ML18153A848: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Created page by program invented by StriderTol
 
StriderTol Bot change
 
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
| number = ML18153A848
| number = ML18153A848
| issue date = 06/15/1995
| issue date = 06/15/1995
| title = Responds to NRC 950518 Ltr Re Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-280/95-06 & 50-281/95-06.Corrective Actions:Mechanical Heise Gauges Not Compensated for Temp Removed from M&TE Program & Transmitter Calibr Procedure Revised
| title = Responds to NRC Re Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-280/95-06 & 50-281/95-06.Corrective Actions:Mechanical Heise Gauges Not Compensated for Temp Removed from M&TE Program & Transmitter Calibr Procedure Revised
| author name = OHANLON J P
| author name = Ohanlon J
| author affiliation = VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.)
| author affiliation = VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.)
| addressee name =  
| addressee name =  
Line 11: Line 11:
| contact person =  
| contact person =  
| document report number = 95-278, NUDOCS 9506220193
| document report number = 95-278, NUDOCS 9506220193
| title reference date = 05-18-1995
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE
| page count = 7
| page count = 7
}}
}}
See also: [[followed by::IR 05000280/1995006]]


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:* VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23261 June 15, 1995 United States Nuclear Regulatory  
{{#Wiki_filter:*
Commission  
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23261 June 15, 1995 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555 Gentlemen:
Attention:  
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY SURRY POWER STATION UNITS 1 AND 2
Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555 Gentlemen:  
* REPLY TO A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Serial No.
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY SURRY POWER STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 * REPLY TO A NOTICE OF VIOLATION  
SPS/BCB/ETS Docket Nos.
Serial No. SPS/BCB/ETS  
License Nos.
Docket Nos. License Nos. 95-278 R7 50-280 50-281 DPR-32 DPR-37 NRC INSPECTION  
95-278 R7 50-280 50-281 DPR-32 DPR-37 NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-280/95e06 AND 50&281/95-06 We have reviewed Inspection Report Nos. 50-280/95-06 and 50-281/95-06 dated April 14, 1995 and your {{letter dated|date=May 18, 1995|text=May 18, 1995 letter}} and enclosed Notices of Violation for Surry Unit 2. We share your concern regarding the effectiveness of the Measuring and Test Equipment (M&TE) Program and the resolution of the two Deviation Reports which documented discrepancies associated with the pressurizer protection instrument channels. We have implemented actions to strengthen our performance in these areas.
REPORT NOS. 50-280/95e06  
As discussed at our April 24, 1995 enforcement conference, a special Quality Assurance (QA) Audit of the Measuring and Test Equipment (M&TE) Program was performed to evaluate the overall program and its implementation. This QA audit has recently been completed and concluded that portions of the M& TE Program do not fully meet our Operational QA Program for the Control of M&TE Equipment and that portions of the program implementation have been ineffective. The preliminary QA audit findings have been presented to management and are being finalized. These preliminary findings are discussed in the attached response to the violations.
AND 50&281/95-06  
Based on management's concern for the implementation of appropriate corrective actions, a Root Cause Evaluation (RCE) of the Corrective Action Program was initiated in late 1994. The RCE was completed in April, 1995 and concluded that the Corrective Action Program is effective at identifying, documenting, and determining the cause of station deviations. However, opportunities to improve the Corrective Action Program were identified and actions to implement these opportunities are underway. These efforts are also discussed in the attached response to the violation.
We have reviewed Inspection  
9506220193 950615 PDR ADDCK 05000280  
Report Nos. 50-280/95-06  
' \\
and 50-281/95-06  
Q PDR i  
dated April 14, 1995 and your May 18, 1995 letter and enclosed Notices of Violation  
~''\\,  
for Surry Unit 2. We share your concern regarding  
 
the effectiveness  
e We have no objection to this letter being made a part of the public record. Please contact us if you have any questions or require additional information.
of the Measuring  
Very truly yours, r:?d,J~ Jor James P. O'Hanlon Senior Vice President - Nuclear Attachment cc:
and Test Equipment (M&TE) Program and the resolution  
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, N.W.
of the two Deviation  
Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. M. W. Branch NRG Senior Resident Inspector Surry Power Station  
Reports which documented  
~I  
discrepancies  
 
