IR 05000280/1978024
| ML18113A664 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 10/23/1978 |
| From: | Burke D, Robert Lewis, Skolds J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18113A663 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-280-78-24, 50-281-78-24, NUDOCS 7812060262 | |
| Download: ML18113A664 (7) | |
Text
Report Nos. :
Docket Nos. :
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION 11 101 MARIETTA STREET, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 50-280/78-24 and 50-281/78-24 50-280 and 50-281 Licensee Nos.:
Virginia Electric and Power Company P. 0. Box 2666 Richmond, Virginia 23261 Facility Name:
Surry Power Station Inspection conducted:
September 12-15, 1978 Inspectors:
D. J. Burke J. L. Skolds B. T. Moon Approved by: g.c. ~
R. C. Lewis, Chief Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Inspection SW1111ary
/~3/71'
Date Inspection on September 12-15, 1978 (Report Nos. 50-280/78-24 and 50-281/78-24)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of plant operations, licensee event reports, saftey injection system features, and IE Circular followu The inspection involved 70 inspector-hours onsite by thr~e NRC insp~ctor Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in the four areas inspected.
7812060262-
~RII Report Nos. 50-280/78-24 and 50-281/78-24 I-1 DETAILS I Prepared by:..........._,..k.;----=:,...._-"--~"'-""'~=--=------- urke, Reactor Inspector Reac or Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch
/,
~
B. T. Moon, eactor Inspector Nuclear Support Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Dates of Inspection:
September 12-15, 1978 Reviewed by:
£. C. ~
R. C. Lewis,Chief Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Persons Contacted Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO)
- 'w. L. Stewart, Superintendent, Station Operations
- J. L. Wilson, Operating Supervisor
- D. S. Taylor, Supervisor, Mechanical Maintenance
- R. E. Nicholls, Supervisor, Electrical Maintenance
- R. Smith, Engineer, Engineering Services
- O. J. Costello, Administrative Assistant (Acting)
D. H. Rickerd, Engineering Technician L. Curfman, Reactor Engineer G. Lohse, Mechanical Maintenance Coordinator M. R. Kansler, Engineer, Engineering Services 1cl2
. lt
~
/~317'8 Date Several Shift Supervisors, Reactor Operators and records personne *Denotes those present at the exit interview on September 15, 197.
Licensee Actions on Previous Inspection Findings
- Not inspecte.
Unresolved Items Ho new unresolved items were identifie *
RII Report Nos. 50-280/78-24 and 50-281/78-24 I-2
- Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives as indicated in paragraph 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on September 15, 197 The inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspectio Review of Reportable Occurances In the office, the inspector reviewed the Reportable Occurrence (RO)
reports listed below to ascertain that NRC reporting requirements were being met and to determine the appropriateness of corrective action taken and planne Certain reports were reviewed at the site to verify corrective action and determine compliance with the Technical Specifications and other regulatory requirement The review included examination of log books, internal correspondence and records, review of SNS & OC meeting minutes, and discussions with various staff member Licensee Event Report (LER) 280/78-04, dated April 4, 1978, addressed the loss of service water (SW) flow through charging pump intermediate seal cooler 1-SW-E-lB, due to failure of the cooler's discharge gate valv Corrosion of the valve stem permitted the disc to drop free and obstruct the SW flow pat The corrosion was determined to be a result of galvanic action between the valve brass and bronze parts in the brackish service wate Since the problem is generic, the licensee has performed an engineering study (78-08), and plans to replace all 52 1\\ and 2 inch valves iri the Unit 1 and 2 systems with all bronze ball valve Some twelve valves have been replaced or repaired with spare parts available at the station, and the licensee is currently awaiting delivery of the replacement ball valve In the aeanti.ae, the licensee is rotating operation of the independent A and B trains of the SW systems in each Unit on a weekly basis, and monitoring system flow to assure operabilit No problems with larger valves in the SW system have been detecte The licensee stated that a supplemental I.ER, specifiying the current status of corrective actions, will be submitte Inspector followup of this LE.R will continue until final resolution is achieve I.ER 281/78-11, dated April 4, 1978, addressed the valve corrosion problems in Unit 2 as discussed in Unit 1 LE.R 78-04 abov LE.R 280/78-02, dated March 6, 1978, addressed a potential P-Thres-hold violation at the one foot core height due to the reduction of the F (Z) limit from 2.00 to 1.85 on December 2, 1977 (TS Amendmen@s 34 and 35).
