ML18142A563
| ML18142A563 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 07/08/1985 |
| From: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Stewart W VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| References | |
| GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8507170689 | |
| Download: ML18142A563 (6) | |
Text
(
July 8, 1985 e
Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281 Mr. W. L. Stewart Vice President - Nuclear Operations Virginia Electric and Power Company Post Office Box 26666 Richmond, Virginia 23261
Dear Mr. Stewart:
Distribution Docket t, I e
-- ORB#_l _ ROG Gray file OELD BGrimes ACRS (10)
DNeighbors NRC PDR L PDR HThompson EJordan JPartlow CParrish We have completed a review of your responses dated November 4, 1984, February 8, March 29, and April 1, 1985 to Generic Letter (GL) 83-28 11 Required Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events 11 for Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2.
This review was performed to assess the completeness and adequacy of your response to GL 83-28, Items 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 4.1 and 4.5.1.
We find that we need additional
- information for Items 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, and 3.2.2. Brief descriptions of the deficiencies are given in the enclosed request for additional information.
Please provide the information requested in the enclosure within 30 days of receipt of this letter or provide us your schedule for doing so.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements of this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, 0MB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/enclosure:
See next page
- SEE PREVIOUS WHITE FOR CONCURRENCE ORB#l:DL*
CParrish 07/08/85 Sincerely,
/.s/SAVarga Steven A. Varga, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #1 Division of Licensing
Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281 Mr. W. L. Stewart e
Vice President - Nuclear Operations Virginia Electric and Power Company Post Office Box 26666 Richmond, Virginia 23261
Dear Mr. Stewart:
Distribution Docket file ORB#l 'R~
Gray~f;Vle OELD BGyr'mes M'RS ( 10)
DNeighbors NRC PDR L PDR HThompson EJordan JPartlow CParrish We have completed a review of your resp nses dated November 4, 1984, February 8, March 29, and April 1, 19 to Generic Letter (Gt) 83-28 "Required Actions Based on Generic I lications of Salem ATWS Events.
11 This review was performed to assess the completeness and adequacy of your response to GL 83-28, Items 3.1.rl 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 4.1 and 4.5.1.
We find that we need additional inf mation for Items 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, and 3.2.2. Brief descriptions oft e deficiencies are given in the enclosed request for additional informa on.
Please provide the informatio, requested in the enclosure within 30 days of receipt of this letter or pr vide us your schedule for doing so.
The reporting and/or recor eeping requirements of this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; the efore, 0MB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.
Enclosure:
As stated cc.w/encl osure:
See next page ORB#l:D~b CParrish~
07/t /85 Sincerely, Steven A. Varga, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #1 Division of Licensing ORB#l:DL BC-ORB#l:DL DNeighbors/ts SVarga 07/ /85 07/ /85
Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281 Mr. W. L. Stewart UNITED STATES e
Nlfl!'LEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 July 8, 1985 Vice President - Nuclear Operations Virginia Electric and Power Company Post Office Box 26666 Richmond, Virginia 23261
Dear Mr. Stewart:
We have completed a review of your responses dated November 4, 1984, February 8, March 29, and April 1, 1985 to Generic Letter (GL) 83-28 "Required Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events" for Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2. This review was performed to assess the completeness and adequacy of your response to GL 83-28, Items 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 4.1 and 4.5.1.
We find that we need additional information for Items 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, and 3.2.2. Brief descriptions of the deficiencies are given in the enclosed request for additional information.
Please provide the information requested in the enclosure within 30 days of receipt of this letter or provide us your schedule for doing so.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements of this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, 0MB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/enclosure:
See next page
e Mr. W. L. Stewart Virginia Electric and Power Company cc:
Mr. Michael W. Maupin Hunton and Williams Post Office Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23213 Mr. Robert F. Saunders, Manager Surry Power Station Post Office Box 315 Surry, Virginia 23883 Donald J. Burke, Resident Inspector Surry Power Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corrmission Post Office Box 166, Route 1 Surry, Virginia 23883 Mr. Sherlock Holmes, Chairman Board of Supervisors of Surry County Surry County Courthouse Surry, Virginia 23683 W. T. Lough Virginia Corporation Commission Division of Energy Regulation Post Office Box 1197 Richmond, Virginia 23209 Mr. J. H. Ferguson Executive Vice President - Power Virginia-Electric and Power Company Post Office Box 26666 Richmond, Virginia 23261 Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 2900 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 James B. Kenley, M.D., Corrmissioner Department of Health 109 Governor Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Surry Power Station Attorney General Supreme Court Building 101 North 8th Street Richmond, Virginia 23219
ENCLOSURE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SURRY UNITS 1 AND 2 Item 3.1.1 - Incomplete The licensee needs to confinn that test and maintenance procedures and Technical Specifications have been reviewed for safety-related components in the reactor trip system (RTS). This review is to assure that post-maintenance testing is specified in the procedures and that the testing will verify component capability to perform its safety functiqns prior to being returned to service. Your response to Item 3.1.1 states that Administrative Procedures, Quality Assurance (QA) procedures and Technical Specifications require post-maintenance testing and that a large quantity of unique maintenance and testing procedures implement these post-maintenance requirements; however, you did not confirm that these unique maintenance and testing procedures have been reviewed and that they contain requirements for post-maintenance testing to assure they meet their safety functions.
Item 3.1.2 - Incomplete The licensee needs to confinn their review of vendor and engineering recoTTJTien-dations for safety-related components in the RTS to ensure that any appropriate test guidance.is included in the test and maintenance procedures or the Technical Specifications. Your response only addresses the review of vendor recoTTJTien-dations for the reactor trip breakers. What about the remaining components in the RTS?
Have you reviewed these vendor recormnendations and associated test and maintenance procedures to ensure that the vendor recommendations have been evaluated and included as appropriate into your working-level procedures?
Item 3.2.1 - Incomplete The licensee needs to confinn that working-level test procedures, maintenance procedures and Technical Specifications were reviewed for all other safety-related equipment. This review is to assure that post-maintenance testing is required and that the testing verifies component capability to perform safety functions prior to being returned to service.
Your response stated that a large quantity of unique maintenance and test procedures implement the post-maintenance testing requirements {Administrative Procedures, QA Manual and Technical Specifi-cations); however, your response did not specify whether these working-level procedures and Technical Specifications associated with all other safety-related equipment had been reviewed.
~ '
e Enclosure
' 2 Item 3.2.2 - Incomplete The licensee needs to confinn their review of vendor and engineering recommen-dations for all other safety-related equipment to ensure that any appropriate test guidance is included in the working-level test and maintenance procedures or the Technical Specifications. Your response states that the controls exist for assuring review and incorporation of vendor infonnation into test and maintenance procedures; however, the response does not state that a review had been conducted of present (in use) working-level procedures to ensure that they contain or reference current technical infonnation as ~ppropriate.