ML18149A423
| ML18149A423 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 11/03/1986 |
| From: | Heishman R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Stewart W VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18149A424 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8611120175 | |
| Download: ML18149A423 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000280/1986012
Text
. )
.,
f
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
November 3, 1986
Docket Nos. 50-280/28l
Virginia Electric and Power Company
ATTN:
Mr. William L. Stewart
Vice President, Nuclear Operations
Post Office Box 26666
Richmond, Virginia 23261
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
INSPECTION NO. 50-280,281/86-12
Enclosed is the report of the team inspection conducted by Mr. S. D. Alexander
and other NRC representatives during the period of June 16 through 20, 1986
at your engineering offices in Richmond, Vi rgi ni a and at the Surry Power
Station, of activities authorized by NRC License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37.
The
team's findings were discussed with you and members of your staff at the
conclusion of the inspection.
The inspectors reviewed your implementation of a
program as. required by 10 CFR 50.49 for establishing and maintaining the
environmental qualification (EQ) of electrical equipment within the scope of
10 CFR 50:49.
Within the~e areas, the inspection consisted of examination of
selected procedures and
records, inspection of selected plant equipment,
interviews with personnel, and other observations by the inspectors.
The inspectors determined that you have implemented a program to meet the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.49 except for certain deficiencies identified in the
- enclosed
inspection
report.
Six
of these deficiencies,
summarized
in
Appendix A, are classified as Potential Enforcement/Unresolved Items -and will
be refe~red to the NRC Region II office for further acti6n.
The most serious
deficiencies involved unidentified and potentially unqualified internal control
wiring in safety-related Limitorque valve actuators and the presence of safety-
related pressure transmitters in the Main . Steam Valves Houses which were
potentially unqualified for the Main Steam Line Break environment.
Other
Potential Enforcement/Unresolved Items included failure to maintain qualified
status of the High Head Safety Injection Pump motors, failure \\o establish
qualification (by similarity) of Low Head Safety Injection Pump motors, failure
to maintain Raychem splice sleeves in a qualified configuration, and.failure to
establish qualification of two installed types of Rockbestos. cable .
r 8611120175 861103
ADOCK 05000280
G
..
Virginia Electric and Power Company - 2 -
November 3, 1986
Four additional concerns were classified as Open Items, and a future NRC
inspection will review your actions concerning them.
Details of all the
deficiencies and concerns are discus~ed in the enclosed inspection report.
Your corrective actions regarding the identified deficiencies and concerns
should not be delayed pending either a future NRC inspection o~ further action
by the NRC Regioi Jl Office.
We are available to discuss any questions you may have concerning this
inspection.
Enclosures:
Since~~
f".£ F. * Heishman, Chief
Vendor Program Branch
Division of Quality Assurance, Vendor
and Technical Training Center Programs
Office of Inspection and Enforcement
1. Appendix A - Potential Enforcement/Unresolved Items
2.
Inspection Report No. 50-280,281/86-12
cc w/encl:
J. A. Ahladas, Vice President, Engineering, Virginia Power
R. J. Hardwick, Manager, Nuclear Programs and Licensing, Virginia Power
R. F. Saunders, Station Manager, Surry Power Station
H. L. Miller, Assistant Station Manager, Surry Power Station
R. W. Cross, Nuclear Specialist, Nuclear Operations Dept., Surry Power Station
Division of Radiological Health, Virginia State Health Department
109 Governor Street, Room 910
Richmond, Virginia 23219
,
1
Virginia Electric and Power Company
DISTRIBUTION:
IE llocket Fil es ( 50-280/281)
VPB Reading
DQAVT Reading
SAlexander
UPotapovs
GHubbard
RWilson
Rlasky
JTaylor
RStarostecki
BGrimes
HMiller
HWalker, PAEI/NRR
SPatel, PAD5/NRR
MYost, INEL
JFehringer, INEL
DJackson, INEL
DBeahm, INEL
MJacobus, SNL
REGION II DISTRIBUTION:
AGibson, D:DRS
AHerdt, C:EB, DRS
TConlon, C:PSS, EB
A Ruff, PSS, EB
NMerriweather, PSS, EB
Aignatonis, DRP Section Chief
RII Docket Room
November 3, 1986
MDavis, SRI, Surry Power Station, Route 1, P.O. Box 166, Surry, VA
23883
JJ&
VPB:DQAVT
SAlexander:tt
10/;jtJ/86
S~~PB:DQAVT
UPotapovs
\\~l)/86
&::DQAVT
~<t.RFHeishman
1~/ 3 /86
Virginia Electric and Power Company
APPENDIX A
Potential Enforcement/Unresolved Items
As a result of the equipment qua 1 ifi cation inspect ions* during the period of
June 16 through ?O, 1986 at. the Vi rgi ni a Electric a*nd Power Company (VEPCO)
engineering office~ and the Surry Power Station, (SURRY-1,2) the following
items have been referred to the NRC Region II office as Potential Enforcement/
Unresolved Items.
