inter-
faces were slow; performance in these areas was weak.
'
The startup manual (SUM), which is made up of individual test pro-
cedures, was not completed when first reviewed by NRC in January,
1985.
The SUM lacked an overall program description that would tie
the individual test procedures into a comprehensive format.
Pre-
sently, the individual test procedures tell the user how to execute
,
-
the test program, but a program description is needed to consolidate
the test program.
The absence of a program description was consi-
dered a weakness in management's involvement and control in develop-
'
ing the SUM.
The SUM did contain a good description of the startup
,
organization and responsibilities for individuals in the test program.
i
Earlier and greater management oversight of the SUM development
'
could have resulted in a stronger program in that several minor
problems were allowed to be created.
First, there was not a good
match between the preoperational tests listed by the licensee and
those committed to in the FSAR.
The procedures were not true sched-
uling elements because some were so large that-they had to be sub-
divided and performed over an extended period of time.
Consequently,
significant effort was needed to form an integrated work schedule.
i
Secondly, some of the earlier procedures reviewed did not have good
system restoration sections or-double verification of realignment'
!
of critical components.
Jurisdictional control over pre-test con-
ditions appeared to lack definition.
However, by the end of the
assessment period, these concerns were receiving appropriate atten-
tion.
!
!
I
t
l
- - - , _ . - - , - - - . - - -
- . - - - - -
. , . -
- - - - - , . -
- - -
-
- - ~ -
- - ~ ~
~ ' ' ' ~ ~ ~
,
.
27
The QA/QC oversight of the early test program was not well defined
in regard to phasing out the construction site QC (SQC) function
and phasing in testing QC (TQC), or developing a QA surveillance
program for test activities.
The overlap between the two QC pro-
grams still needed management attention to override potential con-
flicts with regard to jurisdictional responsibilities for rework
items on subsystems undergoing testing in that the break between
the construction phase and proof test preop test phase was not well
defined.
A final, formal policy that defines this break for rework,
maintenance, and modifications needs to be developed and disseminated
to the startup test engineers and QC organizations.
The QA Sur-
veillance Group was just established at the beginning of 1986.
Development of an administrative manual and full staffing was not
yet complete.
The construction proof (including flushing and hydrostatic tests)
and preoperational tests were technically adequate and met FSAR
commitments.
Procedure developement proceeded at an acceptable pace
and was improving in quality.
The procedure review process to en-
sure that the latest commitments are forwarded to cognizant test
engineers for inclusion in the test, and reviewed by Joint Test Group
before approval with final authorization for test conduct, was func-
tioning satisfactorily.
Program requirements and station policy
were well understood by the test engineers.
The interface between
construction and test groups during system flushes and hydros was
satisfactory. The QA Surveillance Group actively observed much of
the safety related test activities in 1986 and identified meaningful
items dealing with both hardware and program controls.
In summary, the preoperational and startup testing program has now
arrived at the initial stages of implementation.
Delays in develop-
ing the final test organization and management controls hindered
the development of a strong program although the one in place was
satisfactory. The overall program appears adequate and capable of
assuring that all required testing and performance requirements
are met.
b.
Conclusion
Category 2, no trend assigned (insufficient basis).
c.
Board Recommendation
Licensee
Assure the QA Surveillance Group is adequately staffed and that a
written policy is forwarded defining the division of responsibility
between SQC and TQC.
.
. . . .
--.
.. . . .
. . ..
. _ _ _ _
.
.
.
. . - - _ -
A
'
.
i
,
.
l
28
,
NRC
,
Arrange management meeting to discuss planning for startup testing
including philosophy on surveillance testing, transition from pre-
1
operational testing to operations, and handling of test exceptions.
4
h
$
,
<
i
l'
l
,
,
I
i
!
!
,
I
.
T
T
l
!
I
e
i
'
,
,
3
i
a
_
. , _ , . . .
. _ - . . . . , _ _ _ . .
. . . , . , , _ ~ . , , .
.
29
9.
Assurance of Quality
a.
Analysis
During this assessment period, Assurance of Quality is being con-
sidered as a separate functional area for the first time although
a related area, Quality Assurance and Administrative Controls, was
included in the last SALP assessment.
Management involvement and
control in assuring quality continues to be one evaluation criterion
for each functional area.
The various aspects of Quality Assurance Program requirements have
been considered and discussed as an integral part of each functional
area and the respective inspection hours are included in each one.
Consequently, this discussion is a synopsis of the assessments re-
lating to the assurance of the quality of work conducted in other
areas.
