ML18152A858
| ML18152A858 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 02/25/1988 |
| From: | Reyes L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18152A373 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-280-88-01, 50-280-88-1, 50-281-88-01, 50-281-88-1, NUDOCS 8803160305 | |
| Download: ML18152A858 (2) | |
Text
ENCLOSURE 1 NOTICE OF VIOLATION Virginia Electric and Power Company Surry Unit Docket Nos. 50-280, 50-281 License Nos. DPR-32, DPR-37 During the Nuclear Regulatory Commissfon (NRC) inspection conducted between the period of January 3 to January 31, 1988, violations of NRC requirements were
.identified.
The violations involved failure to follow procedure during performance of surveillance testing by plant operators, and failure to provide adequate procedure in the implementation of design control over substitution of material for safety-related components.
In accordance with the 11General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,.10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1986), the violations are listed below:
A.
Technical Specification 6.4 requires detailed written procedures with appropriate check-off 1 i sts and instructions sha 11 be provided and followed for operation and testing.of components and systems involving nuclear* safety of the station.
Technical Specification 6.4 further requires temporary changes to applicable procedures may be made, provided such changes are approved prior to implementation.
Contrary to the above., detailed written procedures were not foll owed by either complying with the steps or imp*lementing a change prior to proceeding.
This resulted in the failure to properly establish the initial conditions listed below:
- 1.
On January 9, 1988, Perodic Test Procedure 1-PT-29.1, "Turbine Inlet Valve Test 11,
was performed without meeting initial condition 3.5 of the test. Initial condition 3.5 required the rod control system to be in the automatic contro 1 mode.
The test was performed with the rod control system in the manual mode.
- 2.
On January 9 and 23, 1988, Unit 1 and Unit 2 respectively, were ramped down from 100% to 1 ess that 75% power in* accordance with Operations Procedure OP-2.1.2, "Decreasing Power From Exi*sting Power Level to 2%
11, without meeting initial condition 3.4 of the procedure.
Initial condition 3.4 required the portable narrow range steam generator level indicators to be in place and operating.
- 3.
On January 9, 1988, Unit 1 was ramped down from 100% to less than 75%
power in accordance with Operations Procedure OP-2.1. 2, 11Decreas i ng Power.From Ex.isting Power Level to 2%
11,
.without performing steps 3.7.1 through 3.7.4 of the procedure.
These steps required that jumpers be installed to remove the seal-in function from controllers of moisture separator reheater steam supply isolation valves.
8803160305 880225 PDR ADOCK 05000280 G
Virginia Electric and Power Company Surry Unit 2
Docket Nos. 50-280, 50-281 License Nos. DPR-32, DPR-37 This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement l)t and applies to both units.
B.
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V as implemented by the licen.see 1 s accepted Quality Assurance Program (Virginia Power Topical Report VEP-1-5A, Section 17.2.5),
requires that activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by procedures appropriate to the circumstances.
Contrary to the above, as of January 3, 1988, measures for the selection and review for suitability of application of materials, parts, and equipment that are essential to the safety-related functions of components were not adequately prescribed by procedures. This condition contributed to the failure mechanism, which was identified in December, 1987, of safety-related valve 2-CH-MOV-2289B.
This is a Severity Level V Violation (Supplement 1), and applies to both units.
Pursuant to the prov1s1ons of 10 CFR 2.201, Virginia Electric and Power Company is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the Nuclear Regulatory Cammi ss ion, ATTN:
Document Centro 1 Desk, Washington, DC 20555',
with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region II, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector, Surry, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice. This reply should be clearly marked as a "Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include (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 steps which will be taken to avoid 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.
If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order may be issued to show *cause why the license should n-ot be modified, su*spended, or revoked; or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken.
Dated at Atlanta, Georgia this day c)_5" of February 1988 FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Luis A. Reyes, Director Division of Reactor Projects