ML20127P347
| ML20127P347 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 04/04/1985 |
| From: | Stewart W VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| To: | Grace J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127P336 | List: |
| References | |
| 85-205, NUDOCS 8505230757 | |
| Download: ML20127P347 (4) | |
Text
r.
\\%wL Srner Nucha Qxmtatsik1tartment l'kel'riskA>nt i.
IbstOfacIkn26666
~ p.
suciarqwattwu o,u.ja,,.an,sw I&1mun,ut l'irginks 23261 A'
4, 1 d 5I 6
VIRGINIA P09H?R Dr. J. Nelson Grace Serial No.85-205 Regional Administrator-N0/HLM:dn Region II Docket Nos.
50-280
-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 50-281 101 Marietta Street, Suite 2900 License Nos.
DPR-32 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 DPR-37 Gentlemen:
We ' have reviewed your lette'r of March 8,
1985 in reference to the inspection conducted at Surry Power Station on February 19-22, 1985, and reported in IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-280/85-03 and 50-281/85-03. Our response to the specific violation is attached.
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.
Very truly yours, fW
. Stewart Attachment ec:
(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 8505230757 850425 PDR ADOCK 05000280 G
_p
~?_
[
c 6
ic A
n RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION INSPECTION REPORT-NOS.- 50-280/85-03 and 50-281/85-03 VIOLATION-I 10,CFR 50 ~ Appendix ;B, Criterion V and 'the _ licensee accepted QA Program (VEP-1-4A) Section 17.2.5' collectively require that activities affecting quality shall be. prescribed by procedures and accomplished in accordance with these procedures.
- 1. IQuality Assurance Instruction-('QAI) 18, Section 5.3.3, states that-if there are no adverse audit findings, station management may waive the post audit conference and such waiver shall be documented t
~
'in'the audit. report.
Cont'ary to the above, two' post audit conferences were waived for r
' audits S84-02 and S84-18. These waivers were not' documented in the audit reports.
2.
QAI 18, Section 5.5.1.2, states that the Station Manager or his Edesignee-shall respond to audit reports within 30 days from the p
date.of receipt.
- Contrary to. the above, the station' manager did not respond to
- Audits S84-13 and S84-21 within 30 days from the date of receipt.
'These audits were responded to 32 days'and 33 days, respectively, from the date.of receipt. Additionally audit S84-23 was submitted
~
to QA one day later than the request for extention response date.
- 3. ;QAI:2.2,~Section 5.5.2,. states that.the lead auditor's annual
. appraisal of performance shall serve as documented evidence for communication skills.
Contrary to the above, communication skills were.not documented sfor one: lead auditor. This auditor's last evaluation was performed
._ November : 29,21983.
This_is a Severity _ Level V Violation (Supplement I).
x a
h i
9
t s;
' RESPONSE (1)- ADMISSION OR DENIAL OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION 1The violation is correct as stated.
, 2) ' REASONS FOR' VIOLATION
(
- 1. -Station management waived the post audit conference with the concurrence of~the Quality Assurance Department. How-ever,,due to an administrative oversight, the waiver was not documented in the audit report.
2N LThe responses to audits S84-13, S84-21 and S84-23 were prepared within the required 30 day. time frame. The Quality. Assurance Department reviewed and accepted the responses. Due to an' administrative oversight, the Station Manager did not sign the responses until after the 30 day period.
3.
The lead auditor's communication skills were documented in the employee's annual appraisal issued in January 1984 and again in-January 1985.
In addition, documented evidence exists that demonstrates-the lead auditor's performance-for each quarter'of-1984. Due to.an administrative oversight, the record of the lead auditor's qualifications was not signed by the supervisor.
.(3) CORRECTIVE STEPS WHICH HAVE BEEN TAKEN AND THE RESULTS
. ACHIEVED
<1.
The discrepant audit reports were corrected during the inspection. The audit files have been reviewed and no discrepancies were found. The auditors and lead auditors have received additional training which should prevent recurrence of the problem.
2.
A~ computer tracking system report listing open audit findings is issued weekly to' station management. A summary of open audit findings is issued monthly. A meeting between the Station Manager'and the Manager-Quality Assurance to discuss Quality Assurance Department concerns is conducted monthly.
The auditors and lead auditors have received additional training which should prevent recurrence of the problem.
3.
The Quality Assurance Department training records have been reviewed and no discrepancies were found. A tickler system T.
e..
,4.-,.
-v,,,-+-<.-rw-.r----,
m z r e
3
.,9
.g
^ ~
- 1 l
has been implemented which should prevent recurrence of the
~
problem.'
(4)' CORRECTIVE STEPS WHICH WILL BE TAKEN TO AVOID FURTHER VIOLATIONS None required.
-(5) DATE WHEN FULL COMPLIANCE WILL BE ACHIEVED Full compliance has been achieved.
I e
4