IR 05000280/1979007
| ML18113A958 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 02/14/1979 |
| From: | Cantrell F, Skolds J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18113A956 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-280-79-07, 50-280-79-7, 50-281-79-07, 50-281-79-7, NUDOCS 7903280031 | |
| Download: ML18113A958 (3) | |
Text
Report Nos:
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTA STREET, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 50-280/79-7 and 50-281/79-7 Licensee: Virginia Electric and Power Company P. 0. Box 26666 Richmond, Virginia 23261 Facility Name:
Surry Power Station Docket Nos.: 50-280 and 50-281 License Nos.: DPR-32 and DPR-37 (-
,)
Approved by Chief, RONS Branch
SUMMARY Inspection on January 29 - February 1, 1979 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 27 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of review of safety limits, limiting safety system settings and limiting conditions for operation, follow-up of open items and licensee event report Results Of the three areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
r
DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- W. L. Stewart, Station Manager
- J. L. Wilson, Operations Superintendent
- R. F. Saunders, Maintenance Superintendent
- T. A. Peebles, Superintendent, Engineering Services
- F. L. Rentz, Resident QC Engineer
- R. L. Baldwin, Supervisor, Administrative Services
- E. P. Dewandel, Administrative Assistant Other licensee employees contacted included technicians and operator NRC Resident Inspector
- D. J. Burke
- Attended exit intervie Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on February 1, 1979 with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1, abov.
Licensee Actions on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspecte.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during,this inspectio.
Review of Safety Limits, Limiting Safety System Settings and Limiting Conditions for Operation Reactor operations were reviewed to ascertain whether Technical Speci-fication requirements for safety limits, limiting safety system settings, and limiting conditions for operation were being adhered to. Confirma-tion of compliance with Technical Specifications involved the following considerations:
Direct observations of process instrumentation monitoring current operation *
-2-Direct observation of consoles, panels and annuniciator boards for equipment "out of service".
Review of monitoring instrumentation charts for historical review of events or operations (i.e., power changes, transients, abnormal occurrences).
Review of surveillance requirement records and maintenance report Discussions with operators on shif Approximately fifteen (15) parameters which have Technical Specifi-cation limiting values were selected at random and checked for confor-mance to required values. Approximately twenty-five (25) surveillance requirements were selected at random and checked for conformance to required value Systems included the reactor coolant system, control rod system, turbine system, containment system, safety injection system, spray systems and emergency power syste Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviation were identifie.
Licensee Event No. 50-281/78-38, "Flow Blockage in Boric Acid Lines" The licensee reported this occurrence in a letter dated November 17, 197 The event involved the blockage of flow by crystallized boron in a boric acid line. The inspector reviewed the maintenance report, the deviation report and the licensee event repor The inspector noted that the "cause subcode" on the LER was listed as "X" and the
"cause code" was listed as "B".
According to NUREG-0161, "Instruction for Preparation of Data Entry Sheets for LER File", if the Cause Code is "B", the Cause Sub code must be either A, B, or The licensee has agreed to correct this error and submit a supplemental repor.
Status of Open Items Jumper Controls (78-24-01)
This item involved the performance of safety evaluations after the installation of safety-related jumper The inspector reviewed both active and inactive jumper logs on both units. It was noted by the inspector that some safety evaluations were being performed on jumpers after the jumper was installed. In all cases observed by the inspector, these safety evaluations were being done on jumpers that were installed per a procedure (i.e., EMP, MMP, etc.), or on jumpers that did not actually need a safety evaluation but had one done anywa This item is considered closed.