ML18153A842
| ML18153A842 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 06/09/1995 |
| From: | Merschoff E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Ohanlon J VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9506190438 | |
| Download: ML18153A842 (7) | |
See also: IR 05000280/1995006
Text
...
,*
., *
June 9, 1995
Virginia Electric and Power Company
ATTN:
Mr. J. P. O'Hanlon
Senior Vice President - Nuclear
Innsbrook Technical Center
5000 Dominion Boulevard
Glen Allen, VA
23060
SUBJECT:
NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-280/95-06 AND 50-281/95-06
Gentlemen:
Thank you for your response of May 15, 1995, to our Notice of Violation (NOV),
issued on April 14, 1995, concerning activities conducted at your Surry
facility.
We have examined your response and found that it meets the
requirements of 10 CFR 2.201.
In your response, you stated that you agree with the violation as stated in
the NOV.
You also state that you believe that the violation meets the
criteria for a non-cited violation as stated in 10 CFR 2, Appendix C,
VI I. 8(2).
After careful con*s i derat ion for the bases for your request to rec 1 ass i fy the
Severity Level IV violation to a non-cited violation, we have concluded, for
the reasons presented in the enclosure to this letter, that the violation was
correctly categorized as stated in the NOV.
We will examine the implementation of your corrective actions during future
inspections.
We appreciate your cooperation in this matter.
Docket Nos. 50-280, 50-281
Enclosure:
Evaluations and Conclusions
cc w/encl: (see page 2)
Sincerely,
Orig signed by Ellis W. Merschoff
Ellis W. Merschoff, Director
Division of Reactor Projects
OFFICIAL COPY
9506190438 950609
ADOCK 05000280
G
,
'
,-
I
'
cc w/encl:
M. L. Bowling, Manager
Nuclear Licensing & Programs
Virginia Electric & Power Company
Innsbrook Technical Center
5000 Dominion Boulevard
Glen Allen, VA
23060
David A. Christian, Station Manager
Surry Power Station
P.O. Box 315
Surry, VA
23883
Ray D. Peace, Chairman
Surry County Board of Supervisors
P. 0. Box 130
Dendron, VA
23839
Dr. W. T. Lough
Virginia State Corporation Commission
Division of Energy Regulation
P. 0. Box 1197
Richmond, VA
23209
Michael W. Maupin
Hunton and Williams
Riverfront Plaza, East Tower
951 E. Byrd Street
Richmond, VA
23219
Robert B. Strobe, M.D., M.P.H.
State Health Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
P. 0. Box 2448
Richmond, VA
23218
Attorney General
Supreme Court Building
101 North 8th Street
Richmond, VA
23219
2
Distribution w/encl:
B. Buckley, NRR
G. Hallstrom, RII
PUBLIC
NRC Resident Inspector
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Surry Nuclear Power Station
5850 Hog Island Road
Surry, VA
23883
NRC Resident Inspector
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Route 2, Box 78-A
Mineral, VA
23117
3
- FOR PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE SEE ATTACHED
SIGNATURE
NAME
LGarner *
GBelisle *
DATE
06 I
I 95
COPY7
YES
NO
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
/ 95
NO
Rll:DRP
MBranch
06 I
I 95
YES
NO
1
06 I
/ 95
YES
NO
cc w/encl:
Continued
Rob t B. Strobe, M.D., M.P.H.
Stat Health Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Virgini Department of Health
P. 0. Bo
2448
Richmond, VA
23218
Attorney Ge ra l
Supreme Cour Building
101 North 8th treet
Richmond, VA
219
Distribution we
B. Buckley, NRR
G. A. Hallstrom,
PUBLIC
NRC Resident Inspect
U.S. Nuclear Regulate
Commission
Surry Nuclear Power St
5850 Hog Island Road
Surry, VA
23883
NRC Resident Inspector
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Route 2, Box 78-A
Mineral, VA
23117
SIGNATURE ,--.-/
di;
NAME
LGarner
GBelisle
DATE
Klandis
05 /
i
3
Rll:DRP
MBranch
05 /
/ 95
05 /
/ 95
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
05-3~-1995 11=~
~
9-H<T' RESiIENT !NSPTR
1 801 004 3577611
P.01
~*1xanc1
Fax Transmittal Memo
1612
To. BL
B~\\,~)~ .
05-31-1995 r;,g:ao
Y[PCO
cc w/tncl: Cont1nu1d
Robirt I, Strobe, M,D, 1 N.P.H.
