IR 05000338/1979019
| ML19225A916 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 05/10/1979 |
| From: | Martin R, Saver R, Wagner A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19225A898 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-338-79-19, 50-339-79-25, NUDOCS 7907230039 | |
| Download: ML19225A916 (5) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:e ^ . . UNITED STATES pn aroOg ,( jo, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION , , R EGION il {
g E 101 M ARIETTA STR E ET. N.W.
',' ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30303 a , o g \\...# Report Nos. 50-338/79-19 and 50-339/79-25 Licensee: Virginia Electric and Power Company Richmond, Virginia 23261 Facility Name: North Anna 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339 License Nos. NPF-4 and CP -78 Inc.pectors:g y }///M'/}/ f }/Off A.
kagnT / Date Signed ? }'/ r n - ) / /0 Oh ' , ~ [ Date Signed R. C. ' yer 67 6 @ Approved by: my, // / _ R. D. Martiii, Section pitf, RONS Branch Date Signed ~ SLWiARY Inspection on April 17-20, 1979 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 48 inspector-hours onsite for review of preoperational test results.
Results In the one area inspected, one apparent item of noncomplicace was found (Infraction: Failure to follow approved test procedure) paragraph 5.b.(5) and 5.b. (6). . g .. - . -.
. - . . . DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Liceisee Employees
- W. R. Cartwright, Station Manager
- E. R. Smith, Jr., Technical Services Superintendent
- D. L. Smith, Resident Quality Control Engineer
- W. R. Madison, NRC Coordinator G. Kahn, Test Engineer T. Wilson, Test Engineer P. Furman, Test Engineer NRC Resident Inspector
- M. S. Kidd, Resident Inspector
- Attended exit inte. view.
, 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on April 20, 1979 with those persons indicated in Paragraph I above.
There were no objections raised by the licensee regarding the findings.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Non-compliance (338/78-29-01), Failure to identify discrepancies in startup test procedures. The inspector reviewed the Quality Assurante Manual and other documentation and interviewed licensee representatives.
These records indicate that emphasis has been placed upon proper conduct and review of startup testing.
The quality assurance mar.a1 revision reflects the licensee method for assessing proper revie, of test procedures. This item is closed.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve noncompliance or deviations. New unresolved items identified during this inspection are discussed in paragraph 5.b.
' 5,.,, Preoperatienal Test Results Review , Completed preoperational test procedure results were reviewed for conformance with Nuclear Power Station Quality Assurance Manual sections 2, 5, 11, 14, and FSAR section 14.1.1.
J .. -.. -
, _.
. . . . -2- - a.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were noted during the review of the following procedures: (1) 2-PO-45 RCS - Heatup for Hot Functionals, Completion approved 4/10/79.
(2) 2-PO-50 RTD Bypass Flow Verification Prior to Core Loading, completion approved 3/6/79.
(3) 2-P0-52.2 Pressurizer Relief Tank Test During Hot Functionals, completion approved 4/10/79.
(4) 2-PO-56 Main Steam Decay Heat Release and Atmospheric Steam Dump Valves, completion approved 3/6/79.
(5) 2-PO-60 Steam Generator Auxiliary Feedwater Pumps, completion approved 3/6/79.
(6) 2-P0-17 Containment Ventilation System, completion approved 4/10/79.
- (7) 2-PO-58.2 Main Steam Line Trip Valves Test at Hot Plant Conditions, completion approved 4/10/79.
Valve Interlock (8) 2-P0-39.3 Residual Heat Removal System - Test, completion approved 1/12/79.
b.
The following comments were noted during the review of test procedure results: (1) Unresolved Item.
2-PO-39.2 Residual Heat Removal System Heat Removal Capacity, completion approved 4/10/79.
The matter of the approximate 1000 gallon per minute leakage through FCV 2605 is considered unresolved pending review by the licensee. The review is to include written confirmation as to acceptable leakage from k'estinghouse Electric Corpora-tion on technical justification for the acceptability of a leak of this magnitude (339/79-25-02).
(2) Unresolved Item: 2-P0-34 Boric Acid Transfer System, comple- ' tion approved 1/10/79.