The INCORE analysis results of flux maps taken since the above amendment date show that no potential violation of the Fq(Z) liait bas occurred to date at the 1 foot
- RI! Report Nos. 50-280/78-24 and 50-281/78-24 I-3 core elevatio In addition, a change has been implemented in the flux map evaluation sheet to include the P-Threshold calcula-tion at the 1 foot core elevation for the remainder of cycle LER 280/281/78-05, dated March 23, 1978, concerned a LOCA ECCS nonconservatism in the Westinghouse LOCA-ECCS Evaluation Mode The consequence of the event is that the F limit value bas been lowered by administrative instructions tba~ require APDH surveil-lance for power operation above 82% for Unit 1 and 85% for Unit LER 280/78-19, dated July 23, 1978 LER 280/78-23, dated July 26, 1978 LER 280/78-25, dated July 31, 1978 LER 281/78-21, dated June 28, 1978 LER 281/78-23, dated June 29, 1978 LER 281/78-24, dated June 30, 1978 The above LER's concerned the inlet circulating water and service water temperature exceeding the Technical Specification limit for normal operatio For all cases, the reactor power was reduced and then returned to rated power after the inlet water temperature decreased below the limit valu The Facility Operating Licenses have been amended recently to increase the maximum service water temperature from 85° to 90° LER 280/78-17, dated June 30, 1978, concerned the inadequate handling of procedure deviations for four electrical maintenance procedures and two periodic test procedure The SNS&OC ascertained that this was an error in documentation and that all station maintenance personnel would be informed of the requirements to be aet when procedure deviations are deemed necessar The personnel were informed, and current documentation appears adequat IE Circular 78-08 Followup The inspector reviewed the licensee's actions and programs to verify that appropriate reviews and necessary actions will be taken as a result of IE Circular 78-08, "Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related Electrical Equipment at Nuclear Power Plants", dated Kay 31, 197 At the time of the inspection, the licensee bad assigned respon-sibility for reviewing the items referenced in Circular 78-08, but the reviews were just begining due to manpower prioritie Due to the size and complexity of the review, the licensee's best estiaate for a program was November l, 197 The inspector noted that aany electrical components used at the Surry Power Station were tested in 1970 under a Westinghouse testing program, and the results were docwaented in WCAP
~RI! Report Nos. 50-280/78-24 and 50-281/78-24 I-4 L, "Environmental Testing of Engineered Safety Features Related Equipment."
In addition, the licensee has responded to IE Bulletins and NRC requests which addressed environ.mental qualifications of certain electrical components, and is re-reviewing this dat This item remains ope Plant Operations The inspector toured the Unit 1 and Unit 2 control rooms and certain plant areas to observe that monitoring equipment and plant instrumenta-tion was functioning as required, and that the facility operations were in accordance with the Technical Specifications. Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie During the plant tour, the inspector verified that facility procedures adequately addressed the necessary operator actions prior to and after safety injection system rese The inspector also verified that
"lock-out" relays on plant safety-related breakers were monitored and annunciate The inspector had no further questions at this tim * RII Report Nos. 50-280/78-24 and 50-281/78-24 DETAILS II Prepared II-I by:~~
J. L. Skolds, Reactor Inspector Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Dates of Inspection:
September 12-15, 1978 Reviewed by:,i?.C.. /,~
R. C. Lewis, Chief Persons Contacted Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Virginia Electric and Power Corporation (VEPCO)
- W. L. Stewart, Superintendent Station Operations
- J. L. Wilson, Operating Supervisor
- D. S. Taylor, Supervisor, Mechanical Maintenance
- F. L. Rentz, QA Supervisor
- R. E. Nicholls, Supervisor, Electrical Maintenance
/h~he
~*
/tf.f-3/78 Date Several control room operators, shift supervisors and records personne *Denotes those present at the exit intervie.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspecte.
Unresolved Items None identified during this inspectio.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives as indicated in para-graph 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on September 15, 197 The inspector SUD1Darized the scope and findings of the inspection and discussed the open item *
RII Report Nos. 50-280/78-24 and 50-281/78-24 II-2 * *
Plant Operations A review of plant operations was conducted to ascertain whether facility operations were in conformance with regulatory requirements, technical specifications, and administrative procedures. Shift logs, operating records, jumper logs, tag logs, and logbook reviews were inspected against the requirements of Administrative Procedure 29, "Conduct of Operations" and Technical Specification 6.4, "Unit Operating Procedures".
A plant tour was conducted on both units to verify that monitoring equipment was operating as required, equipment was properly tagged, operations personnel were aware of plant conditions, and that plant housekeeping efforts were adequat In reviewing the active jumper log as well as the inactive jumper log sheets, it was noted by the inspector that the safety evaluation for unreviewed safety question was almost always being performed after the jumper was installe Conversations with plant personnel disclosed that the jumpers were installed when the equipment was out of servic The inspector informed management that if a jumper is installed in safety-related equipment and the equipment is to be operated with t.he jumper installed, a safety evaluation must be done prior tot.he instal-latio The safety evaluation was done subsequent to the installation at a time when it was determined that the equipment may need to be operated with the jumper installe Information taken from the jumper log sheets did not indicate equipment operating statu Operating status of safety-related equipment while jumpers were installed was not determined from plant records by t.he inspecto This item will remain open (280/281/78-24-0l) pending review of plant operating records during a subsequent inspectio Review of Honroutine Events Reported by t.he Licensee The inspector reviewed licensee actions with respect to the following listed nonroutine event reports to verify that the events were reviewed and evaluated by the licensee as required by technical specifications, that corrective action was taken by the licensee and that safety limits, limiting safety system settings, and limiting conditions for operation were not exceede The inspector examined selected Operations CoD111ittee minutes, licensee investigation reports, logs, records and interviewed selected personne Valve Improperly Assembled, I.ER 78-16, Unit 1 - No items of noncom-pliance or deviations were identifie The inspector noted that the licensee bad not indicated int.he maintenance procedure, used to disassemble and reassemble this type of valve, 1tep1 which could be taken which could prevent this occurrence from happening in the futur This item will remain open (280/281/78-24-02) pending review of the aaintenance procedure during a 1ubsequent inspection.