During this evaluation period, the licensee independently contracted
for a " Management Analysis Corporation" (MAC) audit to assess the
,
overall project status.
It should be noted that this audit was
partially prompted by an NRC concern that the DLC Quality Assurance
Unit might not have sufficient independence from the engineering
and construction activities.
Through these audit findings, the
licensee implemented several changes which effectively strengthened
the overall management program.
This includes the establishment
of the separate QA/QC group with a strong manager overseeing SVG
activities, the establishing and appointment of a senior person as
Managec of Construction and Engineering, and the relocation of the
DLC Nuclear Construction Division engineering and licensing staff
to the site.
Another effective program being implemented is the scheduled weekly
meeting which involves senior managers to ensure that potential
interface problems are identified and that appropriate corrective
actions are taken.
These face-to-face scheduled discussions have
been very effective in resolving problems.
The Quality Improvement
Management Program (QIMP) effort has also signif~cantly strengthened
the licensee's management controls.
Implementation of the Electrical
Plan was another effective tool used to control the resolution of
problems; particularly, NRC identified-concerns in the electrical
area.
The licensee has placed major emphasis on resolving NRC identified
items.
Through implementation of a program titled "Next Step List"
and appointment of senior management personnel to this task, many
of the items have been completed and are ready for NRC review and
closure.
This program was very effective and significantly reduced
the amount of NRC "open items."
i
I
o
e
,~
,
_.
- . .
.
.-
,
-
-
. . - - - -
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _
.
.
._
_
__
_ _.
_
_
_.
.
,.
'
'
..
I
<
30
1
!
'
t
NRC inspection coverage concentrated on Quality Control inspections
during construction and for systems turned over to the Start-Up
i-
i
Group, Quality Assurance audits, timely disposition and closure of
'
Nonconformance and Disposition (N&D) Reports, and responses to
Generic Letters, Part 21 Reports, Information Notices, and Bulletins.
i
,
Inspections also were performed of the licensee's activities regard-
ing the Engineering Confirmation Program.
,
i
Two violations were issued that reflected on this functional area;
i
l
Quality Control inspector error (see Functional Area 4) and failure
>
.
to promptly correct and close N&Ds.
The licensee implemented strong
'
l
timely corrective actions for these violations.
.
!
NRC expressed concern during this period regarding QC inspection
of systems turned over to the Startup Group (SUG).
The licensee's
i
original plans only established a surveillance program for work
l
activities under control of SUG. This area has been strengthened
,
j
by establishing a separate QA/QC group to perform audits, surveil-
>
lance and QC inspections and. witness points.
This concern appears
to have been resolved; however, the program was only recently im-
plemented and therefore, it is premature to determine the effective-
ness of the new QA/QC group.
'
!
i
A concern discussed in the last SALP report regarded the organiza-
tional arrangement wherein the QA/QC manager reported to the Nuclear
Group Vice President, who also functioned as the DLC Project Manager.
The licensee has resolved this concern through appointment of a
Senior Manager as " Manager of Construction and Engineering" to re-
solve the daily onsite construction and engineering problems.
This
organizational structure eliminates any concern regarding Quality
,
Assurance independence.
'
,
L
Generally, the licensee has demonstrated an adequate program for
the assurance of quality.
QA audits are scheduled and performed
i
,
i
to cover all major activities.
Corrective actions for audit find-
l
ings are prompt and thorough, QA staffing is adequate; there is a
large QC staff.
QA/QC personnel are adequately qualified and re-
-
ceived good training through company. sponsored training films and
lectures.
Quality Control management in the construction area is
strong and effective.and responds in an effective manner to resolve
all issues affecting quality.
However, as illustrated above in the
various examples and in the analyses of previous functional areas,
problems continue to be identified by the NRC rather than by the
4
licensee.
This is indicative of a weakness-in the direction of the
4
}
licensee programs for,the assurance of quality and engineering pro-
grams which tend to be reactive.rather than aggressively identifying
,
weaknesses in "frontend" activities which would help reduce the
'
number of such recurrent deficiencies.
l
l
l
.
-
-
.
. .
.
._ _ _. _ ,_ _ _ _ _ _ ,-_._
.
.
,- .
.
.
31
In summary, the various management changes which have occurred dur-
ing this evaluation period have significantly strengthened the
overall project and established a management team which is struc-
tured adequately to address safety issues.
Implementation of other
programs such as QIMP, CRT, the ICSG, and the Electrical Plan have
also contributed to good performance.