associated  
REPLY TO A NOTICE OF VIOLATION NRC INSPECTION CONDUCTED JANUARY 22 - FEBRUARY 11, 1995 SURRY POWER STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-280/95-03 AND 50-281/95-03 Violation A 1.
with the pressurizer  
Reason for the Violation, or, if Contested, the Basis for Disputing the Violation
protection  
: 2.
instrument  
The violation occurred as a result of the Unit 2 pressurizer pressure protection transmitters being calibrated using a pressure gauge that was not temperature compensated and without accounting for subatmospheric containment conditions. The net effect of these two factors resulted in each of the three pressurizer pressure protection transmitters being miscalibrated high by approximately 15 psi from June 24, 1994 to February 3, 1995.
channels.  
The Root Cause Evaluation (RCE) Team, established to investigate this event, concluded that the Maintenance Department Metrology Laboratory personnel's lack of knowledge led to the purchase and use of a pressure gauge that was not temperature compensated. The RCE Team also concluded that the effects of subatmospheric conditions were not accounted for in the calibration procedures.
We have implemented  
A copy of the RCE was provided to the NRG. Additional details were also provided in Licensee Event Report 50-281/95-003-01.
actions to strengthen  
Corrective Steps Which Have Been Taken and the Results Achieved A multidiscipline Root Cause Evaluation (RCE) Team* investigation was initiated on February 23, 1995 to determine the cause of this event and to recommend corrective actions. Approved corrective actions resulting from the RCE include:
our performance  
Mechanical Heise gauges that are not compensated for temperature have been removed from the M&TE Program.
in these areas. As discussed  
Equipment calibrations that were performed with mechanical Heise gauges that are not compensated for temperature have been reviewed. No safety significant equipment required re-calibration.
at our April 24, 1995 enforcement  
Transmitter calibration procedures have been revised to include a precautionary statement to preclude their use at subatmospheric conditions.
conference, a special Quality Assurance (QA) Audit of the Measuring  
Quality Assurance (QA) performed an audit of the Measuring and Test Equipment (M&TE) Program. The M&TE audit concluded that portions of the M& TE Program do not fully meet the Operational QA Program for the Control of M& TE Equipment and portions of the program are not being effectively  
and Test Equipment (M&TE) Program was performed  
 
to evaluate the overall program and its implementation.  
implemented. Corrective actions resulting from the audit are discussed in Section 3.
This QA audit has recently been completed  
: 3.
and concluded  
Corrective Steps Which Will be Taken to Avoid Further Violations The following corrective actions are being implemented, as discussed at the April 24, 1995 enforcement conference and in Licensee Event Report 50-281 /95-003-01.
that portions of the M& TE Program do not fully meet our Operational  
A review of equipment calibrations that were performed with digital gauges that are not compensated for temperature will be completed by the end of  
QA Program for the Control of M&TE Equipment  
, July 1995.
and that portions of the program implementation  
M& TE data sheets will be revised by the end of June 1995 to specify the purchase of temperature compensated gauges only.
have been ineffective.  
Training programs are being revised to include a detailed discussion regarding the use of temperature compensated gauges and gauges that are not compensated for temperature. This action will be completed by October 1995 Transmitter calibration procedures will be revised by October 1995 to provide instructions for performing calibrations in subatmospheric conditions. Prior to any calibrations above cold shutdown conditions the current calibration procedures will be revised to include instructions for performing calibrations in subatmospheric conditions.
The preliminary  
Management has reviewed the results of the QA audit of the M&TE Program.
QA audit findings have been presented  
The audit identified weaknesses in the following areas:
to management  
M&TE Program controls Use of uncalibrated standards and M& TE Recording of usage data Performance of evaluations to determine the need for retesting Storage and identification of M& TE Failure to trend M&TE related deficiencies These audit findings are being finaliz~d and will be resolved in accordance with the QA Program. The resulting corrective actions will be provided to the NRC Resident Inspectors.
and are being finalized.  
: 4.
These preliminary  
The Date When Full Compliance Will be Achieved Full compliance was achieved when the Unit 2 pressurizer pressure protection transmitters were calibrated on February 10, 1995.  
findings are discussed  
 
