ML19093A456

12/31/1976 Letter Response to IE Inspection Report Nos. 05000280/1976017 and 05000281/1976017, Finding No Proprietary Information

ML19093A456
Person / Time
Site:	Surry
Issue date:	12/31/1976
From:	Stallings C Virginia Electric & Power Co (VEPCO)
To:	Moseley N NRC/IE, NRC/RGN-II
References
IR 1976017
Download: ML19093A456 (12)

Text

VIRGINIA ELECTRIC .AND POWER COMP.ANY RICHMOND, VIRGIN:iA 23261 December 31, 1976 Mr. Norman C. Moseley, Director

~ev~4 Serial No. 374/120776 Office of Inspection and Enforcement PO&l:1/ALH:dgt

u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II - Suite 818 Docket 230 Peachtree Street, Northwest Atlanta, Georgia 30303 License

Dear Mr. Moseley:

This is in response to your letter of December 7, 1976, in reference to the inspection conducted at Surry Power Station on October 26-29 and November 1-5, 1976, and reported in IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-280/76-17 and 50-281/76-17.

We have reviewed the subject inspection reports and have determined that no proprietary information is contained therein. Accordingly, the Virginia Electric and Power Company interposes no objection to these inspection reports being made a matter of public disclosure.

Very truly yours, C. M. Stallings ~

Vice President-Power~pply and Production Operations

.* UNITED STATES NUCLEAR fH:GULATORY COMMISSION REGION II 230 PEACHTREE STREET, N.W. SUITE 818 ATl:,ANTA, GEORGlA 30303 e DEC  ? \0/G In Reply Refer To:

• IE: II: RFRIII 50-280/76-17 50-281/76-17 Virginia Electric and Powic.r Company Attn: Mr. W. L. Proffitt*

Senior Vice President, Power P.O. Box 26666 Richmond, Virginia 23261 Gentlemen:

This refers to the inspection conducted by Messrs. P. T. Burnett and W.W. Perry of this office on October 26-29 and November 1-5, 1976, of 2£tivities authorized by NRC Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37 for the Surry Power Station 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 examination of procedures and representative re.cords, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspector.

Within the scope of this inspection, no items of noncompliance were disclosed.

In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC'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 believe to be proprietary, it is necessary that you submit a written application to this office requesting that such information be withheld from public disclosure. If no proprietary information is identified, a written statement to that effect should be submitted. If an application is submitted, it.must fully identify the bases for which information is claimed to be proprietary. The application should be prepared so that information sought to be withheld is incorporated in a separate paper and referenced in the application since the application will be placed in the Public Document Room. Your application, or written statement, should be submitted to us within 20 days. If we are not contacted as specified, the enclosed report and this letter may then be placed in the Public Document Room~

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

Very truly yours,

. ***--*-*-*.* \_1r.:-)J ------***

'-~-;:-~/io~~~

Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch

Enclosure:

IE Inspection Report Nos.

50-280/76-17 and 50-281/76-17 cc w/enc.l: T. L. Baucom, Hanager Surry Power Station

UNITED STATES l\lUCLEAR REGULATOHY COMMlSS!Ot\l REGION !I 230 PEACHTREE STREET, l'J.VV. SUITE 813 ATtAI\JTA, GEORGIA 30303 e

IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-280/76-17 and 50-281/76-17 Licensee: Virginia Electric and Power Company P. 0. Box 26666 Richmond, Virginia 23261 Facility Name: Surry Power Station Docket Nos. : 50-280 and 50-281 License Nos.: DPR-32 and DPR-37 Category: C/C Location: Surry, Virginia Type of License: PWR(W), 2Lf41 HWt Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced Dates of Inspection: October 26-29 and November 1-5, 1976 Dates of Previous Inspection: October 21-22 and 26-29, 1976 Performing Inspectors: P. T. Burnett, Reactor Inspector Nuclear Support Section Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch (October 26-29 and November 2-4, 1976)

W.W. Peery, Environmental Scientist Environmental and Special Projects Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch (November 1-5, 1976)

Accompanying Inspectors: None Other Accompanying Personnel: None Principal Inspector: £,c._; j/l"'-'-.-.J.a ~ 12.-/G/ll R. F. Rogers, Reactqf'Inspector Date Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Reviewed By: f?.C

• ff!JJv~

R. C. LeJis, Chief 12-/l,/ ll:

Date Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch

e IE Rpt. Nos. 50-280/76-17 and 50-281/76-17 SillU-1..1\RY OF FINDINGS I. Enforcement Items

• None II. Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Hatters Not inspected.

