ML19225A904
| ML19225A904 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 05/10/1979 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19225A898 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-338-79-19, 50-339-79-25, NUDOCS 7907230024 | |
| Download: ML19225A904 (1) | |
Text
.
APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Virginia Electric and Power Company License No. CPPR-78 North Anna Unit 2 Based on the NRC inspection April 17-20, 1979, certain of your activities were apparently not conducted in full compliance with NRC requirements as indicated below. These items have been categorized as described in correspondence to you dated December 31, 1974.
A.
As required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion VI, a test program shall be established to assure that all testing required is performed in accordance with written test procedures which incorporate requirements and acceptance limits. These requirements are implemented by the approved Topical Report Quality Assurance Program, Section 17.2.11, and the Nuclear Power Station Quality Assurance Manual (NPSQAM), Section 11, paragraph 5.1.4.
The NPSQAM requires that the individual (s) periorming the test record the information required by the test procedure and initial each step as it is satisfactorily completed.
Contrary to the above:
1.
During the performance of preoperational testing procedure 2-PO-39.2, Residual Heat Re. oval System Heat Removal Capacity, test results approved April 10, 1979, the flow to the tube side of the residual heat removal heat exchanger was not established at 4000 + 50 gpm as required by step 4.1 of the procedure. The calculations indicate a flow cate less than the required flow. Additionally, the step was initialed as having been satisfactorily completed.
2.
During the performance of preoperational testing procedure 2-PO-39.1, Residual Heat Removal System Testing at Cold Conditions, test results approved January 12, 1979, the discharge pressure gauges used to record the residual heat removal pump discharge pre.;sure on the dats sheet were not the same gauges as required by steps 4.1.4 and 4.1.8 of the procedo.;c. Again, the steps were initialed as having been satisfactorily completed.
This is an infraction.
412 246 gowty
-. _