ML030020743

Facsimile Transmission of Issues Discussed in 12/10/2002 Conference Call

ML030020743
Person / Time
Site:	Surry
Issue date:	01/02/2003
From:	Gratton C NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD2
To:	John Nakoski NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD2
Gratton C, NRR/DLPM 415-1055
References
TAC MB6752, TAC MB6753
Download: ML030020743 (4)

Text

January 2, 2003 MEMORANDUM TO: John A. Nakoski, Chief, Section 1 Project Directorate II Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: Christopher Gratton, Sr. Project Manager, Section 2 /RA/

Project Directorate II Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

SURRY POWER STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 - FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION OF ISSUES DISCUSSED IN A CONFERENCE CALL (TAC NOS. MB6752 AND MB6753)

A facsimile of the attached questions was transmitted on December 20, 2002, to Mr. Gary Miller of Virginia Electric and Power Company. These questions were conveyed to the licensee in a conference call on December 10, 2002, regarding the licensee submittal dated November 5, 2002. In the submittal, the licensee proposed to modify the technical specifications by changing the required tests for the rod position indication system for Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff made its request to ensure sufficient information about the change was available to begin the review.

This memorandum and the attached questions do not convey or represent an NRC staff position regarding the licensees request.

Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281

Attachment:

Request for Additional Information CONTACT: Christopher Gratton, NRR (301) 415-1055

ML030020743 OFFICE PM/PD2-1 LA/PD2-1 SC/PD2-1 NAME CGratton EDunnington JNakoski DATE 01/02/03 12/30/02 01/02/03 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 1 If Surry is trying to justify elimination of surveillances based on digital system self-testing, it is critical to know just what that self-testing feature actually tests, and how these tests verify the same items that the surveillances being eliminated verify. It is also critical to determine that the self-test actually tests those things it is supposed to test, and how this was assured. To assist in these determinations, please submit the following documentation:

a. A list of all diagnostic tests, and what functions are tested.

b. A detailed explanation of how these diagnostics were verified as actually testing those items they are supposed to test. This is usually done using some type of Verification and Validation (V&V) program.

c. Documentation on the quality control program used to ensure these things were done.

d. Since most diagnostics for digital equipment test only the equipment itself, please explain how the self-test features test the non-digital portions of the systems, such as the rod position detectors and the temperature compensation signal for those detectors.

e. A list of all standards that were used in the development of the diagnostic tests, and the reason these standards were considered adequate.

2. Surry states that the equipment is similar to the Common Q. Please provide an exact description of the equipment used in this system. Please include in this description any similarities and differences between this equipment and the Common Q equipment.

Please include a list of the industry standards used in the design, test, and qualification of this equipment.

3. If this equipment is a Common Q system, please show how the plant-specific requirements shown in the NRC staff Safety Evaluation on the Common Q were met.

Attachment