in the attached response to the violations.  
Violation B
Based on management's  
: 1.
concern for the implementation  
Reason for the Violation, or, if Contested, the Basis for Disputing the Violation Instrumentation and Controls (l&C) Department personnel submitted Deviation Report (DR) S-94-1352 on June 24, 1994 which identified an indication discrepancy between the Unit 2 pressurizer pressure control and protection channels. l&C personnel investigated the condition and concluded that an error may have occurred when the pressurizer pressure protection transmitters were calibrated. This determination was supported by the personnel involved, who indicated that the Heise gauge may have been misread.
of appropriate  
Therefore, the transmitters' calibration was checked, found to be low by approximately 30 psi, and was adjusted on June 24, 1995.
corrective  
Operations Department personnel submitted DR S-94-1353 on June 25, 1994 to document a pressurizer low pressure alarm that was received during the unit startup.
actions, a Root Cause Evaluation (RCE) of the Corrective  
The DR also noted that the pressurizer protection channels were indicating approximately 15 to 20 psi higher than the pressurizer control channels.
Action Program was initiated  
DRs S-94-1352 and S-94-1353 were assigned to the l&C Department to determine the cause of the identified conditions and to implement appropriate corrective actions.
in late 1994. The RCE was completed  
l&C Department personnel reviewed each DR and concluded that the DRs reported the *same condition. Several factors lead to this conclusion.
in April, 1995 and concluded  
The DRs were in sequential order, submitted by different departments, and were assigned to the l&C Department on the same day. In addition, DR S-94-1352 did not describe the exact nature of the discrepancy that had been noted between the Unit 2 pressurizer pressure control and protection channels.
that the Corrective  
DR S-94-1353 was closed on July 14, 1994, since it was mistakenly believed to be redundant to DR S-94-1352. DR S-94-1352 was closed on August 4, 1994 based on the l&C Department's conclusion that a personnel error in reading the pressure gauge when the transmitters were initially calibrated had caused the transmitters to be out of adjustment on June 24, 1994.
Action Program is effective  
The actual causes of the discrepancies documented by DRs S-94-1352 and S-94-1353 were identified in April 1995 by the Root Cause Evaluation (RCE)
at identifying, documenting, and determining  
Team that was established to investigate the calibration discrepancies identified in February, 1995. The RCE Team determined that the transmitters were out of calibration on June 24, 1994 as a result of binding in the pressure gauge used to calibrate the transmitters and a zero shift that had occurred in the transmitter calibration as the unit had heated up. These factors accounted for a total error of 30 psi.
the cause of station deviations.  
: 1.
However, opportunities  
Reason for the Violation, or, if Contested, the Basis for Disputing the Violation (continued)
to improve the Corrective  
The RCE Team also determined that the discrepancy that had been noted between the pressurizer pressure control and protection channels on June 25, 1994 (DR S-94-1353) resulted from the Unit 2 pressurizer pressure protection transmitters being calibrated on June 24, 1994 using a pressure gauge that was not temperature compensated and without accounting for subatmospheric containment conditions. The net effect of these two factors resulted in each of the three pressurizer pressure protection transmitters being miscalibrated high by approximately 15 psi.
Action Program were identified  
Although there were several mitigating circumstances as described above, both DRs were closed by August, 1994 without identifying the actual causes of the discrepancies. In reviewing both DRs, the l&C Department concluded that the DRs documented the same deviating condition and did not adequately question the need for additional investigation of the second DR. Their investigation of these deviating conditions led to the belief that the cause for the anomalous but common indications exhibited by the pressure protection channels was understood and had been corrected by the calibration at Hot Shutdown. The DR disposition was subsequently reviewed and closed in accordance with the corrective action process.
and actions to implement  
: 2.
these opportunities  
Corrective Steps Which Have Been Taken and the Results Achi.eved The concerns and management initiatives related to our Corrective Action Program were discussed with NRG staff at a Virginia Power requested management meeting on January 25, 1995. As stated at that meeting, several continuing initiatives were instituted to communicate and reinforce management's expectations and standards:
are underway.  
Coaching to reinforce the need for clear communications and a questioning attitude Emphasizing the Nuclear Safety Policy and sensitivity to compliance with requirements Ensuring degraded conditions are identified and corrective actions are promptly initiated Emphasizing the need for personnel to exhibit ownership As a result of management's awareness and concern regarding the implementation of appropriate corrective actions, RCE 94-21, Corrective Action Process, was initiated in late 1994. RCE 94-21 assessed the effectiveness of the corrective action process in the resolution of recent station events. The RCE was completed in April 1995 and concluded that the Corrective Action Program is effective at identifying, documenting, and determining the cause of station deviations. The RCE recommended certain actions to improve the preparation of a Deviation Report (DR) and the evaluation of the deviating condition.
These efforts are also discussed  
: 2.
in the attached response to the violation.  
Corrective Steps Which Have Been Taken and the Results Achieved (continued)
9506220193  
As part of the actions outlined during the management meeting on January 25, 1995, management is stressing the need for exhibiting a questioning attitude and conservative decision making through coaching on activities to resolve deviating conditions.
950615 PDR ADDCK 05000280 ' \ Q PDR i ~''\,
In addition to documenting an inoperable condition, a DR is prepared to document degraded and/or alert conditions. Communications among the disciplines involved in resolving a problem is emphasized. Expectations and ownership are established early.
e * We have no objection  
These techniques were utilized effectively to enhance nuclear safety during the 1995 Surry Unit 2 Refueling Outage and other significant activities in 1995.
to this letter being made a part of the public record. Please contact us if you have any questions  