The matter of wrong values for straight pipe length being used in total pump head calculations is considered unresolved. The inspector noted that only the equivalent length portion of the total value of straight . ., * pipe length (actual length of straight pipe plus equivalent length of straight pipe) was being input into the calculator ' program used to determine actual pump head. The calculations, and data input to the program are to be reviewed by the . , 412 247 . m
. . . -3- . licensee to determine the necessary corrective actions needed to ensure total pump head determinations are depicted (339/79-25-03).
(3) Open Item: 2-PO-39.1 Residual Heat Removal System Testing at Cold Conditions, completion approved 1/12/79.
The matter of the total head curves is considered open pending the review by the inspector with his management of the head curves obtained and the resolution of the apparent item of noncompliance described in item (5) below which may result in the reperformance of this test (339/79-25-04).
(4) Unresolved Item: The matter of data which were reviewed and approved by the licensee and subscouently found by the inspector to be incorrectly recorded is considered to be unresolved pending review by the licensee as to the causes and corrective action needed to prevent recurrence. Head pressure, suction pressure, and length of suction straight pipe was found to be incorrectly recorded in 2-PO-39.1 Residual heat Removal System Testing, completion approved , 1/12/79. The scale for water pressure inlet on water loop seal test run number 9 was incorrectly recorded in 2-P0-51 Pressuriz, Code Safety Valve Setpoint Verification, comple-tion apprc : ed 1/16/79 (339/79-25-05).
(? During review of 2-P0-39.1 Residual Heat Removal System Testing at Cold Conditions, completion approved 1/12/79, it was noted by the inspector that the gages used to record residual heat removal pump discharge pressure on the data sheet were not the ~, ages specified in paragraphs 4.1.4 and 4.1.8 of the procedure. These gages are on the wrong pumps, not the pumps under test. This will invalidate the test results and will require reperformance of the test. This is one example of an apparent item of noncompliance in the area of failure to follow approved procedures.
(6) During review of 2-PO-39.2 Residual Heat Removal System Heat Removal Capacity, completioi approved 4 10/79, it was noted / by the inspector that the value for heat exchanger tube side flow used to calculate heat removal capacity was 3000 gallons per minute.
However the procedure in step 4.1 required a flow of 4000150 gallons per minute. This is one example of a., apparent item,of noncompliance for failure to follow approved procedures.
, J.
(7) It was noted by the inspector that the quality assurance checklists for the following procedures were not completed although a file l memo indicated that the procedure had received . final audit: 2-PO-37.2 Quench Spray Nozzles, 2-PO-39.1 412
. .-. -_
o . . _4 Residual Heat Removal Syatem Testing at Cold Conditions, 2-P0-39.3 Residual Heat Removal - Valve Interlock and 2-PO-51 Pressurizer Safety Valve Setpoint. A senior licensee r2 pre-sentative stated that these items had been corrected prior to the inspector departing from the site and the problem had been discussed with all quality control personnel.
The inspector will review these corrective actions during a - subsequent inspection (0 pen Item 339/79-25-06).
6.
Previously Identified Item of Concern (Closed) 339/79-15-03. This item pertained to verifying that non-essen-tial diesel trips were bypassed during an emergency start. The inspector verified testing of the non-essential diesel trips during inspectior 33S/79-19.
7.
Plant Tour The inspector toured portions of Unit 2 reactor building.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
, t .. ', .. . . .o
/ [,en as eg#'o D-k,/ ' UNITED STATES , r i,., s f' 7, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION $.i(p,;!)_ E R E GION 11 o, gwQ f 101 M A RIE T T A ST,, N W., SUIT E 3100 % '%, e ATL ANTA, GE oRGIA 30303 ..... P"7;( JUN 2 01979 ' In Reply Refer To: RII:ACW 50-339/79-25 and 338/79-19 Virginia Electric and Power Company ATTN: W. L. Proffitt Senior Vice President, Power P. O. Box 26666 Richmond, Virginia 23261 Gentlemen: Thank you for your letter of June 6, 1979, informing us of steps you have taken te correct the item of noncompliance concerning activities under NRC Construction Permit No. CPPR-78 brought to your attention in our letter of May 14, 1979. We will examine your corrective actione and plans during subsequent inspections.
