ML18150A048
| ML18150A048 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 04/20/1987 |
| From: | Reyes L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18150A047 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-280-87-05, 50-280-87-5, 50-281-87-05, 50-281-87-5, NUDOCS 8704280235 | |
| Download: ML18150A048 (2) | |
Text
ENCLOSURE 1 NOTICE OF VIOLATION Virginia Electric and Power Company Surry Units 1 and Unit 2 Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281 License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37 During the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspection conducted between the period of March 1 to April 6, 1987, a violation of NRC requirements was identified.
The violation identified involved failures to provide adequate detailed instructions and failures to follow procedures.
The examples cited involve several plant areas including operations, maintenance, and surveil-lance.
In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Jl..ctions, 11 10 CFR Part 2, Jl..ppendix C {1986), the violation is listed below:
Technical Specification 6.4. requires that detailed written procedures with appropriate check-off lists and instructions shall be provided for preventive or corrective maintenance operations which would have an effect on the safety of the reactor, testing of components and systems involving nuclear safety of the station, and operational procedures involving normal startup, operating and shutdown of the unit.
The Technical Specification also requires that all procedures described above shall be followed.
A.
Contrary to the above, appropriate instructions were not provided for maintenance of RHR pumps in that maintenance procedure MMP-C-RH-015, which was used to overhaul RHR pump 2-RH-P-18 in October 1986, had step 5.4.4.3 deleted without providing appropriate instructions to assure that the pump and motor alignment was not a,dversely affected.
Subsequent repair confirmed that wear ring degradation as a result of misalignment did occur.
B.
Contrary to the above; a*ppropriate instructions were not provided for testing of RHR pumps when periodic test procedure 1(2)-PT-30.1, which was used to test RHR pumps for Unit 1 on December 13, 1986, and Unit 2 on October 11, 1986, listed incorrect delta pressure acceptance criteria in several steps used to determine operability of the pumps.
In addition, completed procedure 1-PT-30.1 performed on December 13, 1986, was reviewed by VEPCO's Engineering Department in December/January and no discrepancies* were noted despite the incorrect acceptance criteria.
C.
Contrary to the above, detailed written s~rveillance procedures were not followed when step 5.1.9 of periodic test 2-PT-2.9A Steam Flow
( F-2-485) 11 was marked 11 N/A 11 on March 16, 1987, by the i nst.rument technician without conferring with the shift supervisor as required.
The procedure provided instructions for troubleshooting a steam flow instrument and failure to follow this procedure resulted in a reactor trip.
8704280235 870420 PDR ADOCK 05000280 G
PDR C
' f.
Virginia Electric and Power Company Surry Unit 2
Docket Nos. 50-280, 50-281 License Nos. DPR-32, DPR-37 D.
Contrary to the above, detailed written procedures were not followed when Maintenance Operating Procedure 2-MOP-8.3 "Removal of 2-CH-P-lB Charging Pump for Maintenance 11 was not used when operations personnel
- racked out the B charging pump breaker on March 22, 1987.
E.
Contrary to the above, detailed written operations procedures were not followed when adm,inistrative procedure SUADM-0-10 "Operations Department Procedures," which provides instructions for operation of plant equipment, was not followed in that main steam valves 1-MS-74, 106, and 143 were found open on March 22, 1987, after the valves were verified closed on February 17, 1987, with no subsequent documenta-tion of valve operations.
This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement 1), and applies to both units.
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Virginia Electric and Power Company is hereby required to submit to this office within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice, a written statement or explanation in reply, including (for each violation).
(1) admission or denial of the violation; (2) the reason for the violation if admitted; (3) the corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieved; (4) the corrective step which will be taken to avciid further violations; and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time.
Security or safeguards information should be submitted as an enclosure to facilitate withholding it from public disclosure as required by 10 CFR 2.790(d) or 10 CFR 73. 21.
Dated at Atlanta, Georgia this 20 day of !Jprl/ 1987 FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ORIGINAL StGNEO BY VIRGIL L. BROWNLEE
~is A. Reyes, Director
~v 6ivision of Reactor Projects