A memorandum has been issued to station employees by the station manager outlining the expectations of each employee for information that is to be supplied in preparing a DR. The memorandum also reinforces maintaining a low threshold for identification of deviating conditions. Expectations for utilizing a questioning attitude during evaluation of a deviating condition are outlined and explained. The techniques for evaluating the deviating condition include an examination of any recent and previous DR concerning the same equipment.
or require additional  
Supervisors will review this memorandum with their employees.
information.  
: 3.
Very truly yours, r:?d ,J~ Jor James P. O'Hanlon Senior Vice President  
Corrective Steps Which Will be Taken to Avoid Further Violations In addition to the ongoing management coaching and the management memorandum on the Deviation Reporting process, training will be provided to appropriate station personnel during 1995.
-Nuclear Attachment  
This training will reinforce understanding of the deviation reporting process.
cc: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory  
: 4.
Commission  
The Date When Full Compliance Will be Achieved The RCE on the Corrective Action Program concluded that the program was effective at identifying, documenting, and determining the cause of station deviations. The improvements recommended in the RCE, as discussed above, are ongoing and will be completed by December 31, 1995. Full compliance was achieved upon completion of the Root Cause Evaluation on the Corrective Action Process in April, 1995.}}
Region II 101 Marietta Street, N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. M. W. Branch NRG Senior Resident Inspector  
Surry Power Station ~I
* * REPLY TO A NOTICE OF VIOLATION  
NRC INSPECTION  
CONDUCTED  
JANUARY 22 -FEBRUARY 11, 1995 SURRY POWER STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 INSPECTION  
REPORT NOS. 50-280/95-03  
AND 50-281/95-03  
Violation  
A 1 . Reason for the Violation, or, if Contested, the Basis for Disputing  
the Violation  
2. The violation  
occurred as a result of the Unit 2 pressurizer  
pressure protection  
transmitters  
being calibrated  
using a pressure gauge that was not temperature  
compensated  
and without accounting  
for subatmospheric  
containment  
conditions.  
The net effect of these two factors resulted in each of the three pressurizer  
pressure protection  
transmitters  
being miscalibrated  
high by approximately  
15 psi from June 24, 1994 to February 3, 1995. The Root Cause Evaluation (RCE) Team, established  
to investigate  
this event, concluded  
that the Maintenance  
Department  
Metrology  
Laboratory  
personnel's  
lack of knowledge  
led to the purchase and use of a pressure gauge that was not temperature  
compensated.  
The RCE Team also concluded  
that the effects of subatmospheric  
conditions  
were not accounted  
for in the calibration  
procedures.  
A copy of the RCE was provided to the NRG. Additional  
details were also provided in Licensee Event Report 50-281/95-003-01.  
Corrective  
Steps Which Have Been Taken and the Results Achieved A multidiscipline  
Root Cause Evaluation (RCE) Team* investigation  
was initiated  
on February 23, 1995 to determine  
the cause of this event and to recommend  
corrective  
actions. Approved corrective  
actions resulting  
from the RCE include: * Mechanical  
Heise gauges that are not compensated  
for temperature  
have been removed from the M&TE Program. * Equipment  
calibrations  
that were performed  
with mechanical  
Heise gauges that are not compensated  
for temperature  
have been reviewed.  
No safety significant  
equipment  
required re-calibration.  
* Transmitter  
calibration  
procedures  
have been revised to include a precautionary  
statement  
to preclude their use at subatmospheric  
conditions.  
* Quality Assurance (QA) performed  
an audit of the Measuring  
and Test Equipment (M&TE) Program. The M&TE audit concluded  
that portions of the M& TE Program do not fully meet the Operational  
QA Program for the Control of M& TE Equipment  
and portions of the program are not being effectively
* implemented.  
Corrective  
actions resulting  
from the audit are discussed  
in Section 3. 3. Corrective  
Steps Which Will be Taken to Avoid Further Violations  
The following  
corrective  
actions are being implemented, as discussed  
at the April 24, 1995 enforcement  
conference  
and in Licensee Event Report 50-281 /95-003-01.  
* A review of equipment  
calibrations  
that were performed  
with digital gauges that are not compensated  
for temperature  
will be completed  
by the end of , July 1995. * M& TE data sheets will be revised by the end of June 1995 to specify the purchase of temperature  
compensated  
gauges only. * Training programs are being revised to include a detailed discussion  
regarding  
the use of temperature  
compensated  
gauges and gauges that are not compensated  
for temperature.  
This action will be completed  
by October 1995 * Transmitter  
calibration  
procedures  
will be revised by October 1995 to provide instructions  
for performing  
calibrations  
in subatmospheric  
conditions.  
Prior to any calibrations  
above cold shutdown conditions  
the current calibration  
procedures  
will be revised to include instructions  
for performing  
calibrations  
in subatmospheric  
conditions.  
Management  
has reviewed the results of the QA audit of the M&TE Program. The audit identified  
weaknesses  
in the following  
areas: * M&TE Program controls * Use of uncalibrated  
standards  
and M& TE * Recording  
of usage data * Performance  
of evaluations  
to determine  
the need for retesting  
* Storage and identification  
of M& TE * Failure to trend M&TE related deficiencies  
These audit findings are being finaliz~d  
and will be resolved in accordance  
with the QA Program. The resulting  
corrective  
actions will be provided to the NRC Resident Inspectors.  
4. The Date When Full Compliance  
Will be Achieved Full compliance  
was achieved when the Unit 2 pressurizer  
pressure protection  
transmitters  
were calibrated  
on February 10, 1995 .
'* Violation  
B 1. Reason for the Violation, or, if Contested, the Basis for Disputing  
the Violation  
Instrumentation  
and Controls (l&C) Department  
personnel  
submitted  
Deviation  
Report (DR) S-94-1352  
on June 24, 1994 which identified  
an indication  
discrepancy  
between the Unit 2 pressurizer  
pressure control and protection  
channels.  
l&C personnel  
investigated  
the condition  
and concluded  
that an error may have occurred when the pressurizer  
pressure protection  
transmitters  
were calibrated.  
This determination  
was supported  
by the personnel  
involved, who indicated  
that the Heise gauge may have been misread. Therefore, the transmitters'  
calibration  
was checked, found to be low by approximately  
30 psi, and was adjusted on June 24, 1995. Operations  
Department  
personnel  
submitted  
DR S-94-1353  
on June 25, 1994 to document a pressurizer  
