ML18153B718
| ML18153B718 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 05/10/1989 |
| From: | Reyes L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18152A157 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-280-89-08, 50-280-89-8, 50-281-89-08, 50-281-89-8, NUDOCS 8905190118 | |
| Download: ML18153B718 (2) | |
Text
ENCLOSURE 1 NOTICE OF VIOLATION Virginia Electric and Power Company Docket Nos. 50-280, 50-281 License Nos. DPR-32, DPR-37 Surry Units 1 and 2 During the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspection conducted between the period of March 5, 1989, to April 1, 1989, violations of NRC requirements were identified.
In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1988), the violations are listed below:
A.
Technical Specification 6.4 requires that detailed written procedures with appropriate check-off lists and instructions be provided and followed for normal startup, operation; and shutdown of all systems* and components involving nuclear safety ~f the station.
B.
Contrary to the above, on March 17, 1989, Unit 1 reactor operators realigned the flow of the component cooling water to the residual heat
. removal heat exchangers without the use of a written procedure. This realignment resulted in the loss of decay heat removal from the unit for approximately 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />.
This.violation has been categorized as a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement 1).
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, as implemented by the licensee'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 instructions or procedures appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instruc-tions or procedures.
Contrary to the above, activities affecting quality were not prescribed by instructions or procedure, or were not accomplished in accordance with procedures as evidenced by the following examples:
- 1.
From December 23, 1988 to March 27, 1989, the operation and control of six safety injection accumulator pressure instrumentation valves were not included in instructions or procedures.
- 2.
As of February 22, 1989, activities affecting quality were not performed according to procedures in that licensee procedure SUADM-ENG-01 (dated November 3, 1987) paragraph 6.7.1 states in part that if a technical review is required, the system or component shall not be considered operational until completion of the technical review.
NRC inspections conducted between February 22 and April 1, 1989 identified four examples of work completed by Work Orders referencing Engineering Work Requests in which the component was returned to service without the required techni ca 1 review being completed.
8905190118 890510 b.DR At*CICK 05000280 PDC
Virginia Electric and Power Company 2 Surry Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-280, 50-281 License Nos. DPR-32, DPR-37
- 3.
On March 9, 1989, work accomplished in accordance with Engineering Work Request 89-148 was inadequate in that proper instructions were not provided to ensure that appropriate disassembly of the electrical connections were accomplished based on environmental considerations.
The procedure was also inadequate in ensuring that the necessary corrective actions had been performed prior to reassembly of the connection.
This violation has been categorized as a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement 1).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Virginia Electric and Power Company is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN:
Document Control Desk, Washington, DC
- 20555, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region II, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector, 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 Viola-tion" 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 not be modified, suspended, or revoked or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken.
Dated at Atlanta, Georgia /
thislJVoay of May 1989 FOR *THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION J~;L~
Luis A. Reyes, Director Division of Reactor Projects