(Paragraph references in parentheses are to detailed
portions of the inspection report.)
1.
- . 2.
3.
4.
5.
Contrary to paragraphs (f) and (k) of 10 CFR 50.49 and sections 5.2.2 and
5.2.6 of the DOR Guidelines, VEPCO failed to ensure that after the
qua l ifi cal ion deadline date of March 31, 1985 set forth in 10 CFR 50. 49,
or after the extended deadline date (with NRC Staff-approved extensions)
of November 30, 1985, all Limitorque valve actuators required to be
qualified at SURRY-I & 2 were in an installed condition similar to that in
which they were tested in that VEPCO did not have assurance that
Limitorque internal control wiring was either the same as that tested with
the actuators or, if different, that it was qualified separately.
(earagraph 4.A(l), Item 50-280,281/86-12-0l)
Contrary to paragraphs (f) and (k) of 10 CFR 50.49 and section 4.0 of the
DOR Guidelines, pressure transmitters important to safety (TAG Nos.
PT-1474,5,6, 1484,5,6,, 1494,5,6 for Unit 1 and PT-2474,5,6, 2484,5,6,
2494,5,6 for Unit 2, were located in the Main Steam Valve House and
subject to a Main Steam Line Break (MSLB) environment for which they were
- unqua l if i etl in that ori gi na 1 qua 1 if i cation parameters would not enve 1 ope
potentially *much more severe superheated steam MSLB service conditions.
(Paragraph 4.A(l), Item 50-280,281/86-12-02)
Contrary to paragraphs (f) and (k) of 10 CFR 50.49 and sections 5.2._2 and
5.2.6 of the DOR Guidelines, VEPCO had failed to maintain the High Head
Safety Injection Pump Motors (TAG Nos.: CH-P-lA,B and C) in a condition
similar to that in which they were tested in that motor lube-oil had not
been changed out at the frequency specified in the EQ test report.
(Paragraph 4.D(l), Item 50-280,281/86-12-03)
Contrary to paragraphs (f) and (k) of 10 CFR 50.49 and sections 5.2.2 and
5.2.6 of the DOR Guidelines, VEPCO had failed to establish similarity
between the wire with which Low Head Safety Injection Pump Motors (TAG
Nos.:
SI-P-lA
and
SI-P-18)
had
been
rewound
and wire covered by
their EQ test report.
(Paragraph 4.0(2), Item 50-280,281/86-12-04)
_Contrary to paragraphs (f) and (k) of 10 CFR 50.49 and sections 5.2.2 and
5.2.6 of the DOR Guidelines, VEPCO had failed to maintain Raychem splice
insulation sleeves in safety-related cables in condulets (e.g., for
solenoid valve TAG No. TV-GW-1128) in a condition similar to that in which
they were tested in that they were excessively bent with bend radii less
than the minimum allowed by Raychem specifications. (Paragraph 4.E(3),
Item 50-280,281/86-12-05)
Virginia Electric and Power Company
- 2 -
APPENDIX A
6.
Contrary to paragraphs (f), (g) and (k) of 10 CFR 50.49 and section 3.0
of the DOR Guidelines, VEPCO had failed to establish qualification for
Rockbestos
11 Pyrotrol
11 cable with the KXL-510 formulation and
11 Firewall
11
cable with * the KXL-760[AJ formulation of chemically cross-1 inked poly-
ethylene insulation in that existing qualification documentation for
Rockbestos (Cerro) cable did not cover these formulations recently deter-
- mined to be -in use*at SVRRY. (Paragraph 4.0(3), Item 50-280,281/86-12-06)