low pressure alarm that was received during the unit startup. The DR also noted that the pressurizer  
protection  
channels were indicating  
approximately  
15 to 20 psi higher than the pressurizer  
control channels.  
DRs S-94-1352  
and S-94-1353  
were assigned to the l&C Department  
to determine  
the cause of the identified  
conditions  
and to implement  
appropriate  
corrective  
actions. l&C Department  
personnel  
reviewed each DR and concluded  
that the DRs reported the *same condition.  
Several factors lead to this conclusion.  
The DRs were in sequential  
order, submitted  
by different  
departments, and were assigned to the l&C Department  
on the same day. In addition, DR S-94-1352  
did not describe the exact nature of the discrepancy  
that had been noted between the Unit 2 pressurizer  
pressure control and protection  
channels.  
DR S-94-1353  
was closed on July 14, 1994, since it was mistakenly  
believed to be redundant  
to DR S-94-1352.  
DR S-94-1352  
was closed on August 4, 1994 based on the l&C Department's  
conclusion  
that a personnel  
error in reading the pressure gauge when the transmitters  
were initially  
calibrated  
had caused the transmitters  
to be out of adjustment  
on June 24, 1994. The actual causes of the discrepancies  
documented  
by DRs S-94-1352  
and S-94-1353  
were identified  
in April 1995 by the Root Cause Evaluation (RCE) Team that was established  
to investigate  
the calibration  
discrepancies  
identified  
in February, 1995. The RCE Team determined  
that the transmitters  
were out of calibration  
on June 24, 1994 as a result of binding in the pressure gauge used to calibrate  
the transmitters  
and a zero shift that had occurred in the transmitter  
calibration  
as the unit had heated up. These factors accounted  
for a total error of 30 psi.
* 1. Reason for the Violation, or, if Contested, the Basis for Disputing  
the Violation (continued)  
The RCE Team also determined  
that the discrepancy  
that had been noted between the pressurizer  
pressure control and protection  
channels on June 25, 1994 (DR S-94-1353)  
resulted from the Unit 2 pressurizer  
pressure protection  
transmitters  
being calibrated  
on June 24, 1994 using a pressure gauge that was not temperature  
compensated  
and without accounting  
for subatmospheric  
containment  
conditions.  
The net effect of these two factors resulted in each of the three pressurizer  
pressure protection  
transmitters  
being miscalibrated  
high by approximately  
15 psi. Although there were several mitigating  
circumstances  
as described  
above, both DRs were closed by August, 1994 without identifying  
the actual causes of the discrepancies.  
In reviewing  
both DRs, the l&C Department  
concluded  
that the DRs documented  
the same deviating  
condition  
and did not adequately  
question the need for additional  
investigation  
of the second DR. Their investigation  
of these deviating  
conditions  
led to the belief that the cause for the anomalous  
but common indications  
exhibited  
by the pressure protection  
channels was understood  
and had been corrected  
by the calibration  
at Hot Shutdown.  
The DR disposition  
was subsequently  
reviewed and closed in accordance  
with the corrective  
action process. 2. Corrective  
Steps Which Have Been Taken and the Results Achi.eved  
The concerns and management  
initiatives  
related to our Corrective  
Action Program were discussed  
with NRG staff at a Virginia Power requested  
management  
meeting on January 25, 1995. As stated at that meeting, several continuing  
initiatives  
were instituted  
to communicate  
and reinforce  
management's  
expectations  
and standards:  
* Coaching to reinforce  
the need for clear communications  
and a questioning  
attitude * Emphasizing  
the Nuclear Safety Policy and sensitivity  
to compliance  
with requirements  
* Ensuring degraded conditions  
are identified  
and corrective  
actions are promptly initiated  
* Emphasizing  
the need for personnel  
to exhibit ownership  
As a result of management's  
awareness  
and concern regarding  
the implementation  
of appropriate  
corrective  
actions, RCE 94-21, Corrective  
Action Process, was initiated  
in late 1994. RCE 94-21 assessed the effectiveness  
of the corrective  
action process in the resolution  
of recent station events. The RCE was completed  
in April 1995 and concluded  
that the Corrective  
Action Program is effective  
at identifying, documenting, and determining  
the cause of station deviations.  
The RCE recommended  
certain actions to improve the preparation  
of a Deviation  
Report (DR) and the evaluation  
of the deviating  
condition.
,. ' * ' 2. Corrective  
Steps Which Have Been Taken and the Results Achieved (continued)  
As part of the actions outlined during the management  
meeting on January 25, 1995, management  
is stressing  
the need for exhibiting  
a questioning  
attitude and conservative  
decision making through coaching on activities  
to resolve deviating  
conditions.  
In addition to documenting  
an inoperable  
condition, a DR is prepared to document degraded and/or alert conditions.  
Communications  
among the disciplines  
involved in resolving  
a problem is emphasized.  
Expectations  
and ownership  
are established  
early. These techniques  
were utilized effectively  
to enhance nuclear safety during the 1995 Surry Unit 2 Refueling  
Outage and other significant  
activities  
in 1995. A memorandum  
has been issued to station employees  
by the station manager outlining  
the expectations  
of each employee for information  
that is to be supplied in preparing  
a DR. The memorandum  
also reinforces  
maintaining  
a low threshold  
for identification  
of deviating  
conditions.  
Expectations  
for utilizing  
a questioning  
attitude during evaluation  
of a deviating  
condition  
are outlined and explained.  
The techniques  
for evaluating  
the deviating  
condition  
include an examination  
of any recent and previous DR concerning  
the same equipment.  
Supervisors  
will review this memorandum  
with their employees.  
3. Corrective  
Steps Which Will be Taken to Avoid Further Violations  
In addition to the ongoing management  
coaching and the management  
memorandum  
on the Deviation  
Reporting  
process, training will be provided to appropriate  
station personnel  
during 1995. This training will reinforce  
understanding  
of the deviation  
reporting  
process. 4. The Date When Full Compliance  
Will be Achieved The RCE on the Corrective  
Action Program concluded  
that the program was effective  
at identifying, documenting, and determining  
the cause of station deviations.  
The improvements  
recommended  
in the RCE, as discussed  
above, are ongoing and will be completed  
by December 31, 1995. Full compliance  
was achieved upon completion  
of the Root Cause Evaluation  
on the Corrective  
Action Process in April, 1995 .
}}

