IR 05000281/1980024
| ML18139A536 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 07/25/1980 |
| From: | Kellogg P, Sauer R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18139A532 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-281-80-24, NUDOCS 8009240684 | |
| Download: ML18139A536 (6) | |
Text
e e
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
Virginia Electric and Power Company Richmond, VA 23261 Facility Name:
Surry 2
- License No. DPR-37 Inspection at:
SUMMARY Inspection on June 23-27, 1980 Areas Inspected
- >
This routine, unannounced inspection involved 62 inspector-hours on site in the areas of construction testing, preoperational testing, review of completed tests, previously identified items, and operation Results Of the five areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identi-fied in four areas: one item of noncompliance was found in one are (Inf rac-tion - failure to adequately review test results - Paragraph 3.)
- DETAILS
'
'Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- J. L. Wilson, Station Manager
- R. F. Saunders, Assistant Manager
- L. A,* Johnson, Mai11tenance f;,up~dntend.ent
- T. A. Peebles, Superintendent, Technical Services
- S. Stevens, Operations Supervisor
- F. L. Rentz, Station QC
- M. Towers, System QA
- O. J. Castello, Staff Assistant Other organizations
- W. Matejek, S & W Advisory Operations NRC Resident Inspector
- D. E. Burke
- Denotes those present at the exit intervie.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with the licensee representatives at the conclusion of the inspection on June 27, 1980. J. L. Wilson, Station Manager, agreed to investigate the item of noncomplianc.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved item (281/80-04-01) isolation of steam generators from the reactor vessel and reactor coolant pumps during hydrostatic testing per Westinghouse directio In January 1980 primary hydrostatic testing was completed and performed in accordance with ETA 50006 without the reactor coolant pumps being isolated. Review of westinghouse letter SSGR-WC-1655 dated March 21, 1980 from P. Furr to W. Proffitt identified that Westinghouse has evaluated the effect of the primary hydrostatic test pressure and temperature on the reactor coolant pumps and found the condition to be acceptable. No further action is required on this ite.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information i's required to.*
determine whether they are acceptable or may involve noncompliance or deviation New unresolved items identified during this inspection are discussed in Paragraph==--=---.~----=== ------- ----
- {
- e-2-System Release Package Review The following system release packages released for unrestricted use by the Lead Advisory Engineer were inspecte The inspection covered system release boundaries, appropriate retests and associated,results as well as resolution of deficiencies noted on system walkdowns: * *
2-4-3-13 2-22-4-1 2-25--1-1 2-26-2-1 2-27-1-1 2-27-4-5 Regenerative & Demineralized piping to Sumps-6/6/80 4160V Busses & Controls-5/18/80 Reactor Coolant System-6/7i8o Charging High Head SI & Seal Water 5/20/80 Low Head Safety Injection-4/10/80 Chemical Addition Tank-5-29-80 Final VEPCO QC approval has not yet been obtained since all related testing referenced by the release has not been complete Comments generated as a result of the review have been resolved by the license Within the area inspected, no items of noncomplia.11ee or deviation were identifie.
Preoperational Test Procedure Review
- --- ------*-*
The following procedures were reviewed for conformance with Regulatory Guide 1.68, Appendices B and C of the Surry Unit 2 Integrated,Startup Test Program dated August 13, 1979, the Nuclear Power Station Quality Assurance Manual Sections 3, 35, 55, 11 and 16, and the Unit 2 Technical Specifications:
CAL-RC-65 PT-7 PT-28.11 PT-28.12 Instrument Calibration Procedure Reactivity Computer-4/30/80 Control Rod Drop Test-10/4/77 Nuclear Design Check Tests-6/21/78 Power Coefficient Test-1/18/77 The inspectors identified the following items of concern requiring licensee resolution prior to performance of the procedure The core physics procedure PT-28.11 and 28.12 address completing the
"Startup Physics Test Results and Evaluation Sheets" and verifying the acceptance criteria of these sheets are me Through the "Startup Physics Test Results and Evaluation_Sheets" are approved by the station Nuclear Safety and Operating Committee as a separate package, considera-tion should be given to coalesce the.sheets into the applicable core physics procedure so station personnel can see the entire procedure prior to its performance. The licensee should also consider changing*
the startup procedure to Special Tests versus Periodic Tests due to*
the uniqueness of each tes ~-----~--
{ *
e-3-This item is considered open pending licensee review (281/80-24-01). PT-28.11 Appendix B performs a checkout of the reactivity computer for the series of tests to be performed by this procedu:re. Inspector review indicated that only positive reactivity insertions were used in the cali-bration although it is used to measure both positive and negative reac-tivity insertions. In addition the calibration should include reactivity insertions up to the maximum permissable by procedure, i.e., 60 pcm as identified in Section A.1.5 of Appendix The checkout maximum reacti-vity insertion is 45 pcm as addressed in Section B.5.0 of Appendix Similarly, negative reactivity insertions should be addressed in step 5.20 of the reactivity computer calibration procedure CAL-RC-6 This item is considered open pending licensee review (281/80-24-02). The equation identified in step C. 6.0 of Appendix C, boron endpoint concentration does not equate the concentration to the reference temperature used as the bases in determining the acceptance criteri A senior licensee representative stated at the exit interview that the equation would be change This item will be inspected further upon subsequent inspections (281/80-24-03). Review of Completed Preoperational Performances Tests Eight completed preoperational test procedures were reviewed by the inspec-tors to ascertain whether uniform criteria is being applied for evaluation of comple~ed preoperational tests to assure technical and administrative adequacy. Each procedure was reviewed to verify: Each field change revision was approved in accordance with the pertinent administrative procedure That the field changes had been completed if they entailed specific actio That the field changes did not change the basic objectives of the tes That all test exceptions had been resolved and that the resolution had been accepted by appropriate managemen That outstanding exceptions have been identified and if completed, proper approval signature obtaine If required, the retest requirements have been complete Licensee review and evaluation of the test results and acknowledgement that testing demonstrated system design requirement That the licensee specifically compared test results with established acceptance criteri That data sheets had been completed and that all data recorded where required be within acceptable toleranc That those personnel charged with responsibility for review and accep-tance of test results have_ documented their review and acceptance of the test packag..
