IR 05000280/1979023
| ML18116A338 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 06/05/1979 |
| From: | Brownlee V, Kellogg P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18116A333 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-280-79-23, 50-281-79-35, NUDOCS 7908150274 | |
| Download: ML18116A338 (5) | |
Text
.
~
_ t J_
e e
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 Report Nos. 50-280/79-23 and 50-281/79-35 Licensee:
Virginia Electric and Power Company Richmond, Virginia 23261 Facility Name:
Surry Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Docket No and 50-281 License No DPR-32 and DPR-37 Surry, Virginia SUMMARY Inspection on May 9-10, 1979 Areas Inspected
~!tt{?!d This routine unannounced inspection involved 19 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of steam generator replacement QA program records management, audits and independent inspection effor Results Of the three areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in two areas; one apparent item of noncompliance was found in one area (Deficiency - Failure to follow procedures - Paragraph 7 and 8).
7 9 08150 8..~~
"
..
.
.
.
.
.. _, * *, -----'~ _., -
~* -*,u -....... -.. * ~-....... **,-* 1,*.r,..,.*w...,,* *._.,.._..... <--***
- >,- -***** **.-,-.
<,..,., - -~-....,.-~.....,_.. **--~*-"" ->.>-*.,..._ _,_,, ***
- * *
e e
DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- R. L. Baldwin, Supervisor, Administrative Services
- R. Bradshaw, Steam Generator Replacement Project (SGRP)
- E. P. DeWandel, Staff Assistant
- D. Kildoo, Station QC
- T. A. Peebles, Superintendent Technical Services S. Rowe, Supervisor, Records Management
- R. F. Saunders, Superintendent, Maintenance
- W.R. Skelley, SGRP Staff Assistant
- W. L. Stewart, Station Manager
- A. P. Watson, SGRP J. L. Wilson, Superintendent, Operations Other licensee employees contacted included six office personne :NRC Resident Inspector
- D. J. Burke
- Attended exit intervie.
hit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on Kay 11, 1979 with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 abov The licensee acknowledged the findings of this inspectio.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspecte.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspectio Independent Inspection Effort The inspector performed a walk through inspection of the operating plant warehouse and observed some rigging, handling, transport and storage acti-vities of bottom half of the steam generator No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie {;
,,
I
-
.
-... - - -
_.:.-_.. _,_ -;._... -*----* - - --
- -----*----
- __ _..... ___________ ---'-*----~---- --
- -- -* ---*-* --~-- - - -- ----~--- *-- *- -- ***-- ------ -- -----* -
-..,
e e-2-Design Control (Field Changes) Reference: a. VEPCO Project Operating Procedure (POP) 2.8. "Handling of Final Design Packages - Steam Generator Replacement Project" Items 280/79-08-09 and 281/79-09-09 are closed based on issue and imple-mentation of POP 2.8.3.1. The licensee met the conmitment dates for issue and implementation of the procedure as noted in the respective report (280/79-08 and 281/79-09), paragraph 7.C.(4). The inspector selected three Engineering Task Assignment (ETA) packages (40001, 40021, 40025) to verify that field changes to the ETA's were being initiated, approved and distributed as required by the POP. The ETA packages issued to Daniel QC, Daniel Engineering and the working packages at the personnel air lock to the containment were checke lo items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie Record Retention and Maintenance Reference: VEPCO Project Operating Procedure (POP) 2.8.5,
"Handling of QA Records - Steam Generator Replacement Project" Items 280/79-08-08 and 281/79-09-08 are closed based on issue and imple-
- entation of POP 2.8.5. The licensee met the conmitment dates for issue and implementation of the procedure as noted in the respective report (280/79-08 and 281/79-09), paragraph 7.b. VEPCO has opted for dual storage of QA records relating to the SGRP until the records are entered into permanent plant files. All SGRP related QA records are included in the ETA's or final design package With the exception of three ETA's, VEPCO has established a controlled working ETA log room at the personnel air lock to containment and a second ETA file (master) has been established in the clean change building. All sign off data from the working copy are trans-ferred to the master. The master copy is the document which will be