Latest revision as of 19:22, 5 January 2025

Responds to NRC Re Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-280/95-06 & 50-281/95-06.Corrective Actions:Mechanical Heise Gauges Not Compensated for Temp Removed from M&TE Program & Transmitter Calibr Procedure Revised
ML18153A848
Person / Time
Site: Surry  
Issue date: 06/15/1995
From: Ohanlon J
VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.)
To:
NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
95-278, NUDOCS 9506220193
Download: ML18153A848 (7)


Text

VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23261 June 15, 1995 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555 Gentlemen:

VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY SURRY POWER STATION UNITS 1 AND 2

SPS/BCB/ETS Docket Nos.

License Nos.95-278 R7 50-280 50-281 DPR-32 DPR-37 NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-280/95e06 AND 50&281/95-06 We have reviewed Inspection Report Nos. 50-280/95-06 and 50-281/95-06 dated April 14, 1995 and your May 18, 1995 letter and enclosed Notices of Violation for Surry Unit 2. We share your concern regarding the effectiveness of the Measuring and Test Equipment (M&TE) Program and the resolution of the two Deviation Reports which documented discrepancies associated with the pressurizer protection instrument channels. We have implemented actions to strengthen our performance in these areas.

As discussed at our April 24, 1995 enforcement conference, a special Quality Assurance (QA) Audit of the Measuring and Test Equipment (M&TE) Program was performed to evaluate the overall program and its implementation. This QA audit has recently been completed and concluded that portions of the M& TE Program do not fully meet our Operational QA Program for the Control of M&TE Equipment and that portions of the program implementation have been ineffective. The preliminary QA audit findings have been presented to management and are being finalized. These preliminary findings are discussed in the attached response to the violations.

Based on management's concern for the implementation of appropriate corrective actions, a Root Cause Evaluation (RCE) of the Corrective Action Program was initiated in late 1994. The RCE was completed in April, 1995 and concluded that the Corrective Action Program is effective at identifying, documenting, and determining the cause of station deviations. However, opportunities to improve the Corrective Action Program were identified and actions to implement these opportunities are underway. These efforts are also discussed in the attached response to the violation.

