IR 05000338/1987013

Insp Repts 50-338/87-13 & 50-339/87-13 on 870601-03.Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters & Previously Identified Insp Findings

ML20235H106
Person / Time
Site:	North Anna
Issue date:	07/06/1987
From:	Belisle G, Wright R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20235H095	List: IR 05000338/1987013 ML20235H092
References
50-338-87-13, 50-339-87-13, NUDOCS 8707150018
Download: ML20235H106 (4)

Text

- _ _ - _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

i pS Rfoug UNITED STATES

/, Do NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGloN ll -l

["

-

.

o j 101 MARIETTA STREET, '" 'f ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323

\...../ i Report Nos.: 50-338/87-13 and 50-339/87-13 j Licensee: Virginia Electric and Power Company Richmond, VA 23261

i Docket Nos.: 50-338 and 50-339 License Nos.: NPF-4 and NPF-7 Facility Name: North Anna 1 and 2 Inspection Conducted: June 1-3, 1987 Inspector:

R. W. Wright I g h /4s /f87 pes'igned i Approved by: (/ :w / [ 7[4 [f 7 G . A. Be l i sl e ~,' Ch'i e f Date 51gn'ed 1 Quality Assurance Programs Section {

Division of '<eactor Safety SUMMARY Scope: This routine, unannounced inspection was conducted in the areas of l licensee action on previous enforcement matters and licensee action on previously identified inspection findings.

l Results: No violations or deviations were identifie ,

8707150018 870708 PDR ADOCK 05000338 o PDR

- _ __ - _ _ -

. 1

. l REPORT DETAILS Licensee ' Employee s. Contacted M. Bowling, Assistant Station Manager, Nuclear Safety and Licensing (NS&L)-

R. Driscoll,. Quality Assurance (QA) Manager K. Duncan, Senior Records Clerk, Station Records G. Harkness,-Licensing Coordinator

• R. Johnson, Supervisor, Quality QA Auditin *G. Kane, Assistant Station Manager, Operations and Maintenance

• J. Leberstein, Engineer, NS&L-

-]

~

NRC Resident Inspectors i l I l- J. Caldwell, Senior Resident Inspector l L. King, Resident Inspector I t

• Attended exit interview- Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings. were summarized on June 3,1987, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The inspector: described the areas inspected and discussed in. detail the inspection' findings... No dissenting comments were received from the licensee. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspectio . Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters.(92702) (Closed) Severity Level V Violation 338/85-11-02: Failure to Follow Procedure During Performance of Work Order No. 9344.

l The licensee's dated response June 18,.1985, was considered accept-able by Region II. The inspector examined documentary evidence  !

(Supervisor Mechanical Maintenance Memorandums dated June 11. and 25,  !

1985, to the Training Department; attendance records; grades; and training handouts for System Maintenance Support training' conducted  !

October 9 and 16, 1985) verifying that the licensee has provided additional emphasis on the supervision and continual training of '

_

maintenance support personnel stressing the importance of following-station procedure The inspector also examined the followin randomly selected 10 Mechanical Ma'intenance Procedures'(MMPs) used in conjunction with the subject Work Orders (WO) to ascertain that the signoff steps and requirements were being properly, implemented and to measure the effectiveness of the licensee's training in this area':

MMP-C-GV-1.1, Safety-Related Manual Valve Inspection and Repair in General, WO Nos. 5900056606, 5900056061 and 5900055940 l

,

__- --__ __-- _ . _ . . _ _ . _ . . _ - _ _ _ _

I

\

.

.

2  ;

.

l MMP-C-GV-1.2, Check Valves in General, WO Nos. 5900051617, l'

5900059541, and 5900051534 MMP-C-GV-1.7, Repacking of Safety-Related Manual Valves, WO No , 5900055831, 5900055434,'and 5900055700 The inspector concluded that the licensee had determined the full extent of the violation, performed the necessary survey and follow-up actions to correct the present conditions, and developed the :

necessary corrective actions to preclude recurrence of similar problems. Corrective actions stated in the licensee's response have '

.

been implemente (Closed) Unresolved Item (URI) 338,339/85-11-03: Review Licensee Methods for Revision Purchase Requisitions Procurement document changes are handled in accordance with Section 6.7.1 of Administrative Procedure 4.0, Procurement Document Contro This matter was identified as unresolved until documentation was provided by the vendor to attest to the reason for the change to part number P/N-KRP 11D The licensee subsequently revised Purchase Order No. NS 12523 requiring the vendor to provide documentation certifying that the subject part number change was only a change in the vendor's organization (as originally stated by telephone) and not a change in manufacturing or design. The inspector examined a j vendor's letter dated April 30, 1985, discussing the phasing out of 1 I

old P/N-KRP 11DG and the vendor's confirmation that use of the new P/N-KRPA 11DG, a similar 24 VDC relay would not alter the fit, form or l function required of the old part.

l 4. Unresolved Items l

Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.

l 5. Licensee Action on Previously Identified Inspection Findings (92701)

I (Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item 338/84-14-01, 339/84-13-01:

Clarification of Valve Tests and Inspection Requirement l The inspector examined the new valve testing facility 'and related ,

equipment and concluded testing was now being accomplished in a '

suitable environmen Several previously tested valves in the building were noted to have had their valve parts covered to prevent ,

l possible contamination. The questionable Periodic Test Procedure 1-PT-147.2 has been deleted and the subject testing has been placed in the North Anna Mechanical Preventive Maintenance Program which is l l now procedurally handled' by MMP-C-GV-2, Safety and Relief Valves-in General dated August 7,1986. The concerns expressed by the inspector regarding procedural weaknesses have been adequately addressed in Sections 4.3, 7.2.4, 7.2.5, and on Page 1 of Attach-ment 1 to the subject MM l

!

~

.

,

I (Closed) Inspector Follow-Up Item 338,339/85-11-07: Clarification of QA/QC Responsibilities in Procedure The station's QA department organization is identified in the licensee's Topical Report (VEP 1-5A, Amendment Five dated June 1986)

and its responsibilities are to conduct audits and inspections in accordance with the Operational QA Program and to perform other duties as directed by individual Supervisors - Quality Control (QC).

The inspector examined Administrative Procedure ADM-5.4, Processing New and Revised Procedures, Deletion of Procedures dated March 13, 1987, and found that this revision adequately describes the QA department's responsibilities for procedural review. The QA department's review responsibilities for safety-related procedures are detailed in Sections 2.4, 3.1.9, 3.2.8 and 3.2.9 of the subject procedure. These responsibilities include confirming and approving l any QA inspection plan included in the procedure or establishing a QC inspection program commensurate with the level of safety significance. The QA department reviewer also ensures that the procedural and programmatic controls specified are adequate.. All new

,

I I

and revised non-safety related procedures which specify new QC hold

, points or revisions to steps containing a QC hold point are reviewed l by the appropriate Supervisor - QC organization. Other non-safety I related procedures may be forwarded to the QA department if deemed necessary by the cognizant supervisor. The Manager-QA is designated the cognizant supervisor for all QA procedures and reviews these procedures and changes in accordance with QA Department Instruction-Nuclear (QADIN) A 2.0, Revision 0, Preparation, Issue and Control of QADINs. The inspector identified an outdated reference (concerning the Nuclear Power Station QA Manual and a QADIN) which had not been deleted from Section 14 of Attachment 6 to ADM Procedure 5.4. This nonsignificant oversight was brought to the licensee's attention and the section was appropriately reworded by a procedure deviation dated June 3,1987, prior to the inspector leaving the site.

l l

_ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _