ML20117N446
| ML20117N446 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 04/01/1985 |
| From: | Stewart W VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| To: | Grace J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20117N440 | List: |
| References | |
| 85-168, NUDOCS 8505170534 | |
| Download: ML20117N446 (5) | |
Text
_ _. _ _ _ _,
sc C W ttl.SitT&T NKktW Q%'Ftdiutts[kf2rt9Nent
- We f %'sklent ital 0[n'tikW2(f:66 suckvvqrwrwkns o a. ja,,,e,ya,isaa Rwinnovul Viry'nta 23261 '
el*34
'y [d April 1,
1985 t
(.
l I
. Dr. J. Nelson Grace
' Serial No.85-168 Regional Administrator N0/HLM:dn Region II Docket Nos.
0-28 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 50-281 101 Marietta. Street, Suite 2900 License Nos.
DPR-32 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 DPR-37
Dear Dr. Grace:
We have reviewed your letter of March 1, 1983 in reference to the t -
inspection conducted at Surry Power Station on January 5, 1985 -
February 8, 1985 and reported in IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-280/
85-01 and 50-281/85-01. Our responses to the specific violations are attached.
l We have-determined that no proprietary information is contained in the report. Accordingly, Virginia Power has no objection to this inspection report 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.
'ery truly yours, h
v t,
W. L. Stewart Attachment cc:
(w/ attachment)
Mr. Steven A. Varga, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 1 Division of Licensing Mr. D. J. Burke NRC Resident Inspector Surry Power Station 290 0
(;
\\:
l-j RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-280/85-01 and 50-281/85-01 i
VIOLATION Technical Specification, Table 4.1-1, Item 35 requires monthly a.
testing of the control room chlorine detectors.
Contrary to the above, the control room detectors were not test-ed between October 15, 1984, when the Technical Specification Amendment 100 was issued and January 30, 1985.
b.
Technical Specification, Table 4.1-2A, Item 20.6 requires a i
monthly channel functional test of the Unit 1 Containment Hydrogen Analyzers.
Contrary to the above, the Unit 1 Containment Hydrogen Analyzers were not tested between December 25, 1984, when Unit 1 was restarted, and February 13, 1985, at which time the testing was performed. The testing grace period expired on February 2, 1985.
These are two examples of a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement I) and apply to Unit-1.
RESPONSE
(1) ADMISSION OR DENIAL OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION The violation is correct as stated.
l (2) REASONS FOR VIOLATION The violation resulted from a failure to follow station I
administrative procedures which specify responsibilities for implementing Technical Specification (TS) surveillance requirements and updating station procedures upon issuance of TS amendments.
?
i I
(3) CORRECTIVE STEPS k'HICH HAVE BEEN TAKEN AND THE RESULTS l
ACHIEVED 1
l E
L
'{
A review of station records indicates -that the chlorine detectors were operable during the period of missed surveillance and surveillance was performed on January 30, 1985. Station procedures have been updated to incorporate the TS surveillance requirements for. control room. chlorine detectors.
A review of station records indicates that the the Unit 1 containment hydrogen analyzers were operable during the period of missed surveillance testing and were calibrated on February 15, 1985.
(4) CORRECTIVE STEPS WHICH WILL BE TAKEN TO AVOID FURTHER VIOLATIONS In the second quarter of 1984 a contractor for Virginia Power conducted a review to determine Surry Power Station (SPS) compliance with TS surveillance requirements.
This review included surveillance requirements through Amendment Nos. 95 (Surry, Unit 1) and 94 (Surry, Unit 2) of the Surry TS. As a result of the station deviation on the control room chlorine detector, a similar review was initiated for amendments received subsequent to that time, i
Station surveillance procedures are being updated to incorporate the TS requirements for the containment hydrogen analyzers.
In addition, a review of station administrative procedures identified areas where administrative controls could be strengthened.
ADM-24, Adherence to Technical Specifications, ADM-51, Document Control, and ADM-60, Station Procedures, will be reviewed and revised where necessary to strengthen administrative controls for review of TS amendments and their implementation.
(5) THE DATE WHEN FULL COMPLIANCE WILL BE ACHIEVED Administrative procedures will be revised by June 30, 1985.
a.
b.
Station procedures for surveillance requirements of the containment hydrogen analyzers will be revised by May 1, 1985.
L
_;,L VIOLATION Technical. Specifications 6.4.A.1 and 6.4.D require that the detailed written procedures with appropriate checkoff lists and instructions for the. normal startup, operation, and shutdown of a unit shall be followed.
Contrary to the above, Operating Procedure 1-0P-10, Estimated Rod Bank Position, was not followed on January 27 and 28,1985. > When criticality was not achieved.within the predicted control' rod position administrative limits, the control rods were not inserted
- and the Estimated Critical Position re-evaluated as required by the procedure.
This is Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement I) and applies to Unit 1.
RESPONSE
(1) ADMISSION OR DENIAL OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION The violation is correct as stated.
(2) REASONS FOR VIOLATION The reason for this violation is failure of personnel to follow administrative procedures for procedure deviations.
A management review of the events determined that proper judgment was applied and appropriate actions taken except that the procedure for deviating procedures was not strictly followed.
(3) CORRECTIVE STEPS WHICH HAVE BEEN TAKEN AND THE RESULTS ACHIEVED Operations personnel have been reinstructed regarding procedure use and actions to be taken should a variance be required.
(4) CORRECTIVE STEPS WHICH WILL BE TAKEN TO AVOID FURTHER VIOLATIONS Additional actions to be taken will include modifying OP-1.4, Unit Startup Operation, to provide further guidance on evaluating Estimated Critical Position discrepancies.
o'
]
i'..
)
1 s
(5) DATE WHEN FULL COMPLIANCE WILL BE' ACHIEVED Full compliance ~has been achieved.
l
..,s a
e O'
4