III. New Unresolved Ite...rns None IV. Status o~_Previously Reported Unresolved Items Not inspected.

V. Unusual Occurrences None VI. Other Significant Findings None VII. Management Interview Management interviews were held by Hr *. Burnett on October 29 and November 4, 1976, with T. L_. Baucom, Station Manager, and members of his staff. Inspection results relating to the Unit 1 refueling were discussed.

A management interview was held by Mr. Peery on November 5, 1976, with T. L. Baucom,* Station Manager, members of his staff, and J. Martin, Corporate Quality Assurance. Inspection results relating to the radiological environmental monitoring and comparative analytical measurement programs were discussed.

IE Rpt. Nos. 50-280/76-17 ,. I-1 e and 50-281/76-17 DETAILS I Prepared *by: _n&--:?m~

P. T. Burnett, Reactor Inspector

,,z,s;k,.,,..z:~

Date Nuclear Support Section Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Dates of Inspection: October 26-29 and November 2-4, 1976

. ( '  !-,,

"'\ <... i\  ; /. ,'.' /.,

Reviewed by: r *' * *:-,,.--,:,. * *-**:.. ... **------- , '., .:.-,-/ ,- c:

H. C. Dance, Acting Chief Date Nuclear Support Section Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch

1. Personnel Contacted T. L. Baucom - Station Manager W. L. Stewart - Superintendent, Station Operations J. L. Wilson - Operating Supervisor D. Reicheart - Control Room Operator D. S. Taylor - Supervisor, Mechanical Maintenance B. A. Boger - Supervisor, Engineering Services Various plant operating and maintenance personnel.

2. Preparation for Refueling (Unit 1)

The inspector reviewed the following procedures for content and for conformance to the requirements of Technical Specifications 3.10 and 4.1. The procedures reviewed included:

a. OP-4.1, "Controlling Procedure for Refueling"

b. PT~20 .1, "Fuel Handling System"

c. OP-4.15, "Manipulator Crane"

d. l-FS-10/76, "Fuel Movement and Maps, Fall 1976, Unit No. l" As a part of OP-4.1, the licensee requires that personnel involved in refueling activities, regardless of department, read Section 3.10 of Technical Specifications and Section 3, "Precautions and Limi-tations" of'that procedure. Personnel indicate compliance by initialing a data sheet.

IE Rpt. Nos. 50-280/76-17 I-2 and 50-281/76-17 The licensee's records related to checkout and inspection of the polar crane did not confirm performance of all of the activities that were performed according to statements by licensee personnel.

In response to this inaqequacy the licensee made two commitments:

a. Prior to making further critical lifts with the polar crane, the licensee would review accepted industry standards such as USAS B30.2 and ANSI N45.2.15 and confirm performance of the qurveillance recommended in those standards.

b. By January 5, 1977, the licensee will write, review and approve procedures for periodic testing and operation of all cranes and lifting devices, the use or operation of which could affect nuclear safety. These procedures will be in accord with accepted industry standards.

The licensee stated that the corporate:..wide training program for mechanics does include formal training in hoisting, rigging and crane operation.

3, Fuel Handling Ac Uvities (Unit 1)

The inspector observed the movement of one fuel bundle from the RCC change fixture to the core. The failure of the upender in the reactor building prevented further fuel movement during the,period of the inspection. Other observations in the containment building confirmed that core internals and other components were properly stored. Housekeeping within containment was adequate.