9506220193 950615 PDR ADDCK 05000280

' \\

Q PDR i

~\\,

e We have no objection to this letter being made a part of the public record. Please contact us if you have any questions or require additional information.

Very truly yours, r:?d,J~ Jor James P. O'Hanlon Senior Vice President - Nuclear Attachment cc:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, N.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. M. W. Branch NRG Senior Resident Inspector Surry Power Station

~I

REPLY TO A NOTICE OF VIOLATION NRC INSPECTION CONDUCTED JANUARY 22 - FEBRUARY 11, 1995 SURRY POWER STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-280/95-03 AND 50-281/95-03 Violation A 1.

Reason for the Violation, or, if Contested, the Basis for Disputing the Violation

2.

The violation occurred as a result of the Unit 2 pressurizer pressure protection transmitters being calibrated using a pressure gauge that was not temperature compensated and without accounting for subatmospheric containment conditions. The net effect of these two factors resulted in each of the three pressurizer pressure protection transmitters being miscalibrated high by approximately 15 psi from June 24, 1994 to February 3, 1995.

The Root Cause Evaluation (RCE) Team, established to investigate this event, concluded that the Maintenance Department Metrology Laboratory personnel's lack of knowledge led to the purchase and use of a pressure gauge that was not temperature compensated. The RCE Team also concluded that the effects of subatmospheric conditions were not accounted for in the calibration procedures.

A copy of the RCE was provided to the NRG. Additional details were also provided in Licensee Event Report 50-281/95-003-01.

Corrective Steps Which Have Been Taken and the Results Achieved A multidiscipline Root Cause Evaluation (RCE) Team* investigation was initiated on February 23, 1995 to determine the cause of this event and to recommend corrective actions. Approved corrective actions resulting from the RCE include:

Mechanical Heise gauges that are not compensated for temperature have been removed from the M&TE Program.

Equipment calibrations that were performed with mechanical Heise gauges that are not compensated for temperature have been reviewed. No safety significant equipment required re-calibration.

Transmitter calibration procedures have been revised to include a precautionary statement to preclude their use at subatmospheric conditions.

Quality Assurance (QA) performed an audit of the Measuring and Test Equipment (M&TE) Program. The M&TE audit concluded that portions of the M& TE Program do not fully meet the Operational QA Program for the Control of M& TE Equipment and portions of the program are not being effectively

implemented. Corrective actions resulting from the audit are discussed in Section 3.

3.

Corrective Steps Which Will be Taken to Avoid Further Violations The following corrective actions are being implemented, as discussed at the April 24, 1995 enforcement conference and in Licensee Event Report 50-281 /95-003-01.

A review of equipment calibrations that were performed with digital gauges that are not compensated for temperature will be completed by the end of

, July 1995.

M& TE data sheets will be revised by the end of June 1995 to specify the purchase of temperature compensated gauges only.

Training programs are being revised to include a detailed discussion regarding the use of temperature compensated gauges and gauges that are not compensated for temperature. This action will be completed by October 1995 Transmitter calibration procedures will be revised by October 1995 to provide instructions for performing calibrations in subatmospheric conditions. Prior to any calibrations above cold shutdown conditions the current calibration procedures will be revised to include instructions for performing calibrations in subatmospheric conditions.

Management has reviewed the results of the QA audit of the M&TE Program.

The audit identified weaknesses in the following areas:

M&TE Program controls Use of uncalibrated standards and M& TE Recording of usage data Performance of evaluations to determine the need for retesting Storage and identification of M& TE Failure to trend M&TE related deficiencies These audit findings are being finaliz~d and will be resolved in accordance with the QA Program. The resulting corrective actions will be provided to the NRC Resident Inspectors.

4.

The Date When Full Compliance Will be Achieved Full compliance was achieved when the Unit 2 pressurizer pressure protection transmitters were calibrated on February 10, 1995.

Violation B

1.

Reason for the Violation, or, if Contested, the Basis for Disputing the Violation Instrumentation and Controls (l&C) Department personnel submitted Deviation Report (DR) S-94-1352 on June 24, 1994 which identified an indication discrepancy between the Unit 2 pressurizer pressure control and protection channels. l&C personnel investigated the condition and concluded that an error may have occurred when the pressurizer pressure protection transmitters were calibrated. This determination was supported by the personnel involved, who indicated that the Heise gauge may have been misread.

Therefore, the transmitters' calibration was checked, found to be low by approximately 30 psi, and was adjusted on June 24, 1995.

Operations Department personnel submitted DR S-94-1353 on June 25, 1994 to document a pressurizer low pressure alarm that was received during the unit startup.

The DR also noted that the pressurizer protection channels were indicating approximately 15 to 20 psi higher than the pressurizer control channels.

DRs S-94-1352 and S-94-1353 were assigned to the l&C Department to determine the cause of the identified conditions and to implement appropriate corrective actions.

l&C Department personnel reviewed each DR and concluded that the DRs reported the *same condition. Several factors lead to this conclusion.