We appreciate your cooperation with us.
Sincerely, $. l.
Richard. Lewis, Acting Chief Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch cc: W. R. Cartwright, Station Manager Box 402 Mineral, Virginia 23117 P. C. Perry Senicr Resident Eng!.neer P. O. Box 38 Mineral, Virginia 23117 j412 "2 1 .n
. ' ' 6 g .
== .. l'OllRC REG!M' -
,. /: a.p; a < VIHOINI A E r.c cru n c 'A w n:' Pow i[n Co>trAny . Ricnwonn,Vamonw zA 20261 /9 JUN 8 A S : 15 June 6, 1979 Serial No.
385 Mr. Jaees P. O'Reilly, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement P0/FHT:baw Docket No.: 50-338 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cocmission 50-339 Region II Atlanta, Georgia 30303 License No.: NPF-4 CPPR-78
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
We have received your letter of May 14, 1979, in reference to the inspec-tion conducted at North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2 on April 17, 1979, and reported in IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-338/79-19 and 50-339/79-25.
Our response to the specific infraction is attached.
We have determined that no proprietary information is contained in the Accordingly, the Virginia Electric and Power Co=pany has no reports.
objection to these inspection reports being made a matter of public disclosure.
Very truly yours, ' . Q f C. M. Stalli gs Vice President-Power Supply and Production Operations Attachment ec: Mr. Albert Schwencer 412 253 ] @ 376 LOS.mL copy
. .
.- ' Attachment: Page 1 of 2 ' ' Response to Non-Compliance Itens Reported in IE Inspection Peport No. 50-339/79-25 , f . NRC Comment : !.s required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Criterion VI, a test progra shall be established to assure that all testing required is perforced in accordance with written test procedures which incorporate requirements and acceptance licits. These requirecents are implement ed by the approved Topical Report Quality Assurance Program, Section 17.1.11, and the Nuclear Power Station Quality Assurance Manual (NPSOAM), Section 11, paragraph 5.1.4.
The *:PSOAM requires that the individual (s) perf orcing the test record the infor=ation required by the test procedure and initial each step as it is satisfactorily completed. s . Contrary to the above: 1.
During the perf ormance of preoperational testing procedure 2-PO-39.2, Residual Heat Re= oval System Heat Re= oval Capacity, test results approved April 10, 1979, the flew to the tube side of the residusi heat rc= oval heat exchanger was not established at 4000 + 50 gpm as required by step 4.1 of the procedure.
The calculations indicate a flow rate less than the required flow. Ad dit ionally, the step was initiale.d as having been satisf actorily completed.
2. During the performance of preoperational testing procedure 2-PO 39.1, Residual Heat Removal Syste= Testing at Cold Conditions, test results approved January 12, 1979, the discharge pressure gauges used to record the residual heat removal pu=p discharge pressure on the data sheet were not the same , gauges as required by steps 4.1.4 and 4.1.8 of the procedure. Again the steps
- were initialed as having been satisf actorily completed.
This is an infraction.
. Response The above infraction is not co=pletely correct as stated.
Specifically, item 2 states that improper gauges were utili ed to record residual heat re-moval purp discharge pressure. A review of the test and the residual heat c re= oval system indicates that the correct gauges were utilized.
Because of the placement of check valves in the discharge piping of the residual heat renoval puep, it is not possible for the pressore gauge of the non-operating The error pu=p to indicate a discharge pressure from the operating pump.
found on the data sheet vc.. a result of the test engineer recording the wrong gauge mark number. This error was purely administrative in nature.
, Pursuant to specification 2.201 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice" Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, the followin; inforeation is ' sub=itted: _ a
. . , . . .. Page 2 of 2 1. Corrective steps taken and results achieved: With reference to iten ll, the fact that a lower flow rate was present resulted in a cuch more conservative estimate of the heat transfer capabilities.
Since the acceptance criteria were ect, this had no adverse effect on the test.
In addition, the lower flow rate ie fully documented in the chronological log.
The necessity of utilizing a procedure deviation in this instance was discussed with the specific test engineer involved.