e e-4-The following documents were reviewed:
P-7-U-2 P-8-U-2 PT-12 PT-18.3A PT-18.3B PT-18.3C PT-18.3D ST-78 Containment Spray Flush/Hydro Containment Spray Chemical Addition Flow and LHSI Flow;Venturi Verification Test Pressurizer Safety Valve Setpoint Setting Refueling Testing of HHS! Check Valves to Cold leg Refueling Testing of HHST Check Valves to the Hot legs Refueling Testing of LHSI Check Valve to the Hot legs Refueling Testing of LHSI check Valves to the Cold leg ESF Functional Test Significant deficiencies are discussed below: Procedures PT-18.3A, B, C, D and PT-12 involved acquisition of baseline data for inservice inspection followu No representative acceptance criteria values were*presented to compare the obtained pump flows or valve stroke times against. Typical reference values could be acquired from Unit 1 data, vendor information or Engineering determination The inspectors requested the licensee provide the refer~nce values to the already completed procedures or repeat them prior to plant heatu The licensee representative stated at the exit interview the problem would be investigated as to the appropriate course of actio This item is considered open pending licensee review (281/80-24-04). Review of ST-78 revealed the follqwing discrepancies or conflicts:
(1)
No test discrepancy was written as to the failure of the two Auxiliary steam Generator Feed pumps, 2-FW-P-3A and 2-FW-P-3B, to
- meet the start time acceptance criteria of steps 6.2.2.3 and 6.4.3 respectivel (2)
No resolution was provided as to retesting the outside recirculation spray pump 2-RS-P-2B after it failed to start due to its associated circuit breaker being improperly racked i.
As required by the VEPCO Nuclear Power Station Quality Assurance Manual Section 5.1.S, the Supervisor-Engineering Services or his designee is to review the test for completeness, determine if the established acceptance*
criteria has been met, and recommend final approval by the station Nuclear Safety and Operating Committee. Test discrepancies if found must be resolved if the test may still be condidered satisfactorily completed. Failure to adequately review the.completed procedure to determine the test results satisfactory constitutes an apparent item of noncompliance with NRC require-ment (281/80-24-05).
- .
e e-5-In addition, the critique of the ESF test indicated while testing Train B, Train A did not actuat Resolution as to why Train A failed to actuate was not provide This item is considered unresolved pending licensee investigation (281/80-24-06).
Review of the completed test procedures also identified an item of concer The licensee needs to develop an administrative procedure to incorporate field changes or revisions into procedures. Currently, there is no consis-
.tent method. In some cases procedure revisions were identified by a triangle
- and revision number within in the margin of the procedure, in other cases a bar in the margin notes an existing chang Often there is no indication of a change at all which requires the performer to review all the changes for applicabilit Some changes are rewritten into the main body of the procedure for performance, while others are simply performed _bn the change/
revision shee The licensee representative indicated at the exit interview that a consistent method is needed and would investigate an appropriate method for incorporating revision This item will be inspected further upon subsequent inspections (281/80-24-07).
Previously Identified Items (Closed) Open item (281/80-20-02) Comparison of official records management copies of test procedures with contaminated copie Discussions with licensee representatives indicate comparisons between the two documents could not be accomplished since the contaminated records were sent to Barnwell for disposa The licensee representative indicated that the official records management copy was now being drawn out and used by the control room operators to assure step performance was being accomplished appropriately while in constant phone communication with the performing individual Once the test is completed the performing individuals leave the containment and sign the records management official copy in the control roo Based on data transfer being more complete the inspector considers the item close U *
Construction Testing The inspector reviewed Westinghouse's construction testing records for the hydrostatic test performed at Tampa, Florida on the primary side of steam generator units /12981, 2982, and 298 These three (3) S/G Units were used on Surry Power Station Unit 2 steam generator repair projec No items of noncompliance or deviation were identified in the area inspected.