ML20083K356
| ML20083K356 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 12/07/1978 |
| From: | Stallings C VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20083K353 | List: |
| References | |
| 653-111478, NUDOCS 7901290343 | |
| Download: ML20083K356 (3) | |
Text
..
.a..x
.u:
--t
..s : '.. ~
. :.. w =.... -.z._
._ w
^
~
/.m -
l l'
2 VInOINIA EI.ECTRIC AND Pow E n COMPANY P
Rtcamown,Vamonw sA 90961 c
t-r December 7, 1978 c.
8.
oD.
rn r.*
OC
'. '.1
.ir. James P. O'Reilly, Director Serial No. 653/111478 W
o;'
,,J g
- 4.3 cm Of fice of Inspection and Enforcement P0/DLB:scj co U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cossaission Docket No. 50-338 sf,.q,i License No. NPF-4 Region II
' 'YN/
101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 W
L '. N..
O.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
.dh 5 ?
. j,
Eear Mr. O'Reilly u
We have reviewed your letter of November 14, 1978 in reference to the inspection conducted at North Anna Power Station on September 12-15 and
- v. ~,.
20-21, 1978 and reported in IE Inspection Report Lo. 50-338/78-29. Our response to the specific violation is attached.
- (~~
We have determined that no proprietary information is contained in the s
s' report. Accordingly, the Virginia Electric and Power Company interposes no objection to the inspection report being made a matter of public disclosure.
4 Very truly yours, i
- * ))).'>d/tG 6 n y.u
{
f } [
- 3. 1.-
C. M. Stallings Vice President-Power Supply
! '.w.
and Production Operations f
- J p;h; -
f,;t.
Attachment t?-...
cc:
Mr. Albert Schwencer F
I
(. s a
9 r
,t k:
(w:',)
I l
l g R M Nto'LQ3 f.
gass
. ~.s m
w w
e
..T-.:
i.X..~
- a
.:. :.l L.R
^,.
.....T
.' ~
. a-:
..:.G :_..f.;.- J, 4
.,,g
' Q' '..
RESPONSE TO VIOLATION O'
e LISTED IN INSPECTION REPORT No. 50-338/78 _29 1'
j NRC COMMENT 1
Based on the results of the NRC inspection conducted on September 12-15, 1978, it appears that certain of your activities were not conducted in full
.. 2 compliance with NRC requirements as indicated below. These items have been M
categorized as described in our correspondence to you dated December 31, 1#
.f. W 1974.
f5$h I
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criteria II states la part "A test program Qf shall be established to assure thap all testing required to demonstrate g
4 that structures, systems, and components will perform satisfactorily in
- i.<9.'
service is identified and performed in accordance with written test NT proceduras which incorporate requirements and acceptance limits contained 14 in applicable design documents..." These requirements are satisfied 7
by Virginia Electricand Power Company Topical Report Quality Assurance Q...
Program Section.17.2.11. They are further addressed by Virginia gM^
Electric and Power Company Nuclear Power Station Quality Assurance Manual Section 11 paragraph 1.3 which says in part "The provisions contained herein, assure that all prerequisites for a given test have
.,Y
{
been met,
.>., that the test is performed under suitable environmental
'/.
and operational conditions..~.", and Section 11 paragraph 5.2.5 which says in part "He shall present the completed test to the Station l
Nuclear Safety and Operating Committee which shall review the test for i
j any discrepancies.
_.s Contrary to the above requirements, the following actions were not performed.and were.not identified as discrepancies as required.
1.
Startup Test Procedures 1-SU-15 Reactor Coolant System Flow Measure-PM' nents was reviewed and approved July 31, 1978.
In Attachment 6.2
'!?.a to that procedure, two separate data sheets contained entries of W,
primary system pressure data which did not meet the requirements h.' f.3 listed in paragraph 2.6 for performing this test. No discrepancies 1 Tils were recorded on page 2 during the test performance or review.
NW wy
~,]M 2.
Startup Test Procedure 1-SU-33, Large Load Reduction Tests was reviewed and approved July 3, 1978. Data recorded in Attachment 6.2 to that procedure deviated from specified values of paragraph 4.11.5.
_ t>
t l
The deviation was not-listed on data sheet 2 as required by paragraph w
4.11.
This discrepancy was not detected or recorded on page 2 M]
during the test performance or test review.
[.
3.
Startup Test Procedure 1-SU-34, Load Living Tests was received and L.
approved July 3, 1978. Data for three instruments channels recorded
?.y !
in Attachment 6.2 to that procedure deviated from the specified
"~
values of paragraph 4.12.2.
~
O
, g...,. -.
...,.eg,.,,.,.
c.
-, _ ~.
.s a.
.r.
1
- g....
.~, a :.A.*G 3 :;u'. H i.>..:.L. : "~* '
~ 2.J *^*
=
'.: :q
" ~
3 q.q j&~
- \\
Only one of the deviating channels was recorded on data sheet 2.
9 I
The other two channels were not listed on data sheet 2 as required by
y paragraph 4.12.
These discrepancies were not detected or recorded on
.;} U page 2 as a result of test performance or review.
3 v
4
'his item is an. infraction.
t f
-,e P-
RESPONSE
['jd The infraction as stated above is not fully correct.
It stated that the discrepancies noted in 1-8U-15,1-SU-33 and 1-sU-34 should be recorded 02 8 on page 2 of the test, under discrepancies. With the exception of the one TM case in which primary plant pressure did actually drift outside of the T
.[
limits specified by 1-SU-15 none of these items would have been documented T.; a
-/L 1
on this page.
As specified in section,11 of our Nuclear Power' Station i
l Quality Assurance Manual (NPSQAM), thi, discrepancies listed on page 2 are
[7
$yd those which are encountered by the test engineer while performing the test.
With the one exception noted above, none of the others meet this criteria.
W /,s The other discrepancy noted in 1-80-15 was a result of the test engineer f2:'.$h
~
recording incorrect data and would have been corrected utilizing the procedure FjV /
specified in Section.5, paragraph 5.7 of the NPSQAM. The discrepancies Mbi
' %~ V if; noted in 1-SU-33 and 1-SU-34 were a result of failure to maice requested remarks on a data sheet. These would have been corrected by making the v.
I@,
proper entries as requested in these procedures.
If desired, entries h' t concerning these items during subsequent review could be made 'in the critique or on page 1 under SNS & OC review.
j The discrepancies noted in 1-SU-33 and 1-SU-34 were administrative in I
nature and had no effect on the final acceptance of the test or the dissemina-l tion of test results. Of the discrepancies in 1-SU-15, the first (during p':s data run #2) was purely administrative and did not affect final test results;,
E j., d v
the second (during data run #7) was a case where the actual test pressure tQ was outside the ban'd specified by the test. Analysis of this pressure W.E Ed difference revealed no effect on test results,
- f.. s:.,
- c..
.x To correct these discrepancies, supplemental information discussing
~ Mhi,
- f. ;2.f i?p'@
these items were placed with the appropriate tests as specified by Section a
17, paragraph 5.1.6 of the NPSQAM.
In addition, a training session was held
,j with the Engineering Services Test Engineers discussing proper test perfor-mance.
The Station Nuclear Safety and Operating Committee has also reviewed
.c G
4 and discussed this infraction and will review the written response.
- y.
n w
No further corrective action beyond that mentioned above are required.
. I [,
L {,
}
Full compliance has been achieved as of the date of this reply.
</c l
-s:-,'*
b
- -j l
,c.
- m.
h W"
g
- );
1 4..
y,.
.....3 a y..
- .-, m -. ;...m.,
m,~ m
..