With reference to item 2, t. gauge tark nu=bers were corrected utilizing the guidelines contained in NPSQAM section 5.7.
2. Corrective action taken to avoid further non-compliance: These items were discussed and reviewed with the station test engineers The to insure that the proper guidelines were followed while running a test.
In order to reduce importance of a proper document review was also diccuased.
the number of adcinistrative errors, co=pleted procedures vill be reviewed by an engineer prior to the review by the Engineering Supervisor specifically for finding errors in docu=entation.
3. Date when full co=pliance vill be achieved: Full compliance has been achieved.
. e 412 25 5 .
. . UNITED sT ATEs [g* Mo j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION oq e g R EGloN 11 kg-Mg[/.E
Ty( o 101 M ARIETT A STREET,N.W.
8 ATLANTA. GEORGI A 30303 .f '%*.*...! MAY 141979 In Reply Refer To: RII:AGW 50-338/79-19 50-339/79-25 Virginia Electric and Power Company Atta: W. L. Proffitt Senior lice President, Power Post Office Box 26666 Richmond, Virginia 23261 Gentlemen: This refers to the inspection conducted by A. G. Wagner of this office on April 17-20, 1979 of activities authorized by h7C License Nos. NPF-4 and CPPR-78 for the North Anna facility, Units 1 and 2, and to the discussion of our findings held with W. R. Cartwright at the conclusion of the inspection.
Areas examined during the inspection and our findings are ciwussed in the enclosed inspection report. Within these areas, the n. pcaion consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspectors.
We have examined actions you have taken with r~egard to previously identified inspection findings. These are discussed in the enclosed inspection report.
One new unresolved item resulted from this inspection and is discussed in the enclosed report. This item will be examined during subsequent ' inspections.
During the inspection, it was found that certain activities under your license appear to be in noncompliance with h7C requirements. This item and references to pertinent requirements are listed in the Notice of Violation enclosed herewith as Appendix A.
This notice is sent to you pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.201 of the NRC's " Rules oZ Practice", Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations.
Section 2.201 requires you to sub:ait to this of fice, within 20 days of your receipt of ' this notice, a written statement or explanation in reply including: (1) corrective steps which have been taken by you, and the results achieved; (2) corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further noncompliance; anet. (3) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document
256 wi g g . --
- . , . , Virginia Electric and MAY i 41379 Power Company-2-Room.
If this report contains any information that you (or your contractor) believe to be proprietary, it is necessary that you make a written application within 20 days to this office to withhold such information from public disclosure. Any such application must include a full state-ment of the reasons on the basis of which it is claimed that the informa-tion is proprietary, and should be prepared so that proprietary information identified in the application is contained in a separate part of the document.
If we do not near from you in this regard within the specified period, the report will be placed in the Public Decument Room.
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, we will be glad to discuss them with you.
Sincerely, E. c.
R. C.
ewis, Acting Chief Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Enclosures: 1.
Appendix A, Notice of Violation 2.
Inspection Report Nos. 50-338/79-19 and 50-339/79-25 cc w/ enclosures: W. R. Cartwright, Station Manager Box 402 Mine*al, Virginia 23117 P. G. Perry Senior Resident Engineer Post Office Box 38 Mineral, Virginia 23117 , . 412 25/g7 . .
- . . APPENDIX A
- si1CE OF VIOLATION Virginia Electric and Power Company License No. CPPR-78 North Anna Unit 2 Based on the NRC inspection April 17-20, 1979, certain of your activities were apparently not conducted in full compliance with NRC re;uirements as indicated below. These items have been categorized as described in correspondence to you dated December 31, 1974.
A.
As required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion VI, a test program shall be established to assure that all testing required is performed in accordance with written test procedures which incorporate requirements and acceptance limits. These requirements are implemented by the approved Topical Report Quality Assurance Program, Section 17.2.11, and the Nuclear Power Station Quality Assurance Manual (NPSQAM), Section 11, paragraph 5.2.4.
The NPEQAM requires that the individual (s) performing the test record the information required by the test procedure and initial each step as it is satisfactorily completed.
Contrary to the above: 1.