incor-porated into the permanent fil As individual portions of an ETA are signed off, Daniel QC will verify accuracy of reproduced copy prior to forwarding to Office of Records Management Supervisor, Power Station Engineering and Construction, Richmon As each ETA is completed for each unit it will be verified by VEPCO QA and microfilme The inspector examined the auxiliary building and clean change building log room facilities, held discussions with log room personnel, observed operations between the log rooms and checked ETA 10061; 20027; 30005 to verify that the master copies accurately reflected the working copy sign off The inspector identified that ETA 10061, master copy, was not being main-tained as POP 2.8.5 requires. Further examination of this area identified that three ETA'1 (10037 - 10061 - 60004) were being handled differently from those in the established log rooms. ETA' s 10037 and 60004 were checked by the inspector and verified to be accurate. The problem with ETA 10061
.. * *;;.** I -*
Ii
. *-*-*- _. *-**.. -*--. --~ -** ****-- ---- -~---- -*-* -* -**---** -*
e e
- 3-appears to be an isolated case, and in this case, does not appear to have safety significanc The Records Management personnel etarted illlnediate corrective action. Failure to implement controlling procedure requirements for ETA 10061 is combined with findings of paragraph 8 of this report to form an item of noncompliance (50-280/79-23-01 and 50-281/79-35-01). Drawing Control References: Project Operating Procedure 2.8.2,
"Drawing Management" The inspector reviewed the referenced document, examined the facilities relative to storage and control of drawings, held discussions with respon-sible record aanagement personnel and selected eighteen cu,rrent drawing associated with ETA 40001, 40021, and 40025 to determine if drawings had been properly processed and were of the latest revisio VEPCO Records Management Office, Daniel QC, Daniel Engineering and the auxiliary building log room ETA files were checked to determine that the selected drawings had been properly distributed and were posted in the work location file During review of the Daniel QC ETA files the inspector identified that nine out of ten drawings checked in ETA 40025 were not of the latest revisio Further investigation determined that several of the Daniel QC ETA'* had drawings that had been supercede VEPCO Records Management personnel started imediate corrective actio The Daniel QC ETA file has been issued primarily as a controlled information file, not a working file, therefore; this problem does not appear to have safety significance. All other files checked ftre curren The aatter of Daniel QC ETA's not having current drawings is coabined with the findings of paragraph 7 of this report to form an item of noncoapliance (50-280/79-23-0l and 50-281/79-35-01). Audits Reference: a. VEPCO NPSQAH, Section 18, "Audits" The inspector held discussions with the responsible VEPCO representatives; reviewed audit reports 79-1 through 79-5, supporting documents, and correc-tive action responses to the report findings. During the audit review the inspector identified that the time period requirements for report preparation, distribution and/or audited organization responses of NPSQAM Section 18, paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5.1 were not being met. Paragraph 5.4 requires that a written audit report be prepared and distributed within five working days after the audit. Paragraph 5.5.1 requires ~at the cognizant aanager for the area being audited respond to the audit report within fifteen working days from the date of receipt of the audit report. VEPC0'1 controlling procedure ia more restrictive regarding the fifteen day time period for the audited organization response than the applicable ANSI N45.2.12*1977 standard, which specifies thirty days *
J
-
.--
.
""-
'.
~
, e e
- 4-VEPCO SGRP -QC is developing a different approach to the project audit progra A qualified individual has been brought on board to develop and implement the ongoing audit program. The Surry Power Station SGRP QA Local Instruction - Monitoring Audit Activities is ready for approva The annual audit schedule SGRP 1979 has been developed and several area audit checklists have been completed with several in the process of completio The aatter of timeliness of report preparation, distribution and audited organization response is identified as an inspector followup item (50-280/
79-23-02 and 50-281.79*35-02).
llo items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.