The inspector reviewed the completed or in-progress procedures identified in paragraph 2! All were up-to-date. In addition the inspector reviewed completed copies of PT-38.1, "Primary and Steam Generator Water Chemistry" to confirm that boron concentrations were as required by_Technical Specification 3.10.A.7 and that they were obtained with the required frequency.

The licensee postulated that the damage to *the upender was caused by dropping fuel bundle a distance of 2 to 6 inches on it. That event was noted in the refueling records and followup action initiated.

However, there was no mention of the occurrence in either the unit operator or shift si_ipervisor logs. Licensee managem_ent agreed that dropping the bundle should have been logged, and agreed to give further instructions on logging,

IE Rpt. Nos. 50-280/76-17 I-3 e and 50-281/76-17

4. Maintenance (Unit 1)

• The inspector reviewed the maintenance reports and procedure for design change 75-41, "Modification of Main Steam Trip Valve," which was performed during the outage. The final operational test and setting of limit switches were scheduled for later in the outage.

All other activities:related to the modification appeared to be completed properly.

The inspector observed some of the early efforts at trouble shooting the failed upender. Experienced vendor personnel were actively involved in the work.

5. Integrated Leak Rate Test (Units 1 and 2)

As reported in IE Inspection Report No. 50-280/76-06; calibrations of instruments used in the ILRTs were not traceable to NBS in some cases. A reviw of the licensee's efforts to obtain traceability or recalibrate the instruments showed that little progress had been made. This item remains open.

IE Rpt. Nos. 50-280/76-17 II-1 e and 50-281/76-17 DETAILS II Prepared by:

---r:.7 . /7

/\ , /.. /):7,ri (!((.'>

I 1

,/;--(. ii /:;,.,/7~

w. w. Peery, Ra9f.ation 1P,ecialist /Date Environmental ahd Special Projects Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch Dates of Inspection: November 1-5, 1976 z;:;, . -;7 ' /.-: .

Reviewed by: 6' J,.' (.J(J,,,,, Cj/{'-'1+ II /fc I **

R. L. Bangart, CJ!ief 'Date Environmental arid Special Projects Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch

1. Individuals Contacted

• T. L. Baucom, Station Manger

• W. L. Stewart, Superintendent, Station Operations

~'.J. Martin, Corporate Quality Assurance

• M. D. Tower, Quality Control Engineer

~'.W. W. Cameron, Chemistry and Health Physics. Supervisor O. A. Vogtsberger, Senior Health Physics Technician R. Smith, Senior Health Physics Technician

• Pre~ent during the management interview held on November 5, 1976.

2. Radiological Environmental Protection

a. Management Controls The requirements for the licensee's radiological environmental monitoring program are contained in Technical Specification 4.9, Table 4.9-1. No Technical Specifications management- controls requirements apply specifically to the radiological environ-mental monitoring program.

Discussions were held and information obtained from the individ-uals listed in paragraph 1 above. Responsibility for conducting the program is assigned and remains. unchanged since the last inspect.ion (75-14, 75-13). The results of an audit conducted by Corporate Q.A. personnel (8/24/76) of the portion of the radiological environmental monitoring program performed by

IE Rpt. Nos. 50-280/76-17 and 50-281/76-17

,. II-2 e

Surry site personnel was reviewed and the inspector had no further questions. A contractor furnishes sample analysis services to the licensee for much of the environmental mon-itoring program. Responsibility for procedures and their implementation for the radiological environmental monitoring program are assigned in Section 5.7.7 of the VEPCO Nuclear Power Station Quality Assurance Manual. The inspector re-viewed the procedures for changes and they appeared to provide the same or higher level of controls for the program.

3. Quality Control of Analytical Measurements - Enviromental Monitoring The analytical measurements of environmental samples are performed by a contractor who has provided the licensee information on his Q.C. program, including comparative measurements of samples with other independent laboratories. Licensee management representative informed the inspector that the contractor will be included in the corporate Q.A. audits by March 1, 1977.

