ML19093A389

Response to a Letter of 09/28/1977 in Reference to Inspection Conducted on 08/30-09/02/1977 and Reported in Inspection Reports I.E. 05000280/1977024 & 05000281/1977024

ML19093A389
Person / Time
Site:	Surry
Issue date:	10/21/1977
From:	Stallings C Virginia Electric & Power Co (VEPCO)
To:	O'Reilly J NRC/RGN-II
References
IR 1977024
Download: ML19093A389 (10)

Text

\

• I ,. * ; * ,;~ " ,;,.' ! :.*-'~.).;

... -.* --. *_.* .* *-.. -.**-, . __ * ,.,, .. ,,~,_.; . .-.. : ... :.;\;*._ . *VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER C:<>MP.ANY

.. _. *.~ '. . -. . ', ' RIO~MOND:

VIRO~NIA.

~-3261. ,_,.; ' ~(lctob.ef 21, f9}(i~:Q;_:~[~\:*;(s:::;,so\-\*

0 6t;; .. Mr. James P. O'Re:U_ly, Dir.ec.tor

• **

• Off ice* of Inepection and * -Enforcement U.S. Nu.ciear>Rogulatiory-Comm11sion.

• .-B.e.gion II ~. Suite'*818

..

• _ * * * -* ... , <. 230' Peachtre_e

• St1'.eet**

ti.ortll\ieat

• .* Atlm,it~~

Georgia *

• 30,3C,l3 * * ** **' *. De.ax. MI:* .. O'R~illyf

_ Se:i:lal*.

No * .440/092077-*:'

C PO&M/TAP;wbh

--* -. *. . . . . -; Docket Nos~ *50.:.280C

': . * '. . . : . '/.-_* * ... __ :--~~-7ai

\ '. -* Licen&e : lioii. DPR.;.32 . -. : , * * . DPR...:j7

.' ;,,": This is-1,n ~eopon~~ tQ, .Y9ur le~ter: of: September 20, ,1977, ' in 'refer..:

-* *. : -,. ence. to* the tnapection conducted at Surry P()lJer *Stati~n on Aug~st *30 -Sept~ . . __ 'i:-* c ember 2,. 1977 ;'.and repo1;ted:

in ;l.nspection*report~f't~E

• ..:so~2sorn-24

atj.d ;,0;..281/77~';.t., .. * . . . . .', -. . . -.. _ .. , --. *;' .. ** .. . , -* ... * -. * \ We ha~~;, review~**y~ur let.~er ~nd the. an_clcus.Gd: .iti~pe~tio1/r.e~o~t**

• . _ _ *. end. have : deterinined . that. no **.propri~tary

• inf omiltio~ . is . c_ontai~ed

• in .\the~ reports* -_ *: Accoird;fengly 1 .';h~ Virg:fuia

_Eiectiic and :i:lower:'tolip,ny>i~t~rpcise*

no_ oJ,J.ection

• _ ', . '.'. Jo*. these :in~.P*~ct~o;i*

reports betng* ~de:)i ?&~ter .of;)ublic_

d.ilicloaure~, '> *:: *_ -.. * <* \. * * .. * *.c /, :' . , * . ' . V~rY.* trul. y, y9_* \llTS / . _: : . ,.,-_* 1_* .,., '-.*. \ ...*.. *: ;g)tl ~-#&.*~<** . '\ * . : --* .. _c.-11. Stallings

~-:

• V1ce*Frea!i;ient-Power Supply *. and* Prod~ction

• operations

,1 *,: ,* . : ' -,  ; . *. -, **. *.> .. . : .. * .~~*-*1 \ I 1729::=.::004:=:

I I . . !__ _______ -----,-*-.-__ .,_ . */ . .( . I , I ..

• I -I -j .I : . I ** I .. *;* .1 I *.1 . A ;. \ '\ :. ! .. /J i e e VIBGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY RICHMOND,VIBGINIA 23261 October 21, 1977 Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II -Suite 818 230 Peachtree Street, Northwest Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Dear Mr. O'Reilly:

Serial No. 440/092877 PO&M/TAP:wbh Docket License Nos. -J2 DPR-37 This is in response to your letter of September 28, 1977, in ence to the inspection conducted at Surry Power Station on August 30 -Sept-ember 2, 1977, and reported in inspection reports I.E.-50-280/77-24 and 50-281/77-24.

We have reviewed your letter and the enclosed inspection reports and have determined that no proprietary information is contained in the reports *

• cordingly, the Virginia Electric and Power Company interposes no objection these inspections reports be~ng made a matter of public disclosure.

cc: Mr. Robert W. Reid Very truly yours, /, ):1r' C ., .~ * (_(_.-'. t~*t,'. / \..c::Jf£.ll{cc,/1,)

C. M. Stallings Vice President-Power Supply and Production Operations e UNITED STATES. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION II 230 PEACHTREE STREET, N.W. SUITE 121_7 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303* SEP 2 8 1977 In Reply Refer To: RII:AKH 20-280/77-24 50-281/77-24 Virginia Electric and Power Company Attn: Mr. W. L. Proffitt Senior Vice President,

• Power P.O. Box 26666 Richmond, Virginia 23261 -Gentlem~n:

This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. A. K. Hardin of this office on August 30 -September 2, 1977, of activities authorized by NRC Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37 for the Surry 1 and 2 facilities, and to the discussion of our findings held with Mr. T. L. Baucom at the conclusion of the inspection. Areas examined during the inspection and our findings are discussed in the enclosed inspection report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspector.