The self-initiated implemen-
tation of the MAC audit reflects the licensee's goal to build a
quality plant.
Implementation of a separate QA/QC group to inspect
turned-over systems was a positive program to assure adequate QA
attention after completion of construction. With some exceptions,
such as QC inspector errors, untimely closure of N&Ds, and the need
for a more aggressive approach to problem self-identification, the
licensee's program has been effective. With the various management
changes implemented during this evaluation period, proper management
now is in place to systematically provide adequate assurance of
quality for remaining construction and testing activities.
b.
Conclusion
Category 2, Consistent.
c.
Board Recommendation
.
Licensee
None.
NRC
Discuss with licensee plans for transferring engineering information
to the site for use during plant operations.
,
i
~
.
32
V.
SUPPORTING DATA.AND SUMMARIES
1.
Construction Deficiency Reports (CDRs)
Nine CDRs were submitted by the licensee during the assessment period.
Six of the deficiencies were associated with vendor supplied hardware.
Two CDRs (85-00-04 and 85-00-05) were associated with design deficien-
cies. One CDR resulted onsite due to installation of non-ASME material
in a safety related application.
One corrected CDR, 85-00-05, had ac-
ceptable corrective actions.
Construction deficiency reports are listed
in Table 1.
2.
Investigation Activities
One allegation was received during the assessment period regarding a
concern in the Containment Building about excessive dust and dirt.
The
allegation was evaluated by the NRC, but not substantiated.
There were
no open allegations at the end of the assessment period.
3.
Escalated Enforcement Action
None.
,
4.
Management Conferences
June 19, 1985 - A special, announced management meeting at NRC's request
to discuss the results of the Region I SALP board convened to assess
licensee performance from April 1, 1984 to March 31, 1985.
October 8, 1985 - A special, announced management meeting at licensee's
request to specifically address the progress of corrective actions as-
sociated with the June 7, 1985, SALP Report and to discuss plans for
licensing of reactor operators.
.
,
- - - -
-
-
e
en
a--.
-
u
e
u-
.
!
.
TABLE 1
CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCY REPORT
,
(APRIL 1,1985 - MARCH 31,1986)
BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 2
<
CDR NUMBER
DEFICIENCY
CAUSE CODE
.
85-00-03
Environmental qualification of core
B
exit thermocouple system.
85-00-04
Cable tray hold-down clamps.
B
.
'
1
85-00-05
Insufficient thickness of insulating
D
'
tape on SKV cable terminations and
(Closed)
splices.
85-00-06
Westinghouse manufactured SA-1 relay
B
4
problems.
>
85-00-07
Damage of BBC K-line circuit breakers.
B
86-00-01
Improperly rated cables terminated in
B
i
!
86-00-02
Non-ASME elbow installed.
Determined not
,
t
to be reportable.
86-00-03
Paul Monroe snubber material
defective.
B
86-00-04
Limitorque valve operator
B
deficiencies.
4
Cause Codes
A - Personnel Error
B - Design / Fabrication Error
C - External Cause
D - Defective Procedure
E - Component Failure
i
i
F - Site Construction Error
i
J
i
,
,-%-.
,
,
y
--
- - - - , . , - - - - - -
-
~_
,.
,
,--,-vm-
-
---w
- - , . - . . , - - - . , , - -
_
,
.
TABLE 2
VIOLATIONS
,
4
(APRIL 1, 1985 - MARCH 31, 1986)
BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 2
,
A.
Number and Severity Level of Violations
1.
Severity Level
0
0
5
1
<
'
Deviations
_2
TOTAL
8
'
B.
Violation vs. Functional Area
Saverity Level
j
Functional Area
Deviations
IV
V
1.
Containment and Other
,
Safety-Related Structures.
4
2.
Piping Systems and Supports
1
1
1
,
3.
Safety-Related Components
4.
Support Systems
1
5.
Electrical Power Supply
and Distribution
1
'
,
l
6.
Instrumentation and Control
l
Systems
1
7.
Licensing Activities
q
8.
Preoperational/Startup
Testing
9.
Assurance of Quality
2
TOTAL
2
5
1
3
.
-
-. .
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
__
__-
.
4
TABLE 3
4
INSPECTION HOURS SUMMARY (4/1/85 - 3/31/86)
1
BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 2
FUNCTIONAL AREA
HOURS
% OF TIME
!
1.
Containment and Other Safety-Related
i
Structures.
112
4
2.
Piping Systems and Supports
606
25
3.
Safety-Related Components
427
17
4.
Support Systems (HVAC)
158
7
5.