4. Implementation of the Environmental Monitoring Program

a. Requirements for implementation of the licensee's environmental monitoring program are contained in Table 4.9-1 of the Technical Specifications. The licensee's environmental monitoring reports for the second half of 1975 and the first half of 1976 were inspected and the records indicated that the licensee's program has been complying in the sampling locations, monitoring and measuring frequencies, interpretation and evaluation of data.

b. All of the licensee's particulate and iodine monitoring stations for Surry were inspected and found to be in apparent satisfactory operating condition. TLD locations associated with the air monitoring stations, as well as other TLD loca-tions, were inspected and found to be in apparent satisfactory condition * . The licensee began to experience problems with the air monitoring equipment during the second half of 1975, due apparently to aging. A program to renovate all of the stations was begun and as of this inspection new pumps had been installed in five of the eight stations, Licensee representatives stated that although the three remaining stations appear to be operating satisfactorily at the present, new pumps have* been received on site to install in the remaining three stations.

Licensee representatives stated that the renovations of the.

stations also involves replacement of timers, tubing, wiring or other parts as needed. They also stated that timers to

IE Rpt. Nos. 50-280/76-17 *n-3 and 50-281/76-17 e

record cumulative. operating times will be added. Licensee management representatives stated that the renovations of all the sampling stations will be completed June 1, 1977. The licensee representative also stated that these units are being turn~*d over to the site maintenance group responsible for flO'w calibration on all such equipment to. be done on their routine scheduling basis ..

c. The licensee's reporting requirements for the radiological environmental monitoring program are contained in Technical Specifications 6.6.c, Radiological Environmental Monitoring, which specifies that the data be reported to the NRG on an annual basis. This annual reporting requirement was effective January 7, 1976 and previous to this the reports had been required on a semi-annual basis. The licensee compiled a semi-annual report for the first half of 1976, however, it was not submitted to the NRG since the annual reporting require-ment was put into effect. The inspector reviewed the data compiled for the first half of 1976 and pointed out to a licensee representative that gross alpha data for air samples, well and surface water had not been included. The inspector determined that the gross alpha data was available and the licensee representative stated that the gross alpha data will be included in the compilation of the full year data for 1976 to be submitted as the annual report. The levels of radio-activity in environmental samples did not indicate them to be significantly greater than background or previous measurements for any contribution attributable to Surry.

5. Radioactive Waste Systems - QC of Analytical Measurements Technical Specification 3.11 applies to the controlled release of radioactive liquids and gases to assure that all such releases are within the concentrations specified in 10 CFR 20 but does not pertain to a specific Q.C. requirement. This inspection effort relates to the licensee's analytical measurements capability for waste samples. Licensee representatives stated that the mechanism exists in the corporate QA-QC program for auditing the Surry analyti-cal measurements of wastes, although such an audit had not been completed. They stated that additional procedures to carry out an audit of the program, such as the completion of check sheet items, will be prepared by March 1, 1977. The licensee has a program and procedures for periodic equipment operability checks and tests.

Approved procedures are also available for the analytical measure-ments program.

\'

I IE Rpt. Nos. 50-280/76-17 II-4 and 50-281/76-17

6. Confirmatory Measurements - Comparison of Analytical Results Previous inspection effort in 1976 (completed June 8, 1976, IE Rpt.

No. 76-09) resulted in agreements in the comparative measurements by the licensee of a liquid test standard with results from the NRC reference laboratory. Analytical measurements by the licensee of a test charcoal standard and a particulate filter test standard derived results that gave possible agreement for the charcoal with the NRC reference laboratory results and agreements for all nuclides on the particulate filter test standard with the NRC reference laboratory results. A licensee representative stated that the Surry Station could not quantify the radioactivity contained in an off-gas similator standard provided by NRC because the Surry detector was not calibrated for the particular similator geometry and distance from the detector. Discussion was held by the inspector with personnel of the NRC reference laboratory concerning the possibility of furnishing to the licensee an empty glass vial which is a duplicate of the off-gas similator standard so that he may prepare a standard and calibrate his detector with the same size and configuration standard container. Hopefully, this would enable the licensee to quantify the contents of the gas similator to within acceptable ranges of those established by the NRC reference laboratory.