Within the scope of-this inspection, no items 0f no~compliance were disclosed.

In accordance with Section 2.790 of the ~C's "Rules of Practice", Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations; a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room. If this report contains any information that you (or your GOntractor) beiieve to be proprietary, it is necessary that you make a written application within 20 days to this office to withhold such information from public d,isclosure.

Any such application must include a full statement of the reasons on the basis of which it is claimed that the information is proprietary, and should be prepared sp that proprietary information identified in the application is contained in a separate part of the document.

If we do not hear from you in this regard within .the s.pecified period, the report, will' l?e placed in the Public Document Room.

Virginia Electric and Power Company e Should you have any questions concerning this letter, we will be glad to discuss them with you.

Enclosure:

RII Inspection Report Nos. Very truly yours, ,~-:sr~ F. J. Long,~ Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch 50-280/77-24 and 50-281/77-24 e e. cc: Mr. T. L. Baucom Surry Power Station P. O. Box 315 Surry, Virginia 23883 '* .

-e e e UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

-REGION II 230 PEACHTREE STREET, N.W. SUITE f217 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 Report Nos.: 50-280/77-24 and 50-281/77-24 Docket Nos.: 50-280 and 50-281 License Nos.: DPR-32 and DPR-37 Licensee:

Virginia Electric and Power Company P.O. Box 26666 Richmond, Virginia 23261 -Facility Name:* Surry Uni ts 1 and 2 : Inspection at: Surry Power Station, Surry, Virginia Inspection conducted:

August 30 -September 2, 1977 Inspector:

A. K. Harnin Accompanying Personnel:

• None Reviewed by: e.c. '7/U/77 R. C. Le~ Reactor ProjeG.._ts Section No. 2 Inspection Summary Inspection on August 30 -September 2, 1977 (Report Nos. 50-280/77-24 and 50-281/77-24)

Date Areas Tnspected:

Routine, unannounced inspection of employee training -programs, plant operations, station access requirements and licensee events. The inspection involved 35 hours4.050926e-4 days <br />0.00972 hours <br />5.787037e-5 weeks <br />1.33175e-5 months <br /> of on site ~nspection.

by one NRC inspector.

Results: Of the four areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were observed.

• • -e -e e RII Rpt. Nos. 50-280/77-24 and 50-281/77-24_

I-1 DETAILS I Prepared by: ,e.*c.~ 'J/u/77 1. 2. A. K. Hardin, React:6f Inspector Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Date Dates of Inspection:

August 30 -September 2, 1977 Reviewed by: __ ,1Z_. _c__.._. ~---* R. C. Lewis, Chief Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch* Persons Contacted T. L. Baucom, Station Manager w. L. Stewart, Operations Superintendent F. B. Curling, Training Supervisor J. s. Fisher, Fire Marshall c. F. Wheeler, Security Supervisor J. L. Wilson, Operations Supervisor

o. Smith,-~raining.Manager F. L. Rentz, Quality Assurance Engineer E. P. Dewandel, Administrative-Assistant R. Cephas, Quality Assurance Engineer Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings None inspected on this inspection.

9/.z.G./77 Date 3. Unresolved Items 4_. Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of nonco;npliance, or deviations.

Four unresotved items disclosed during i::he_inspe~tion are discussed in paragraphs 5.a., 5.b., ~.c.,-and 5.d. Exit Interview The inspector met with the Station Manager and other members of the -VEPCO organization as denoted in "Paragraph

1.

• The results of-the inspection were discussed.

e e e RII Rpt. Nos. 50-280/77-24 and 50-281/77-24 I-2 5. Training The licensee's general employee training program, not including licensed operators, as committed to in the licensee's Quality Assurance program and implemented by Administrative frocedure No.-12 was inspected.

An, overali assessment of -the general ployee training program indicated compliance with commitments.

However, a review of certain areas in detail revealed what appears to be isolated deficiencies in the program and in procedure mentation.

These areas were discussed with the licensee during the inspection and summarized at the exit interview as potential:.

~iolation of quality assurance program commitments., Subsequent inoffice review and comparison o.f the findings with _regul~tory requirements and *1i--c-ensee commitments.revealed that noncompliance had not occurred.

The areas referred to are as follows:_

a. Administrative Procedure No. 12 Section 5.1.1.A.l

b. This section of the procedure states that all regular ployees will be retrained and recertified in first aid once every three years. Records do not support this requirement.

In subsequent discussion the licensee stated that it was not the intent that all regular employees be_retrained and certif~ed in first aid every three years. The licensee stated that only those numbers and categories of people "t'equired to be certi£ied in first aid by the plant emergency plan should have to be in the retraining program. The inspector did not disagree with this contention, but stated that the procedure uses the mandatory "will" and either the program or the procedure is deficient.