During the performance of preoperational testing procedure 2-PO-39.2, Residual Heat Removal System Heat Removal Capacity, test results approved April 10, 1979, the flow to the tube side of the residual heat removal heat exchanger was not established at 4000 + 50 gpm as required by step 4.1 of the procedure. The calculations indicate a flow rate less than the required flow. Additionally, the step was initialed as having been satisfactorily completed.
2.
During the performance of preoperational testing procedure 2-PO-39.1, Residual Heat Removal System Testing at Cold Cenditions, test results approved January 12, 1979, the discharge pressure gauges used to record the residual heat removal pump discharge pressure on the data sheet were not the same gauges as required by steps 4.1.4 and 4.1.8 of the procedure. Again, the steps were initialed as having been satisfactorily completed.
This is an infraction.
i . .<
Li 412 258 . __
. UNIT ED STATES p* "f oug'o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION / [ *jq(I g
REClONil
- %
..c 101 M ARIETT A STR EET, N.W.
- g
'[[ f ATLANTA, GEOr4GlA 30303 o.p.fi / ,;* *w*** Report Nos. 50-338/79-19 and 50-339/79-25 Licensee: Virginia ElectTic and Power Company - Richmond, Virginia 23261 Facility Name: North Anna 1 and 2 Do-ket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339 License Nos, NPF-4 and CP -78 Insyectors:///l)///M@/ _f }/OSS , A. ~ Wa gnT' ' / Date Signed . _ )'/- a-/)b /$ Sh R. C ' yer [ Date Signed , Approved by: er <'[ o 4 ?/6U R.
D'. Ma rtiii, Section' iiET, ROSS Branch Date Signeo SLTIARY . Inspection on April 17-20, 1979 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspec;:on involved '.8 inspector-hours onsite for review of preoperational test resu ts.
~ Results In the one area inspected, one apparent item of noncompliance was found (Infraction: Failure to follow approved test procedure) paragraph 5.b.(5) and 5.b. (6).
.. ', f: m , , 412 25? ~ - - ..... . . .
. . . . . DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- W. R. Cartwright, Station Manager
- E. R. Smith, Jr., Technical Services Superintendent
- D. L. Smith, Resident Quality Control Engineer
- W. R. Madison, NRC Coordinator G. Kahn, Test Engineer T. Wilson, Test Engineer P. Furman, Test Engineer NRC Resident Inspector
- M. S. Kidd, Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview.
2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on April 20, 1979 with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
There were no objections raised by the licensee regarding the findings.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Non-compliance (338/78-29-01), Failure to identify discrepancies in startup test procedures. The inspector reviewed the Quality Assurance Manual and other documentation and interviewed licensee representatives.
These records indicate that emphasis has been placed upon proper conduct and review of startup testing.
The quality assurance manual revision reflects the licensee method for assessing proper review of test procedures. This item is closed.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more infoncation is required to determine whe.het they are acceptable or may involve noncompliance or deviations. New unresolved items identified during this inspection are discussed in paragraph 5.b.
' 5.
Preoperational Test Results Review Completed preoperational test procedure results were reviewed for
- onformance with Nuclear Power Station Quality Assurance Manual sections 2, 5, 11, 14, and FSAR section 14.1.1.
f I 'n 26(D ' - . -.
- . .
. a.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were noted during the review of the following procedures: (1) 2-PO-45 RCS - Heatup for Hot Functionals, Completion approved 4/10/79.
(2) 2-PO-50 RTD Bypass Flow Verification Prior to Core Loading, completion apprev ' ';/6/79.
(3) 2-P0-52.2 Pressurizer Relief Tank Test Duric3 Hot Functionals, completion approved 4/10/79.
(4) 2-P0-56 Main Steam Decay Heat Release and Atmospheric Steam Dump Valves, completion approved 3/6/79.
(5) 2-P0-60 Steam Generator Auxiliary Feedwater Pumps, completion approved 3/6/79.
(6) 2-P0-17 Containment Ventilation System, completion appro--d 4/10/79.
(7) 2-P0-58.2 Main Steam Line Trip Valves Test at Hot Plant Conditions, completion approved 4/10/79.