Electrical Power Supply and Distribution
362
15
6.
Instrumentation and Control Systems
364
15
7.
Licensing Activities
8.
Preoperational/Startup Testing
415
17
9.
Assurance of Quality
TOTAL
2444
100
i
- Included in other functional areas.
- Does not include NRR time.
i
>
.
_
.-
.
.
TABLE 4
INSPECTION ACTIVITIES
BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 2
Report
Number
Inspector
Areas Inspected
85-08
Specialist
Pre-operational test program
(36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br />)
85-09
Resident
Reviews of information notices, electrical cable
(155 hours0.00179 days <br />0.0431 hours <br />2.562831e-4 weeks <br />5.89775e-5 months <br />)
routing, cadwelding, instrumentation welding, welder
qualifications, excessive feedwater transient
analysis and daily site tours.
85-10
Specialist
Review of activities relating to installation of
(66 hours7.638889e-4 days <br />0.0183 hours <br />1.09127e-4 weeks <br />2.5113e-5 months <br />)
electrical / instrumentation components and associated
circuits.
85-11
Specialist
Inspection cancelled.
(0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />)
85-12
Specialist
Inspection of work in progress and completed work
(38 hours4.398148e-4 days <br />0.0106 hours <br />6.283069e-5 weeks <br />1.4459e-5 months <br />)
associated with mechanical equipment, reviews of
previously identified items, QA/QC involvement, and
discussions with supervisory and work force personnel.
85-13
Resident
Inspection of activities pertaining to previously
(195 hours0.00226 days <br />0.0542 hours <br />3.224206e-4 weeks <br />7.41975e-5 months <br />)
identified items, 50.55(e) reports, information
notices, seismic design of items important to safety,
inspection of piping supports, rigid sway struts,
rework and/or disassembly control of components,
disposition of nonconformance and disposition reports,
review of welding and associated weld procedures,
and daily site tours.
85-14
Specialist
Inspection of licensee's action on previous inspec-
(36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br />)
tion findings, and preservice inspection program
activities.
'
85-15
Specialist
Inspection of licensee's actions and status of pre-
(64 hours7.407407e-4 days <br />0.0178 hours <br />1.058201e-4 weeks <br />2.4352e-5 months <br />)
vious inspection findings in the electrical area.
.
-
.
T-4-2
Report
Number
Inspector
Areas Inspected
85-16
Resident
Inspection of activities pertaining to previously
(269 hours0.00311 days <br />0.0747 hours <br />4.447751e-4 weeks <br />1.023545e-4 months <br />)
identified items, 50.55(e) reports, information
notices, inspection of piping supports, instrumen-
tation tubing installation, material and equipment
control with associated training information, pre-
operational testing of station batteries, review of
licensee response to bulletins, information notices,
generic letters and Part 21 reports, corrective
action on nonconformance and disposition reports,
5 KV cable terminations, separation distance of cable
from hot piping, off-center socket bore on globe
valves, review of welding and associated weld pro-
cedures & daily site tours.
85-17
Specialist
Inspection Cancelled.
(0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />)
85-18
Specialist
Inspection of Quality Assurance Program for Pre-
(77 hours8.912037e-4 days <br />0.0214 hours <br />1.273148e-4 weeks <br />2.92985e-5 months <br />)
operational Testing.
85-19
Resident
Inspection of activities pertaining to previously
(126 hours0.00146 days <br />0.035 hours <br />2.083333e-4 weeks <br />4.7943e-5 months <br />)
identified unresolved items, Part 21 Reports, in-
spection of pipe supports, rework control on systems
turned over to Start-Up Group, eddy-current inspec-
tion of steam generator tubes, review of Quality
Assurance Audits and daily site tours.
85-20
Specialist
Inspection of construction requirements and controls
(37 hours4.282407e-4 days <br />0.0103 hours <br />6.117725e-5 weeks <br />1.40785e-5 months <br />)
pertaining to concrete construction for closure of
the temporary construction opening in the containment
building exterior wall, of licensee response to NRC/
IE Bulletin 79-02 relating to the installation of
i
drilled-in concrete expansion anchors for pipe sup-
ports, review of previously identified inspection
items relating to the above bulletin and' review of
settlement monitoring records. Additionally, the
licensee's QA/QC interactions pertaining to the first
two items identified ab6ve were reviewed.
