ML19257C596
| ML19257C596 | |
| 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) |
| References | |
| 018-123179, 18-123179, NUDOCS 8001290464 | |
| Download: ML19257C596 (3) | |
Text
.
VInco n stA Ex ecritte Ax n I'ow n te Cosiwxy It zcuxoxo.V1HOIN IA 03261 January 25, 1980 Mr. James P.
O'Reilly, Director Serial No. 018/123179 Office of Inspection and Enforcement P0/RMT:baw U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docket Nos. 50-280 Region II 50-281 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 License Nos. DPR-32 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 DPR-37
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
We have reviewed your letter of December 31, 1979 in reference to the inspection conducted at Surry Power Station Unit Nos. 1 & 2 on November 26-30, 1979 and reported in IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-280/79-65 and 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.
Very truly yours, 1
C. M.
Stallings Vice President-Power Supply and Production Operations Attachment cc:
Mr. Albert Schwencer 1898032 O
sooxsoo
//(//
RESPONSE TO INSPECTION REPORT NOS.
50-280/79-65 & 50-281/79-85 A.
NRC COMMENTS:
As required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V (Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings), " Activities af fecting quality shall be prescribed by docu-mented instructions...and shall be accomplished in accordance with the instructions...." The accepted quality assurance program, VEP-1-3A, Section 17.2.11, states in part, "The authority and responsibilitics related to the test program are delineated in the Nuclear Power Station Quality Assurance Manual (NPSQAM)." the NPSQAM Section II, Paragraph
- 5. 3.4 states that the individual performing a periodic test (PT) is respenalble 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.
Techn ical Specification 6.5 requires that these PT records be retained for five years.
Contrary to the above, Se c t ions 1 through 6 of PT's 2.1 through 2.11 generated between 1/1/79 and 11/27/79, were not reviewed bv the cog-nizant supervisor and p formance engineer, initialed and signed in ink, and retained in the station file room for five years.
This le a de ficiency.
RES PONSE:
The deficiancy 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:
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 acceptance criteria are met prior to forwarding for cognizant supe rvisor and performance engineer's reviews.
3.
The date when full compliance will be achieved:
033 Full compliance has been achieved.
. E.
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 Safe ty-Related MOV's) required the individual performing the PT to submit a station leviation 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 submitted 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.
Corrective steps which have been taken and results achieved:
A review has been performed of subsequent ?T 18.6's run af ter 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.
2.
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 compliance will be achieved:
Full compliance has been achieved.
139tf034