The DRs were in sequential order, submitted by different departments, and were assigned to the l&C Department on the same day. In addition, DR S-94-1352 did not describe the exact nature of the discrepancy that had been noted between the Unit 2 pressurizer pressure control and protection channels.

DR S-94-1353 was closed on July 14, 1994, since it was mistakenly believed to be redundant to DR S-94-1352. DR S-94-1352 was closed on August 4, 1994 based on the l&C Department's conclusion that a personnel error in reading the pressure gauge when the transmitters were initially calibrated had caused the transmitters to be out of adjustment on June 24, 1994.

The actual causes of the discrepancies documented by DRs S-94-1352 and S-94-1353 were identified in April 1995 by the Root Cause Evaluation (RCE)

Team that was established to investigate the calibration discrepancies identified in February, 1995. The RCE Team determined that the transmitters were out of calibration on June 24, 1994 as a result of binding in the pressure gauge used to calibrate the transmitters and a zero shift that had occurred in the transmitter calibration as the unit had heated up. These factors accounted for a total error of 30 psi.

1.

Reason for the Violation, or, if Contested, the Basis for Disputing the Violation (continued)

The RCE Team also determined that the discrepancy that had been noted between the pressurizer pressure control and protection channels on June 25, 1994 (DR S-94-1353) resulted from the Unit 2 pressurizer pressure protection transmitters being calibrated on June 24, 1994 using a pressure gauge that was not temperature compensated and without accounting for subatmospheric containment conditions. The net effect of these two factors resulted in each of the three pressurizer pressure protection transmitters being miscalibrated high by approximately 15 psi.

Although there were several mitigating circumstances as described above, both DRs were closed by August, 1994 without identifying the actual causes of the discrepancies. In reviewing both DRs, the l&C Department concluded that the DRs documented the same deviating condition and did not adequately question the need for additional investigation of the second DR. Their investigation of these deviating conditions led to the belief that the cause for the anomalous but common indications exhibited by the pressure protection channels was understood and had been corrected by the calibration at Hot Shutdown. The DR disposition was subsequently reviewed and closed in accordance with the corrective action process.

2.

Corrective Steps Which Have Been Taken and the Results Achi.eved The concerns and management initiatives related to our Corrective Action Program were discussed with NRG staff at a Virginia Power requested management meeting on January 25, 1995. As stated at that meeting, several continuing initiatives were instituted to communicate and reinforce management's expectations and standards:

Coaching to reinforce the need for clear communications and a questioning attitude Emphasizing the Nuclear Safety Policy and sensitivity to compliance with requirements Ensuring degraded conditions are identified and corrective actions are promptly initiated Emphasizing the need for personnel to exhibit ownership As a result of management's awareness and concern regarding the implementation of appropriate corrective actions, RCE 94-21, Corrective Action Process, was initiated in late 1994. RCE 94-21 assessed the effectiveness of the corrective action process in the resolution of recent station events. The RCE was completed in April 1995 and concluded that the Corrective Action Program is effective at identifying, documenting, and determining the cause of station deviations. The RCE recommended certain actions to improve the preparation of a Deviation Report (DR) and the evaluation of the deviating condition.

2.

Corrective Steps Which Have Been Taken and the Results Achieved (continued)

As part of the actions outlined during the management meeting on January 25, 1995, management is stressing the need for exhibiting a questioning attitude and conservative decision making through coaching on activities to resolve deviating conditions.

In addition to documenting an inoperable condition, a DR is prepared to document degraded and/or alert conditions. Communications among the disciplines involved in resolving a problem is emphasized. Expectations and ownership are established early.

These techniques were utilized effectively to enhance nuclear safety during the 1995 Surry Unit 2 Refueling Outage and other significant activities in 1995.

A memorandum has been issued to station employees by the station manager outlining the expectations of each employee for information that is to be supplied in preparing a DR. The memorandum also reinforces maintaining a low threshold for identification of deviating conditions. Expectations for utilizing a questioning attitude during evaluation of a deviating condition are outlined and explained. The techniques for evaluating the deviating condition include an examination of any recent and previous DR concerning the same equipment.

Supervisors will review this memorandum with their employees.

3.

Corrective Steps Which Will be Taken to Avoid Further Violations In addition to the ongoing management coaching and the management memorandum on the Deviation Reporting process, training will be provided to appropriate station personnel during 1995.

This training will reinforce understanding of the deviation reporting process.

4.

The Date When Full Compliance Will be Achieved The RCE on the Corrective Action Program concluded that the program was effective at identifying, documenting, and determining the cause of station deviations. The improvements recommended in the RCE, as discussed above, are ongoing and will be completed by December 31, 1995. Full compliance was achieved upon completion of the Root Cause Evaluation on the Corrective Action Process in April, 1995.