05000395/LER-1982-056, Forwards LER 82-056/03L-0.Detailed Event Analysis Encl

Forwards LER 82-056/03L-0.Detailed Event Analysis Encl

ML20028D321
Person / Time
Site:	Summer
Issue date:	01/07/1983
From:	Dixon O SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS CO.
To:	James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
Shared Package
ML20028D322	List: 05000395/LER-1982-056, Forwards LER 82-056/03L-0.Detailed Event Analysis Encl 05000395/LER-1982-056-03, /03L-0:on 821209,surveillance Test Procedure, Nis Power Range Heat Balance, Not Performed in Specified Intervals.Caused by Personnel Oversight.Administrative Procedures for Control of Surveillances Revised
References
NUDOCS 8301170402
Download: ML20028D321 (2)

LER-1982-056, Forwards LER 82-056/03L-0.Detailed Event Analysis Encl

Event date:
Report date:
3951982056R00 - NRC Website

text

.-

~ -_

i e

i SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY postopric tee COLUMeiA. SOUTH CAROuNA 29218 O. W. DixON, JR.

January 7, 1983 v,e en. 1o ~r NuCLeam Op.mAftoMS i

O Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II, Suite 3100

e 101 Marietta Street, N.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30303 i

i

SUBJECT:

Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Stgion

]

Docket No. 50/395 Operating License No. NPF-12 Thirty Day Written Report LER 82-056

Dear Mr. O'Reilly:

Please find attached Licensee Event Report #82-056 for Virgil 1

C.

Summer Nuclear Station.

This Thirty Day Report is required by Technical Specification 6.9.1.13.(c) as a result of not performing the surveillance requirement of Technical l

Specification 4.3.1.1, Table 4.3-1, Item 2, within the surveillance interval identified in Surveillance Requirement 4.0.2.(a) on December 9, 1982.

Should there be any questions, please call us at your convenience.

Very truly yours, i

/

c

0. W.

Dixon, Jr.

CJM:0WD:dwr Attachment cc:

V.

C.

Summer A.

R.

Koon 4

T.

C.

Nichols, Ja.

G.

D. Moffatt i

G.

H.

Fischer Site QA 0.

W.

Dixon, Jr.

C.

L. Ligon (NSRC)

H.

N.

Cyrus G. J.

Braddick H. T.

Babb J.

L.

Skolds D.

A.

Nauman J.

B. Knotts, Jr.

i M.

B. Whitaker, Jr.

B.

A.

Bursey W.

A.

Williams, Jr.

I&E (Washington) 1 0.

S.

Bradham Document Management Branchg cx9 '0?'O R.

B. Clary INPO Records Center

/

M.

N.

Browne NPCF

1. //

l File

' O'd A

y

[

8301170402 030107 PDR ADOCK 05000395 i

S PDR i

(-

Mr. James P.

O'Reilly LER No.82-056 Page Two January 7, 1983 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF EVENT On December 9,1982, with the Plant in Mode 1, Surveillance Test Procedure (STP) 102.002, "NIS Power Range Heat Balance," was not performed in accordance with the surveillance interval identified in Surveillance Requirement 4.0.2.(a).

This test is required by Technical Specification 4.3 1.1, Table 4.3-1, Item 2, to be performed daily when Rated Thermal Power is above 15%.

The surveillance test was performed at 1330 hours0.0154 days <br />0.369 hours <br />0.0022 weeks <br />5.06065e-4 months <br /> instead of the scheduled 0350 hours0.00405 days <br />0.0972 hours <br />5.787037e-4 weeks <br />1.33175e-4 months <br /> on December 9,1982.

The Plant exceeded the maximum time interval allowed for this test in Surveillance Requirement 4.0.2.(a) at 0950 hours0.011 days <br />0.264 hours <br />0.00157 weeks <br />3.61475e-4 months <br />.

PROBABLE CONSEQUENCES There were no adverse consequences from this event since the Plant had remained at a stable 30% or Rated Thermal Power during the subject time period.

CAUSE(S) 0F THE OCCURRENCE The failure to perform the subject surveillance test during the scheduled time interval is attributed to personnel oversight.

IMMEDIATE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN Surveillance Test Procedure (STP) 102.002 was saticractorily performed on December 9,1982, at 1330 hours0.0154 days <br />0.369 hours <br />0.0022 weeks <br />5.06065e-4 months <br />.

A comparison of calorimetric to excore power indication showed a difference of only 1.21%; therefore, adjustments to the excore channel gains were not necessary as the allowable 2% was not exceeded.

ACTION TAKEN TO PREVENT RECURRENCE Each shift will continue the practice of routinely reviewing the surveillance test schedule.

In addition to this review, which chould be sufficient to prevent recurrence, Station Administrative Procedure (SAP) 134, " control of Station Surveillance Test Activities," is being revised to improve controls on surveillances with short frequencies.

The revision to the administrative procedure is expected to be complete by January 31, 1983