85-21
Resident
Inspection of activities pertaining to previously
(175 hours0.00203 days <br />0.0486 hours <br />2.893519e-4 weeks <br />6.65875e-5 months <br />)
identified unresolved items and violations, inspec-
tion of HVAC supports, flex conduit and condulet
-installation, weld material control, concrete place-
ment in the reactor containment exterior wall and
daily site tours.
.
7..
g
,w
i
n
"M
-
+-
.-
.
-_
..
_
-
.
.
'
4
.
T-4-3
L
Report
Number
Inspector
Areas Inspected
,
85-22
Specialist
Inspection of activities pertaining to previously
,
(35 hours4.050926e-4 days <br />0.00972 hours <br />5.787037e-5 weeks <br />1.33175e-5 months <br />)
identified items, preventive maintenance program for
the emergency diesel generators and associated
equipment.
85-23
Specialist
Inspection of activities pertaining to previously
(73 hours8.449074e-4 days <br />0.0203 hours <br />1.207011e-4 weeks <br />2.77765e-5 months <br />)
identified items, work observations and documentation
relative to the installation of instruments and
electrical equipment.
85-24
Specialist
Inspection of licensee's action on unresolved items
(35 hours4.050926e-4 days <br />0.00972 hours <br />5.787037e-5 weeks <br />1.33175e-5 months <br />)
and violations in the area of structural, piping and
electrical supports.
i
85-25
Resident and
Inspection of activities pertaining to previously
Project Engr.
identified unresolved items, inspection of electrical
(174 hours0.00201 days <br />0.0483 hours <br />2.876984e-4 weeks <br />6.6207e-5 months <br />)
terminations and monorail systems, environmental
qualification of safety-related junction boxes,
electrical rework control, review of radiographic
films of main steam piping field welds _and inservice
inspection procedures, review of licensee action on
Information Notices, Part 21 Reports, Bulletins and
disposition of Nonconformance and Disposition Reports
and daily site tours.
85-26
Resident
Inspection of activities pertaining to previously
(188 hours0.00218 days <br />0.0522 hours <br />3.108466e-4 weeks <br />7.1534e-5 months <br />)
identified unresolved items, 50.55(e) reports, de-
i
ficient limitorque operators, lay-up of installed
equipment, QA/QC program in proof-testing activities,
design / construction of main steam piping to auxiliary
,
i
feedwater turbine, preservice examinations, fire
protection system supports and daily site tours.
a
i
86-01
Resident
Inspection of licensee's activities pertaining to
(54 hours6.25e-4 days <br />0.015 hours <br />8.928571e-5 weeks <br />2.0547e-5 months <br />)
Pre-operational testing.
86-02
Resident
Inspection of activities pertaining to previously
(253 hours0.00293 days <br />0.0703 hours <br />4.183201e-4 weeks <br />9.62665e-5 months <br />)
identified unresolved ite 3, environmental qualifi-
(
cation of electrical termination blocks and Raychem-
splices, installation of flexible conduit, cleanli-
ness controls of equipment during flushing activities
measurement of pipe support clearances, reviews of
steam generator shot peening, rework controls, tech-
nical reviews of engineering disposition and daily
site tours.
!
.
__.
-
- _ _ .
__
,
_ _ _ . , - _
__-,_-_._-._.i.,
.m , _
_
.
.
.
T-4-4
Report
!
Number
Inspector
Areas Inspected
86-03
Specialist
Inspection of activities pertaining to previously
(104 hours0.0012 days <br />0.0289 hours <br />1.719577e-4 weeks <br />3.9572e-5 months <br />)
identified items, installation of instrumentation
tubing and reviews of voltage profiles.
86-04
Resident
Inspection of licensee actions on previous inspection
(62 hours7.175926e-4 days <br />0.0172 hours <br />1.025132e-4 weeks <br />2.3591e-5 months <br />)
findings, preoperational test program implementation,
emergency diesel generator testing and review of
several preoperational test procedures.
86-05
Specialist
Inspection of licensee's action on previous inspec-
(68 hours7.87037e-4 days <br />0.0189 hours <br />1.124339e-4 weeks <br />2.5874e-5 months <br />)
tion findings and Preservice Inspection activities.
86-06
Resident
Inspection of licensee actions on previous inspection
(124 hours0.00144 days <br />0.0344 hours <br />2.050265e-4 weeks <br />4.7182e-5 months <br />)
findings, preoperational test program implementation,
and review of several preoperational test procedures
l
(CILRT and recirculation and quench spray).
i
..
_.
-
-
-
.
.-
.
. - - .__
.-
8
.
4
i
ATTACHMENT 1
!
