ML18139A125
| ML18139A125 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 01/25/1980 |
| From: | Stallings C VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18139A123 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004040242 | |
| Download: ML18139A125 (3) | |
Text
January 25, 1980
- {] J Af.J 28 A f O
- 3 i:
Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Director Offic~ of Inspection and Enforcement
~. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
'on II
- arietta Street, Suite 3100
.nta, Georgia 30303 Mr. O'Reilly:
Serial No. 018/123179 PO/RMT:baw Docket Nos. 50-280 50-281 License Nos. DPR-32 DPR-37
~ reviewed your letter of December 31, 1979 in reference to the
- ion conducted at Surry Power Station Unit Nos. 1 & 2 on
-~er 26-30, 1979 and reported in IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-280/79-65 50-281/79-85.
Our responses to the specific violations are attached.
We have determined that no proprietary information is contained in the reports.
Accordingly, the Virginia Electric and Power Company has.no objection to these inspection reports being made a matter of public disclosure
- Attachment cc: Mr. Albert Schwencer
\\,
.~.:.:~: -.,......
Very truly yours, z!;. JI}/). '6iat&t~
C. M. Stal lings Vice President-Power Supply and Production Operations
- fit,\\'i
*ti
- . *~--..
A.
NRC CCMMENTS:
e RESPONSE TO INSPECTION REPORT NOS.
50-280/79-65 & 50-281/79-85 As required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V (Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings}, "Activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by docu-mented instructions *** and shall be accomplished in accordance with*the instructions **** "
The accepted quality assurance program, VEP-l-3A, Section 17.2.11, states in part, The authority and responsibilities related to the test program are delineated in the Nuclear Power* Station Quality Assurance Manual (NPSQAM}." the NPSQAM Section II, Paragraph S. 3. 4 states that the individual performing a periodic test* (PT) is.
_ responsible for initialing each step _and affixing his signature and
- date on the procedure in ink upon completion of the test.
Section *.
11.5.3.5 of the Manual states that the cognizant supervisor and performance engineer are responsible for reviewing the *test, including critique sheet and procedure, for completeness and accuracy.
Technical Spec~fication 6._S requires that these PT records be retained for five years.
Contrary to the above, Sections 1 through 6 of PT's 2.1 through 2.11 gen~rated between 1/1/79 and 11/27/79, were not reviewed by the cog-nizant supervisor and performance engineer, initialed and signed in ink, and retained in the station file room for five years *.
This is a deficiency.
RESPONSE
The deficiency is correct as stated.
- 1.
Corrective steps which have been taken and results achieved:_
- All steps performed in the Periodic Test are now signed in ink and the entire package is reviewed by the cognizant supervisor and performance engineer for completeness and technical merit prior to filing in the records vault.
- 2.
Corrective steps taken to avoid further deficiencies:
- 3.
Along with item 1 above, all appropriate personnel have been re-,
instructed to insure all steps are initialed* in ink, all sections are completed, and that the requirements of the a~ceptance criteria are met prior to forwarding for cognizant supervisor and performance engineer's reviews.
-\\
\\: -; * *. *
- ./*-- :*
c\\* :_,*
,.. '\\.*,)-_',.: *.*.* *.... -:*'...
'The date when full compliance will be ~<r'h 'i.eved: *'... ;..
~,d ;-.*
. Full compliart~e has been' achieved. ___
I_
........ ~ :,;
--~- -=. :: _. * ";* *
- r,._-,* *.,/,
I l
J.. '
I
- \\
+**
- ~
e B.
NRC COMMENT:
As required by Technical Specification 6.4.D, PT procedures shall be followed.
Section 6.1 of PT-18.6 (Monthly Testing of Safety~Related MOV's) required the individual performing the PT to submit a station deviation if any test value exceeds the 25% limit given in the proce-dure, and to note the deviation on the critique sheet.
Contrary to the above, the auxiliary feed pump discharge valves (MOV-FW-151C and MOV-FW-151E) were tested on 10/13/79 and the opening time.
exceeded the 25% limit *.. No _station deviation was submi_tted for these values and the error was not identified in the review process.
This is an infraction and is applicable to Unit 1 *.
RESPONSE
The infraction is correct as stated.
- 1.
- 2.
Corrective *steps which have been taken and results achieved:
A review has been performed of subsequent.PT 18.6's run after 10/13/79.
The results of the November, December, and January PT's were all within the acceptance criteria stipulated.
The 10/13/79 PT was annotated with the discrepancies noted on the critique sheet.
The PT results were analyzed by the ISI engineer, and based on the subsequent results, considered acceptable.
Corrective steps taken to avoid further infractions:
All applicable personnel have been informed as to the importance of proper review prior to forwarding.
They have also been re-instructed to insure all steps are initialed, all sections complete, and that all the requirements of the acceptance criteria are met.
- 3.
The date when full compiiance will be achieved:
Full compliance has been achieved.
-~**.*- ~-..,-.
.. -~'.. _.
...... * ~. ~- *--**
. -. l.. : :. ~ '*._
- *:.. '. -* * *_:~*{:.-~:_;_.:**::?!..:~;--:..~_.:.-::*--- =-*-*:...~_:._;_.:,.
-*~. - ~- '.;. -.. ' *-;_. ~.. -:.,.. ---..