This item is designated as unresolved item 77-24/1-1.

Fire Service Training The Virginia State Board of Education administers a fire service training program for Virginia Electric Power Company (VEPCO). personn~l.

• VEPCO Administrative Procedure No. -12, item 5.1.2.A.l -lists,14 areas to be covered in the' cour,se of instruction and states any area not specificaliy covered_ by the Virginia State Board of Education will be supplemented by the station training staff. Comparison~of tlie list of 14 areas in_Administrative Procedure No. 12 and the areas ,fically covered by the Virginia State Bqard of Education

• indicates two areas not covered by the Virginia State Board. These areas were not supplemented by the station training staff. The areas were "Ventilation" and "Making Forcible Entry". This item is designated Unresolved

• rtem 77-24/I-2.

.* .J -e RI! Rpt. Nos. 50-280/77-24 and 50-281/77-24 1-3 c. d. Advanced Training (1) Records Section 5.1."2.A.2 of Adm 12 states that the fire brigade will meet on a quarterly basis for advanced training purposes.

The inspector asked for a record to demonstrate this requirement of the procedure was being met. The licensee gave the inspector a record entitled "Fire Brigade Log Book."

• Fol.lowing review of the log the inspector stated the record was inadequate for the ing reasons. May 4, 1977 entry states a fire drill was ~eld on -April 22, 1977. There are no log entries in the 1.og fbr April 22, 1977. The log states there was no meeting on June 15, 1977. Other records show_ther~

was a meeting at which five fire brigade members attended.

There is no listing in the log of those who attend . meetings, although this can be attained elsewhere.

' '-The inspector stated the log book was inadequate as a quality record. This item is desig~ted as unresolved item 77-24/1-3.

Fire Dr-ills Section 5.1. 2.A_. 2 of A.dm 12 also states, among other fire -drill requirements, that a once a year an announced fire drill will be conducted in conjunction with offsite fire fighting agencies to exercise the coordination of the station and the offsite agencies.

The licensee stated the offsite fire fighting agencies have stated through their representatives a reluctance to participate in fire drills at the plant on 'the basis that there is insufficient information to be learned. The inspector stated this procedure requirement must be met or the procedure and.program revised in a manner evaluated as safe by the licensee.

This item is designated as unresolved item 77-24/I-4. . The licensee did not raise any specific objection to findings and agreed that corrections and adjustments made in the regular employee training program. the will be :.

_; --. -e e Rll Rpt. Nos. 50-280/77-24 and 50:..281/77-24 I-4 6. Recirculation SFray'Pumps On August 24, 1977, VEPCO proposed plant modification and plant operating limits for Surry 1 and 2 to reduce concern related to insufficient net positive suction head (NPSH) to the containment recirculation spray pumps. By an Order dated August 24, 1977 the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation authorized the modifications and imposed limits on the operating parameters of service water temperature, containment temperature and containment air partial ,maximum pressure.

During the current inspection, the'licensee's compliance with the order was audited. By Plant Design --Change No. 77-41 entitled "Recirculation Spray NPSH __ Modification" da:ted 8/25/77 the licensee installed flow restricting

,~ 'orifices in -thetdischarge lines innnediately downstream of the 7. outside recirculation spray pumps, The inspector made a inspection of the above listed operating parameters at 10:45 a.m. on September 2, 1977, as follows: Unit 1 Unit 2 Service Water Temperature, (limit 55°F to 85°F) Containment Temperature (limit 100°F to 125°F) -Containment Air Partial Maxi.mum Pressure (Limit 80.5°F 0 123 F* 0 . 9.3 PSIA at 85 F Service Water Temperature and 0 45 RWST Temperature)_

9.,0 PSIA 9..1 PSIA 43°F 44°F (_RWST Temp.} The safety evaluation for the above modifications and operat'ing limits were transmitted by VEPCO to.Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) on August 24, 1977. The design change implementing the modifications was approved by VEPCO's Station Nuclear Safety and Operating Committee, (SNS&OC).

in Meeting No. 7Cr-77 dated August 23, +977. , ' Low Head Safety Injection PumRs (LHSIPS) A temporary solution to a similar concern for NPSH for the LHSIPS was resolved per instructions of NRR on August 29, 1977. The temporary solution consisted of adjusting the discharge valve of the LHSIPS to_a fl9w of 2100 GPM if both rumps ~ere running with a provision to adjust_ to 3250+/-250 GPM if only one pump is The i-p.spector verif'ied that an adequate procedure had been written and approved to accomplish the above flow throttling requirements under conditions which would require the lliSIS's.

rj ! -e -* e RII Rpt. Nps. 50-280/77-24 and 50-281/77-24 1-5 8. 9. Security Inspection~

Station Access The inspector observed on a spot check basis throughou~

the tion the licensee's compliance with station access requirements.

Procedures.covering operational areas related to access requirements were reviewed.

No areas of noncompliance with regulatory ments were observed.

Plant Operations The inspector observed unit operations in the Nuclear Control Center. Response toar..nunciator alarms, activities following a reactor trip and conduct bf periodic*

tests were observed.

No items of noncompliance were observ~d.

'*