ML18153C519
| ML18153C519 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 01/25/1991 |
| From: | Sinkule M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18152A027 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-280-90-39, 50-281-90-39, NUDOCS 9102110057 | |
| Download: ML18153C519 (2) | |
Text
- .*
ENCLOSURE 1 NOTICE OF VIOLATION Virginia Electric ahd Power Company Surry 1 Docket No. 50-280 License No. DPR-32 During* an NRC inspection conducted on October 28 -
December 28, 199*0, violations of NRC requirements were identified.
In accordance with the 11General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions, 11 10 CFR Part i, App~ndix C (1990), the violations are listed.below:
A.
Technical Specification 6.4.D requires, in part, that de.tailed written procedures with appropriate checkoff 1 i sts and instructions shal 1 be followed for testing of systems and components involving nuclear safety of the station.
Contrary to the above, procedural requirement 4.19 of Periodic Test 1-0PT-ZZ-001, ESF Actuation with Instantaneous Under Voltage -
lH Bus, dated November 20, 1990, performed on December 2, 1990, was not followed in that a voltmeter was not used to monitor contact position.
This resulted in an unintentional actuation of Unit 1, emergency safeguards components in the B redundant Train.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).
B.
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, as implemented by Operational QualHy Assurance Program Topical Report (VEP 1-5A, Section 17.2.5), in part, requires that activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions or procedures appropriate to the. circumstances.
C.
Contrary to the *above, activities affecting quality were not prescribed by adequate instructions and/or procedures, in that Periodic Test 1-0PT-ZZ-001, ESF Actuation With Instantaneous Under Voltage - lH, dated November 20, 1990, performed on December 3, 1990, did not provide adequate instructions for insta-llation of an electrical test jumper. This resulted in an unintentional actuation of Unit 1 emergency safeguards components in the B redundtant Train.
This is a Severity.Level IV violation (Supplement I) *
. 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, as implemented by Operational Quality Assurance Program Topical Report (VEP 1-5A, Section 17.2.3) in part, requires that design changes shall be subject to the design control measures commensurate with those applied to the original design.
Contrary to the above, field chan*ge 43 to Design Control Package 86-15-1, Level Instrumentation to Prevent Loss of Shutdown Cooling/Surry/Unit 1, dated November 20, 1990, was issued without an*
9102110057 910125
~DR ADOC::&\\. 0500~~~0
Virginia tlectric and Power Company Surry 1 2
Docket No. 50-280 License No. DPR-32
. adequate review.
This resulted in a loss of plant configuration control and unreliable reactor vessel. level indication; This is a Severity Level IV violation.(Supplement I).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Virginia Electric Power Company is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the. U.S.
Nuclear-Regulatory Co111T1ission, ATTN:
Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C.
20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region II, and if applicable, a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector, Surry, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notic~ of Violation (Nottce)~
This reply should be clearly marked as a 11 Reply to a Notice. of Violation 11 and should inclutje for each violations:
(l) the reason for the violation, or, if contested, the basis for disputing the violation, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken a~d
- the results achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will be* taken to avoid further violations,. and_(4) the date ~hen full compliance will be achiev~d.
If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an ord~r 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 ~hould n~t be taken.
Where good cause is shown, consideration.will be giv~n to extending the response time.
- Dated at Atlanta, Georgia this ;6-i::\\day of January 1991 FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Mar~in* V. Sinkule, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 2 Division of Reactor Projects