ML20207E305
| ML20207E305 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 12/18/1986 |
| From: | Carey J DUQUESNE LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Wenzinger E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| References | |
| 2NRC-6-125, NUDOCS 8701020135 | |
| Download: ML20207E305 (3) | |
Text
.
'Af 2NRC-6-125 520 V1 No. 2 Unit Project organization P.O. Box 328 Dec. 18, 1986 Shippingport, PA 15077 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 Mr. Edward C. Wenzinger, Chief ATTENTION:
Division of Reactor Prograus Beaver Valley Power Station - Unit No. 2
SUBJECT:
Docket No. 50-412 Inspection Report 50-412/86-31 19, 1986 (E. C. Wenzinger to J. J. Carey)
REFERENCE:
Letter dated November Gentlemen:
The attachment to this letter provides Duquesne response pursuant to the requirenents of 10CFR2.201 and the NRC's N A.
Violation.
DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY s
" J. J. Carey Sr. Vice President LMR/ijr NR/IN/RPT/50412 Attachment Mr. P. Tam, Project Manager (w/a)
Ms. A. A. Asars, NRC Resident Inspector (w/a) cc:
Mr. J. Beall, NRC Senior Resident Inspector (w/a)
HRC Document Control Oesk (w/a) 8701020135 861218 PDR ADOCK 05000412 G
pyg TCO\\
I
X:
vif.
. United: States Nucicar Regulat:ry Commissi n
[,
' Mr. Edward C. Wenzinger, Chief g-9
. Inspection Report 50-412/86-31
{
. P age : 2.
[
V
- h..
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA )
L-
)
SS:
[
COUNTY OF BEAVER-
)
h~
~
, /[kd
, before me, a On this /[O day of 1
t3
. Notary Public in and for said Commonwealth and County, personally appeared J. J. Carey, who being duly sworn, deposed and said that (1) he is Senior f.
Vice President, of -.Duquesne Light, (2) he is duly authorized to execute and ki file the foregoing Submittal on behalf of said-Company, and (3) the statenents. set forth in the Submittal are true and correct to the best of his
' knowledge.., >
)
J ELVA G. LESONDAK I.?
N
~
/
4 g
Notary Public Shippingport, Beaver County, PA My Commission Expires:
October 20, 1990 p.
p-
x 3
p s.
f Y
)i i
Notice'of Violation 86-31-04 7
[
As a result of the inspection conducted on October 4 - November 2,1986, and in accordance with' the " general Statenent of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforce-I ment' Actions," 10CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1985), the following violation was identified:
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V requires activities affecting quality to be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures or drawings which include appropriate quantitative or qualitative acceptance criteria for detennining that important activities have been satisf actorily accon-plished.
In addition,10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion X requires a progran for inspection of activities affecting quality to be established and executed to verify confonnance with documented instructions, procedures and draw-ings for acconplishing the activity.
Contrary to the above, as of October 28, 1986, Specification 2BVS-920 and Inspection Procedures 7.3.1 and 10.5 did not contain appropriate quanti-tative or qualitative acceptance criteria to effectively measure rigid sway strut paddle / bracket clearances to ensure that 10 degrees of lateral movement, as designed, could be achieved.
Furthennore. QC inspection for support 2 SIS-PSST-3024 shown on Drawing Number 12241-BZ-81A-6-2B, failed to verify confonnance with paddle / bracket clearance requirenents as de-scribed by aforenentioned specification and inspection procedures in that 10 degrees of lateral movement could not be achieved.
This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplanent II).
Response
The chanfering of strut paddles was specifically directed to resolve design tolerance induced interferences (PNR 84-18-03), on Power Piping Company (PPC) size 20, 25 and 40 Figure 350 and 360 struts and specific Figure 146 brackets.
Other PPC strut paddle bracket assenblies and those provided by other manuf ac-turers were detennined, based o manuf acturers information, not to be subject to design tolerances which could potentially cause interference.
The PPC evalu-ation of UNR 84-18-03 concluded that the restriction of lateral rotation would not cause failure to the strut.
As stated in the inspection raoort, the acceptance criteria presented to the QC inspectors were not sufficiently explicit.
In addition to the PPC struts that contained the tolerance induced interference, strut brackets by other manuf ac-turers may have clearance problens related to the manuf acturing process such as oversized welds.
Therefore, to address the abov e concerns, specification 2BVS-920 will be revised to clarify clearance acceptance criteria.
All QA Category I rigid sway struts, approximately 400, will be reinspected to verify clearance acceptability.
Inspection of these rigid sway struts is expected to be conplete by approximately February 27, 1987.
a
l
+
~ RECEIVEp.pgggy,
g?* EEC 23 ' FH I: Sg 1
t
(
I
/*
_