Stat, Health C01111111s1on1r
Office of th, COll81sttoner
V1rg1nta Dtp1rt111ent of Htalth
P. 0, Box !4U
R1chiwond, VA 2)118
Atto'M!ay General
Suprt111 Court Bu11dinv
101 North 8th Street
R1ch11and, YA 23219
K~*~~t1~D""°a.'1.:
G. A, Hafistram, RIJ
PUBLIC
NRC Resident In1p1ctor
U.S. Nucl11r Regulatory Conn1111on
Surry Nuc11ar Pow1r St1t1on
9150 Hog J1l1nd Road
Surry' VA ZHU
NRC Re11d1nt Inspector
U.S. Nllcl,ar Regulatory Co111ission
Rout, Z, lox 71-A
N1n1r1l, YA 13117
- OWl*a:-
- .. ..
' .. --~ttoni* ..
. -** .... -...
~ .. ~ .. . .
.
.
0°"'""'1
01111Y..
Ocllllio*pae~"'
- --- ... :*t-* *- .... -:-~-
US~RG!l
P,01
TOTi=t.. P.01
EVALUATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
On April 14, 1995, a Notice of Violation {Notice) was issued for a violation
identified during a routine NRC inspection. Virginia Electric and Power
Company responded to the Notice on May 15, 1995.
The licensee stated that
they agreed that a violation occurred, but they believed that the violation
met the criteria for a non-cited violation as stated in 10 CFR 2, Appendix C,
VII.8(2).
The NRC's evaluations and conclusions regarding the licensee's
arguments are as follows:
Restatement of the Violation
Technical Specification 3.1.B.3, in part, requires that the pressurizer
heatup rate not exceed 100 degrees F per hour.
Contrary to the above, on February 4, 1995, the heatup rate of the
Unit 2 pressurizer exceeded 100 degrees Fin a one hour period.
From
10:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. the temperature in the pressurizer increased
from 254 to 400 degrees F, a change of 146 degrees F .
This is a Severity Level IV violation {Supplement I).
Summary of the Licensee's Response
Your response states that, "The violation was promptly identified by the
licensee as a result of increased monitoring of the pressurizer cooldown
rate by operations personnel during Reactor Coolant System (RCS)
cooldown activities. The additional monitoring was being performed in
response to recent industry events in which excessive RCS cooldowns
occurred.
The violation was not safety significant, and prompt
corrective actions have been implemented, including initiating an
engineering evaluation and instituting actions to prevent recurrence.
In fact, prompt restoration of temperature limits and performance of an
engineering evaluation to determine the effects of exceeding the limit
is the required action specified in Standard Technical Specifications
for this condition. Furthermore, excessive RCS heatups and cooldowns
are a recent generic issue in the industry and are currently being
evaluated for additional industry action by the Westinghouse owners
Group.
Therefore, we request reclassification of the cited Level IV
violation to a non-cited violation in accordance with the NRC
NRC Evaluation
The staff has carefully reviewed the licensee's request and has
concluded that the licensee did not provide any information that was not
already considered in determining the significance of the violation.
Enclosure
' -*
' .
2
10 CFR 2, Appendix C, VII.8(2), Licensee Identified Severity Level IV
and V violations, states that the NRC may refrain from issuing a Notice
of Violation for a Severity Level IV or V violation that is documented
in an inspection report .... and that the violation meets all of the
following criteria:
It was identified by the licensee ....
It was not a violation that could reasonably be expected to have
been prevented by the licensee's corrective action for a previous
violation or a previous licensee finding ....
It was or will be corrected within a reasonable time frame ....... .
It was not a willful violation ....
Although the violation met the previously stated criteria, discretion
was not granted and the violation was issued to emphasize the need to
more fully evaluate multiple evolutions performed infrequently or for
the first time.
For schedular reasons, multiple evolutions were
performed simultaneously which presented unexpected operational
challenges to the operators. Specifically, a degasification evolution
affecting pressurizer pressure and temperature controls was being
performed at the same time that plant components also affecting
pressurizer pressure and temperature were being realigned in
preparations for an electrical surveillance test. Although the licensee
was sensitized to recent industry events involving pressurizer
temperature transients, they had not fully evaluated the effects of
these evolutions (such as the potential for heating up) occurring
simultaneously.
Had these evolutions been thoroughly evaluated as part
of the scheduling and planning effort, the pressurizer temperature
transient greater than allowed by Technical Specifications could have
been avoided.
Enclosure