ML20054D963
| ML20054D963 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 04/02/1982 |
| From: | Leasburg R VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054D960 | List: |
| References | |
| 158, NUDOCS 8204230546 | |
| Download: ML20054D963 (3) | |
Text
i VIItOINIA ELECTIIIC AND POWEIt COMPANY H sen wonn, VIHUINIA 20 261 C J n
A ril 2, 1982 P
It. II. I.E A MM U NU v........_.
Noca..As Ura marman Mr. James P. O'Reilly Serial No. 158 Regional Administrator N0/RMT: ace U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docket Nos. 50-280 Region II 50-281 l
101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 License Nos. DPR-32 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 DPR-37 l
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
i We have reviewed your letter of March 4, 1982 in reference to the inspection conducted at Surry Power Station between December 14, 1981 and January 22, 1982 and reported in IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-280/82-01 and 50-281/82-01.
Our response to the specific infraction is 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.
The information contained in the attached pages is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Very truly yours, s
R. H. Leasburg Attachment cc:
Mr. Steven A. Varga, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. I Division of Licensing l
l 0
820423
Attachment Serial No. 158 RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-280/82-01 AND 50-281/82-01
~
NRC COMMENT:
As a result of the inspection conducted on December 14, 1981 - January 22, 1982, and in accordance with the Interim Enforcement Policy, 45 FR 66754 (October 7, 1980), the following violation was identified.
Criterion XVI of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, and Section 16 of the VEPCO NPS QA Manual, " Corrective Action", establish measures to assure that conditions adverse'to. quality, such as failures, deficiencies, deviations, defective material and equipment. are promptly identified, and corrected.
T. S. 4.4.C require that the leakage rate of all penetrations and valves subject to Type B & C tests shall be less than 0.6 of the maximum allovable containment leakage.
Electrical containment penetration A-18 is subject to Type B leakage tests.
Contrary to the above, prompt corrective action was not taken when Unit 2 electrical containment penetration A-18 was found leaking in excess of its acceptance criteria during the performance of Periodic Test 34, " Electrical Penetration Leakage Test", on October 15, 1981.
The identified leakage was not determined to be within the permiss-able maximum allowable leakage.
Subsequently, a containment inte-grated leak rate test performed on December 15, 1981, failed due to excessive leakage through the A-18 penetration.
This is a Severity Level V Violation (Supplement I.E.).
RESPONSE
(1)
ADMISSION OR DENIAL OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION:
This item is correct as stated.
(2)
REASONS FOR VIOLATION:
At the time the leakage was identified on PT-34 it was believed the electrical penetration was providing a barrier between theLeontainment and'the outside atmosphere. Periodic Test 34 does not provide a quantitative test of the leak tightness of a penetration, however, lack of operational vacuum. problems with the subatmospheric containment supported the belief that the containment barrier was intact. During the refueling outage, in preparation for the Integrated Leak Rate Test (Type "A" Test), a Type "B" Test was performed on the penetration.
This test revealed no' excessive leakage. When penetration leakage was identified during the Type "A" Test, it was then determined the Type B test procedure was inadequate and did not properly pressurize the penetration. The exact time of the failure of the penetration to provide a seal'is not known. The Type "A" Test may have aggravated the leakage and caused the failure.
[
Attachment Page 2 Serial No. 158 (3)
CORRECTIVE STEPS WilICH IIAVE BEEN TAKEN AND THE RESULTS ACHIEVED:
The penetration was repaired.
The Type B test procedure was revised to provide for proper testing.
The penetration was tested satisfactorily. A Type "A' Test was performed with acceptable results.
(4)
CORRECTIVE STEPS WilICll WILL BE TAKEN TO AVOID FURTilET, VIOLATIONS:
PT-34 has been modified to include recorded as-found and as-left values such that an evaluation of the Icakage noted can be made.
(5)
Tile DATE WilEN FULL COMPLIANCE WILL BE ACIIIEVED:
Full compliance has been achieved.
[