. (8) 2-PO-39.3 Residual Heat Removal System - Valve Interlock Test, completion approved 1/12/79.
b.
The following comments were noted 'during the review of test procedure results: (1) Unresolved Item: 2-P0-39.2 Residual Heat Removal System Heat Removal Capacity, completion approved 4/10/79.
The matter of the approximate 1000 gallon per minute leakage through FCV 2605 is considered unresolved penling review by the licensee. The review is to include writtea confirmation as to acceptable leakage from k'estinghouse Electric Corpora-tion en technical justification for the acceptability of a leak of this magnitude (339/79-25-02).
(2) Unresolved Item: 2-P0-34 Boric Acid Transfer System, comple-tion approved 1/10/79.
The matter of wrong values for , rtra' iipe length being used in total pump head calculations is cred unresolved. The inspector noted that only the equ' . it length portion of the total value of straight - pipe,ength (actual length of straight pipe plus equivalent '. length of straight pipe) was being input into the calculator ' program used to determine actual pump head. The calculations, and data input to the program are to be reviewed by the .. " 267 ' - -
. . . -3-licensee to determine the necessary corrective actions needed to ensure total pump head determinations are depicted (339/79-25-03).
(3) Open Item: 2-P0-39.1 Residual Heat Removal System Testing at Cold Conditions, completion approved 1/12/79.
The matter of the total head curves is considered open pending the review by the inspector with his management of the head curves obtained and the resolution of the apparent item of noncompliance described in item (5) below which may result in the reperformance of this test (339/79-25-04).
(4) Unresolved Item: The matter of data which were reviewed and approved by the licensee and subsequently found by the inspector to be incorrectly recorded is considered to be unresolved pending review by the licensee as to the causes and corrective cction needed to prevent recurrence.
Head pressure, suction pressure, and length of suction straight pipe was found to be incorrectly recorded in 2-P0-39.1 Residual Heat Removal System Testing, completion approved 1/12/79. The scale for water pressure inlet on water loop seal test run number 9 was incorrectly recorded in 2-P0-51 Pressurizer Code Safety Valve Setpoint Verification, comple-tion approved 1/16/79 (339/79-25-05).
(5) During review of 2-P0-39.1 Residual Heat Removal System Testing at Cold Conditions, completion approved 1/12/79, it was noted by the inspector that the gages used to record residual heat removal pump discharge pressure on the data sheet were not the gages specified in paragraphs 4.1.4 and 4.1.8 of the procedure. These gages are on the wrong pumps, not the pumps under test.
This will invalidate the test results and will require rep" 'ormance of the test. This is one example of an apparent item of noncompliance in the area of failure to follow approved procedures.
(6) During review or 2-P0-39.2 Residual Heat Removal System Heat Removal Capacity, completion approved 4/10/79, it was noted by the inspector that the value for heat exchanger tube side flow used to calculate heat removal capacity was 3000 galle 3 per minute.
However the procedure in step 4.1 required. flow of 4000150 gallons per minute. This is one example of an apparent item of noncompliance for failure to follow approved procedures.
. noted by the inspector that the quality assurance d.
(7) It was checklists for the following procedures were not completed although a file memo indicated that the procedure had received . final audit: 2-PO-37.2 Quench Spray Nozzles, 2-P0-39.1 412 2% ' . , . .
- . . -4-Residual Heat Removal Syatem Testing at Cold Conditions, 2-P0-39.3 Residual Heat Removal - Valve Interlock and 2-PO-51 Pressurizer Safety Valve Setpoint. A senior licensee repre-sentative stated that these items had been corrected prior to the inspector departing from the site and the problem had been discussed with all quality control personnel.
The inspector will review these c-rective actions during a subsequent inspection (0 pen Item 339/79-25-06).
5.
Previously Identified Item of Concern (Closed) 339/79-15-03. This item pertained to verifying that non-essen-tial diesel trips were bypassed during an emergency start. The inspector verified testing of the non-essential diesel trips during inspection 338/79-19.
7.
Plant Tour The inspector toured portions of Unit 2 reactor building.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
, s . . 412 gg3 ' .. }}