Technical Specification 5.4.1.a requires, in part, that written procedures shall be established, implemented, and maintained covering the applicable procedures recommended in
Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, Appendix A, February 1978. Section 8 of
Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, Appendix A, Procedures for Control of Measuring and Test Equipment and for Surveillance Tests, Procedures, and Calibrations, Part b, requires, in part, that specific procedures for surveillance tests, inspections, and calibrations, should be written (implementing procedures are required for each surveillance test, inspection, or calibration, listed in the technical specifications). Station Procedure EDP-ZZ-01114, Motor Operated Valve Program Guide, Revision 034, Section 3.6.3.b, requires, in part, that the motor-operated valve engineer document a signature analysis report within 60 days following a diagnostic test of motor operated valves. Contrary to the above, on July 17, 2016, the motor-operated valve engineer failed to generate a signature analysis report within 60 days following a recent diagnostic test of a motor-operated valve. Specifically, in May 2014, the NRC inspection team identified
NCV 05000483/2014007-06, Failure to Review Motor Operated Valve (
MOV) Data and Complete Analysis of the Data in a Timely Manner. This finding was entered into the licensee's corrective action program as Callaway Action Requests
CARs 201402987 and 201402992. During Refueling Outage RF21 (spring of 2016), 33 motor operated valves had been tested and should have had a signature analysis report completed by the end of June 2016. On July 17, 2016, the licensee personnel recognized that they had not completed the signature analysis report for 31 of the 33 valves tested. The team evaluated the significance of the issue under the
Significance Determination Process, as defined in
Inspection Manual Chapter 0609.04, Initial Characterization of Findings, and 0609 Appendix A, The
Significance Determination Process (
SDP) for Findings at-Power, dated June 19, 2012. The team concluded the finding was of very low safety significance (Green) because all questions in Exhibit 2 could be answered no. The licensee entered this issue into their corrective action program as Condition Report CR-201606143.