ENFORCEMENT DATA
Report
Severity
Functional
Number
Subject
Level
Area
85-13-01
Safety-related piping
routed under and through
non-seismic stairs.
Dev.
21
85-13-02
Final Quality Control
inspected pipe off
location.
IV
2
85-14-01
Insufficient clearances
around welds for performing
inservice inspection.
V
2
'
85-16-01
Promptly correcting and
closing Nonconformance
j
and Disposition Reports.
IV
9
l
85-21-01
Quality Control Inspector
1
Error.
IV
9 AND 4
4
85-23-01
Slope of instrumentation
tubing not in compliance
!
'
with requirements.
IV
6
i
85-25-01
Non-nuclear grade
j
terminal blocks installed
j
on feedwater isolation
t
valve.
IV
5
4
!
85-25-02
Non-seismic monorails
1
installed above safety-
j
related components.
Dev.
4
i
!
f
i
4
4
e
'
!
4
i
,,.. ,. _ _ - - _ - . .,
._.....~..___,c_.
.
. , - . _ . = ,
. _ . . _ _ - - _ . _ . . , - _ . _ . - , _ . - - - - , - .
_
-
TAB #6
,
Sh2st 1 of 2
.
'
.
1st QUARTER 1986 UPDATE
SIGNIFICANT ELECTRICAL ITEMS
ISSUE:
_g-
_
_
'
R.G. ?..-75 External, Wrap and Covers
STATUS:
Engineering has revised 100% of the RE-39 series drawings that show tray
covers as an initial attempt.
Drawings will continue to be revised as
building walkdowns occur.
There are three hundred and fifty-seven (357) ECSRs associated with the
Diesel Generator. Building.
One hundred and twenty-six (126) or thirty-five
(35%) percent will require wrapping of cables.
Of these approximately
one hundred (100) have been implemented.
A total of seven thousand three hundred and eighty-four (7,384) ECSRs
have been answered or approximately
fifty-eight
(58%)
percent.
The
remaining ECSR,s are expected to be answered by Engineering by July 1986.
The Inspection Procedure 12.1 was issued on March 3, 1986 for the inspection
of wraps and covers.
Construction of the Diesel Generator Building began
on March 5, 1986.
A total of one hundred and four (104) manual personnel and ten (10)
nonmanual personnel have been trained thusfar.
Training occurs every
six weeks for ner personnel or transfers.
FCP 403 has been revised to include criteria for tray release before cover
installation.
This FCP is expected'to be issued at the beginning of the
2nd quarter of 1986.
.
PLAN TO COMPLETE:
1.
Action:
Answer remaining 32% of ECSRs.
Responsibility:
SWEC-SEG
Schedule
By building / area turnover.
100% complete by the end of July 1986.
2.
Action:
Continue installation of remaining 57% of covers
and 20% of wraps in the Diesel Generator Building.
Responsibility:
SECO
Schedule:
Complete wraps by July 1, 1986.
Complete covers by May 9, 1986.
EJH
4/10/86
k
_
_
_-
---. . .,
TAB #6
Sheet 2 of 2
'
~
.
3.
Action:
Review and approve FSAR Change Notice 1473.
Responsibility:
DLC
Schedule:
Next schedule FSAR addenda, early July 1986.
FSAR Change Notice 1473 was issued by SWEC on March 31, 1986 and
,y
transmitted to DLC on. 2DLS-27273.
Other associated areas are being
-
investigated and may result in future FSAR change notices.
. . - -
4.
Action:
Continue to install wraps and covers in other buildings.
Responsibility:
SECO
Schedules
Consistent with building / area turnovere.
.
e
.
O
EJH
4/18/86
,
_
,_.
_ _
,_
. _ _ _ .
O l.75 Estevv en Catnrets, Revision 8,
5/ 5/86. File !? MITER.OT
- - o
.
h e:wred t1
1984
1985
abv
Bue
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jet
Aug
Sep
Det
Nov
Bee ,
JA Brecristem
I 8 15 22 29 6 13 20 27 3 to 17 24 317 14 21 28 ' 1421284 1118252 9 1623306 1320274 11 18 25 I 8 1522295 1219263 101724317 1421285'1219
0 1 23456789 10111213141516171819 20 El 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3132 M 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4142 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 5152 53 54 55 56 57 50 59
i N61.75 Testarul
0:en:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: nsus:::::::ns::: )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
I
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 Prepare Fimi Drport
) ::::::::: en::::::::: m:n:::::::al
. . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .
4
...............................I.
. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .
5 BLC Peview 8 fWrove
) ::::entstensustnies:Inniassises:H)
. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. , . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
I
. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .. . . . . .
. , .
. . . . . . . . . .
7 Sassait Results to NRC
I nni m u n nis m:::::::::::::::m e m s::n)
. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
I
I.
. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. .. . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
1 nome IE-D Series
I sen::::::::::::::::: en nsm:: ensantaineson)
. . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
D
I.
. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
Il Revise 28W - 931
O ntsustann!
. . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . ... . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .
12
x...........................................................
131aq Cables for Israp
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8:: e nis sis sis snin s e n s t ma no s:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .... . . .. . . . . . . . .
15 Complete Amer 4
. . . . . . . One:::::::::::: en::::::::::::::::::en::::: ens:::en:::::::::::::::ents:nsninn
. . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
%
. .
..........................................................
17 Trainig
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O: e n e s i a s s i s t e n s e n s n i s tis s e s s e s
. .
G
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................................
19 Isotall laran 4 Covers
...".....................................
. . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . .
........................................
20
t.
........ . . . . . . . . . .
21 Issue 2N41
. .
.........................................................
.
22
I.
..... . . . . . . . . . . . . .
........................................
23 Isise 2DWi-173
. . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . .
........................................
Sortig creer is Curier4 w*r
From tie fir *t yb to the last job
Jds using all s'enlis
Symbolf splanat tan
I-4
Seeaben of a erwn 1 Job
l..)
Start tiet for a v.risal JM
Wl Buretson af a avit tral path job
Siti De atsan 4 a rev,4eted job
O
Job with *ro de alion
Joh drattlife
6-l
job with ao pr.repigstes
I-I
J4 math am sectes -ers
?
iner bred due to actaday or seek-off
TAB *6
.
SHEET I OF 2
.
..
--
-. -
-
-
.
.
-
._
.
- _ _
O l.75 Enternal la Cabire's
,
, ,, ,
trussim 8 Y
Fily IREIIIR.E1
1986
OrcJan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jet
Aug
Sep
Oct
law
Osc
Joh mesc-irtam
262 9 1623306 1320276 1320273 to 17 24 8 8 1522295 1219263 101724317 1421284 Il18252 9 1623306 1320274 11 18 25
-
60 El 62 63 64 65 E 67 68 69 70 78 72 7J 74 75 76 77 70. 79 80 8102 83 84 85 86 87 88 09 90 98 92 93 94 95 % 97 98 99100 102 104 106 100 110 112
i C31.75 Testing
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................
2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................
3orerwe Final W.swt
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................
4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................
5 Cf. Arvisu 8 Ancrove
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................
6
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................
7 Selmit Results to seit
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................
8
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................
9 A. vise F-39 Wies
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................
p
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................
Il Revise 2DV5 - 911
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........................
W
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........................
) 'an Cables fer Wras
- .
)
. . .
14
.......................I
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
15 resplete asuork
)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................
G
E
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................
Il Training
- .
)
. . ........................
c
....I
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . ........................
19 install Israr 4 Covers
0::::::::::::::::::::::::
I
. . . . . . . . . .
,
20
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........................
I
211ssue 21WIF41
8:ssts:::::::: I .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . ...........................
22
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............................
23 Insee 2NFill
D:::::::::::::::==I
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. ...............................
~
.
.
TAB
6
SHEET 2 OF2
.
+
- < o
2.
. .w: *
TAB #7
,
Shsat 1 of 1
.s.
e
,
1st QUARTER 1986 UPDATE
SIGNIFICANT ELECTRICAL ITEM
ISSUE:
R.G. 1.75 - Internal Panels
.
STATUS:
Two hundred and nineteen (219) of the three hundred and twenty-four (324)
panels have been reviewed and accepted by Engineering or released to
Construction and SQC,
Approximately fifty-five (55%) percent have been
fully accepted by DLC/SQC.
The remaining one hundred and five (105) panels
fall into three (3) categories.
Category 1 -
Sixty-two (62) panels have been resolved by FSAR Change
Notice 14-73 and were sent to DLC on 3/27/86 for review
.
and approval (if acceptable the change will be included
in the next scheduled FSAR addenda submittal expected for
,
early July 1986).
Category 2 -
Thirty-two (32) panels are Westinghouse panels in which
a
field
walkdown
has
been
completed
and
qualfication
documents or FSAR change might be required to resolve
concerns.
Category 3 -
The remaining eleven (11) panels
involve BOP qualified
isolators.
All three (3) categories are being actively expedited.
