ML18139A679
| ML18139A679 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 06/23/1980 |
| From: | Sylvia B VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18139A678 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8008280065 | |
| Download: ML18139A679 (3) | |
Text
- ; ::~ tJ RO RE r; ! :~~:, f\\
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND Po~~:t/*OoMP~i-i~'~~.;_*_
RICHMOND, Vx:RGIN IA 23261 i:lJ\\fUN25 p.9: 0' June 23, 1980 Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connnission Region II 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
Serial Number 515 NO/RMT/jmj Docket No. 50-281 License No. DPR-37 We have reviewed your letter of May 30, 1980 in reference to the inspection conducted at Surry Power Station on May 5-8, 1980 and reported in IE Inspection Report No. 50-281/80-20.
Our response to the specific infraction is attached.
We have determined that no proprietary information is contained in the report.
Accordingly, the V~rginia Electric and Power Company has no objection to this inspection report being made a matter of public disclosure.
Very truly yours,
~f;f~-
Manager - Nuclear Operations and Maintenance Attachment cc:
Mr. Steven A. Varga, Chief NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Operating Reactors Branch No. 1 Division of Licensing Washington, D. C. 20555
.. ~Ji~
.... i (Jit"?.'~.?.
,*!.~ '.j.:-\\*J, -~_... ~-~-
.8008280 oGS
~
~ *.
~---~~-----
NRC Statement:
SURRY POWER STATION RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION IN I.E. INSPECTION REPORT 50-281/80-20 Attachment, Page 1 As required by Technical Specifications 6.4.A.7 and 6.4.D, detailed written procedures with appropriate check-off lists and instructions shall be
. provided and followed for preventive or corrective maintenance operations which would have an effect on the safety of the reactor.
Contrary to the above, the "A" reactor coolant loop hydrostatic test procedure (DC 50006-P-4-U2A) performed on January 30, 1980 did nqt:
- a.
Specify the position of all boundary valves associated with the test.
- b.
Incorporate field changes discovered during the B" and "C" hydrostatic tests though the action specified by the field changes was taken.
- c. Specifically identify removal of all procedure installed test equipment.
- d.
Satisfactorily review that the alpha-numeric valve designators applied to the valve descriptions.
This is an infraction.
Response
Item (2..) is r:ot e!ltirely correct as stated.
The details of the inspecti*Jn repor~ state that 2-ECV-2557B, 2-HCV-2557C were found not positioned/checked positioned in the valve position checklist.
The first sentence in attach-ment II of 50006-P-4-UZA mandates 11hot and cold leg drains on B and C loop must be complete and shut". It is conceded that valve designations with sign off ~:an..~s would have been preferrable.
The details of report 80-20 also cite 2-?.C-23, 32 as similar discrepancies-2-RC-82 is the "C" loop hot leg drain and the above response applies.
2-RC-23, FE-2490 isolation valve was errantly omitted from the valve checkoff list.
Item (b.) is not entirely correct as stated.
The details of the inspection report cites:
Field changes 20 and 24 closed the No. 1 seal water leakoff flow control valves (2-HCV-2303 series) to the non-hydrostatically tested reactor coolant pumps (RCP) during the "C" and B" reactor coolant loop hydro tests respectively to prevent back.flow through
(,
I Attachment, Page 2 the RCP seals.
A similar valve arrangement was made during the 11A 11 loop hydrostatic test without the necessary authorization in the instructions.
This statement is incorrect.
The field change was incorporated into A" hydro test procedure prior to its approval by the Statioa Nuclear Safety and operating Committee.
HCV-2203B,C are closed by step 6.2.9 if P-4-UZA.
The report also cites:
Field changes 18 and 21 modified the requirements of Attachment VII to the "C 11 and "B" reactor coolant loop hydrostatic tests respectively to allow adding additional strip heaters to the reactor coolant piping crossover loop. Application of the *strip heaters was to prevent the steam generator channel head tempera....:
ture from dropping below the brittle fracture temperature limit of 150°F when the water of this pipe was forced into the steam generator during pressurization.
No provision for this applica-tion was made for the "A" loop hydrostatic test, however the heaters were attached to the crossover loop piping.
This statement is correct.
Item (c.) of the inspection report states that P-4-U2A of ETA 50006 does not specifically identify removal of all procedure installed test equipment.
Or. the contrary, step 6.7.3. states:
6.7.3 ciose valves 2-RC-15, 2-RC-19 and remove the test relief valves installed in steps 6.1.6 and 6.1.7.
Close valves 2-~C-14, 2-RC-16 and remove the spool pieces installed in step 6.1.8 Replace blanks using gaskets in accordance with
- N-US-20.
Removal of the hydrostatic test gage is accomplished by Part II of
Attachment:
I -..h.ich reads:
Equipment and tools have been removed followed by a Q.C. hol~.
(NOTE:
These same provisions are in P-4-UZB,C of ETA 50006.)
Item (d.) of the inspection report cites:
The alpha-numeric designator for valve 2-RC-24 appeared twice in the required valve position checklist (
Attachment:
II) of the procedure.
The first appearance identified the valve as an RTD discharge valve.
The second time as an "A" primary loop flow transmitter leg isolation valve.
The se*cond appearance of the designator should have been identified as 2-RC-27.
Even though incorrectly designated, the flow transmitter isolation valve was initialed by the positioning operator as positioned.
A procedure deviation was not written against the attachment for resolution.
This statement is correct as written.