PLAN TO COMPLETE:
1.
Action:
Resolve Westinghouse panel concerns.
,
Responsibility:
SWEC/ Westinghouse
Schedule:
End of 2nd quarter 1986.
2.
Action:
Make design chang'es or obtain qualification
data for BOP isolators.
Responsibility:
SWEC Boston
Schedule
End of 2nd quarter 1986.
3.
Action:
Rework panels according to dispositioned ECSRs.
Responsibility:
SECO
Schedules
Complete by October 2, 1986.
,
EJH
4/17/86
.
-
.
,
e. o
.
.
C31.75 Internal To Cabie ts, fievissce 9,
5/ 6/86, File 1751NTER.DAl
.
Prepaid by
1984
1985
len,
Ore
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
slay
Jun
Jet
Aug
Sep
Oct
nov
Dee
M Descr Ption
I 8 1522296 1320273 101724317 1421287 14 El 28 4 18 le 25 2 9 1623306 1320274 18 le 251. 8 1522295 1219263 101724317 1421285 12 19
0 1 234 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819 20 2122 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3I 32 33 34 35 36 J7 38 39 40 4142 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 5152 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
1 CS untheuer To ID Probless
03:::::::::::::::al
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
!
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 Field Resobhans To 400
0:::::::::::::::::)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
I.
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 El laptem 4 Solutinen
13 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
. . . . . .
6
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7 9EC Desolve POD 4 Prieless
03 :::::::::: ::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9 Revsw Drawine
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................................
10
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
................................
4
la CS Wal6dcom cf W. ICS Espt.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 :::::::::::::::::::
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
................................
-
13 Resolve NSS5 foot. Pheless
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
................................
14
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............................
.
15 F.S.il R. Changes
03 ::: :: ::::::::::::: :: :::: ::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::: ::::::::::: :::: :::: :: :::: :::: ::: :: :: :: : : :: :: :: ::: :::::::
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
O
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............................
.
17 Pronte Materials
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
. .
O
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................................
19 0.C. Irmpection
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
03 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C)
Y
. . . . . . . . . . . e . . . . . . . . e . .
....e
e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
219C remork lespection
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.........................................
Svt*ag order is Currert worr
Fra t3, larst y3 to t w last yt
Joe s usig all stills
Sydel-Emplanat ten
3-4
Duratica of a norwl job
I. .)
Slack tie. Irr a vureal Jcb
W Duration cf a critical path job
-
3:4 Duration of a completed s(e
o
Joh oth zero duration
.
M seMinne
F4 Job onth e prereqsaseles
I-I
Jot =6th m urcewers
T =. bevah de to teladay or uret-off
TAB
7
-
SHEET I OF 2
.
_-
.
p ar, s -
.
.
.
O 1.75 Intereal to Cabarets
a
t.wister. 9,
5/ 6/M, Fala IF51NTER.! WIT
1986
1987
DecJan
Fee
Mar ,
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
now
Dec
Jan
Jcb Deserne ton
262 9 16 23 30 6 1320276 1320273 to 17 24 I 8 1522295 1219263 101724317 14 El 28 4 11 le 25 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 4 1118251 8 15 22 29
60 6162 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 7172 73 74 75 76 77 is 79 to 8182 83 84 85 46 87 88 89 90 9192 93 94 95 96 97 98 99100 102 104 106 tot 110 112 114 116
176 Walbdouri in ID Preblm
. . . . . . ....................................................
S-
. . . . . . ....................................................
3 Tield R=solutim To 9[0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................................
4
. . . . . . ....................................................
5 TCD fueles.at Salutam
- :: :: :: :: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :: :: : : : : :: : : : : : : : : : : :: : : : : : : ======
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
6
..................................I
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
7 9E Rectie P0a 8 probleen
)
. . ................................
4
...I
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . ................................
9 Revise Dramargs
0 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
M
...I
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
Il MS tlalkdoun of W. NSSS Ecot. 3:3)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............................
Q
I
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............................
13 Anolve NSSS Foot. Probless
I ::::::::::::::::::::::: ):::::::::::::::::::::::::==
>
.
. . . . . .............................
14
I
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15 F.S. A.R. Changes
- = =
>
. . . . . .............................
16
I
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . ......*.........................
17 Preoir, materials
!
. . ................................
t)
I
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
119.C. Irspretion
- I
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
N
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
21 K 9eiswh lea.sectmen
0::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::====
==
-I
e
.
.
TAB
7
l
.
SHEET 2 OF 2
~
.
J