ML20065K843
| ML20065K843 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Surry |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1980 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082180535 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-82-261 NUDOCS 8210080154 | |
| Download: ML20065K843 (6) | |
Text
,
l
~
SURRY 1&2 Evaluation Period: 5/1/79 - 4/30/80 I.
General Steps have been taken to correct specific weaknesses in the areas of plant operations, radiation protection, and quality assurance as identified in the non-compliances referred below.
Licensee corrective actions have been reviewed and onsite inspection perfomed where necessary.
j 1 An enforcement conference was held with senior licensee management to discuss specific problems and corrective actions. Programmatic improvements were
{ <:;ff,
made by the acquisition of additional staffing, a major corporate office reorganization, and a comprehensive review of Quality Assurance program g.,
standards.
i.
IT. Specific M
A.
Contention i
"The Surry facility displayed evidence of weaknesses in the areas of plant
]
operations, radiation protection, and quality assurance."
- 4-The basis, NRC actions and licensee corrective actions for this contention are discussed in contentions E-F below.
g B.
Contention R)g gw
}
" Weaknesses in the operations areas were characterized by repetitive
- 7. '-
instances of failure to follow procedures, improper system lineups or tagging errors, and unapproved use of temporary hoses or jumpers, f
1.
Basis References l
Examples of inadequate procedures or LERs 280/79-13,30, a failure to follow procedures include 31,38; 80-6,8,9,16, the repetitive finpings of recirculation 17,20; 281/80-1~
pump screens improperly placed or with l i excessive trash near the screens, IE Rpt. 50-280/79-45, j
electrical cable trays uncovpred, or 19-50, 79-52, 79-67, covered by trash, prints or wood, Unit 2 80-1, 80-7, 80-10, 80-19 main steam line flow instruments isolated and inoperable during plant IE Rpt. 50-281/79-42, operation, and failure to correct roof 79-47, 79-80, 79-86, j
leaks leading to the shorting and 80-3, 80-10, 80-11, inoperability of a Low Head Safety 80-19 Injection pump during operation of Unit 2.
Other examples include v_.gntilation system filters and charcoal beds not adequately inspected or replaced when excessive differential pressures or known damage occurs, and
(-
~
failure to follow procedures in
\\..
answering annunciator alarms.
Failure,,.
~
9210080154 820712
~
t POR FOIA t
UDELL82-261 PDR
.~
[-
to follow maintenance and operations s'
procedures resulted in numerous licensee event reports during 1980.
Improper system lineups or tagging errors include improper identification tags on valve components resulting in inadvertent isolation of the boric acid tanks on several occasions.
Improper valve lineups or tagging errors resulted in numerous LERs during 1980.
Temporary hoses and jumpers have been installed incorrectly and without proper authorization and approval. One-improper hose installation on the sump system inadvertently diverted several hundred gallons of contaminated contain-ment sump water to the basement of the Safeguards Building.
- 2. NRC Actions These and related topics were discussed with senior licensee management at a meeting on October 8, 1980.
Items of noncompliance were issued'as noted in
'J' the reference given in the Basis, above.
@h In addition, inspection activiti$ts have increased in the problem areas.
(
- 3. Licensee Corrective Actions l
The licensee took appropriate corrective IE Rpt. 50-280/80-28 l
action on the items of noncompliance IE Rpt. 50-281/81-2 l
referenced above.
An extensive program of retraining personnel on the require-ments and. consequences of procedural l
noncompliance was also established.
There has been an increase in the number of reprimands and management i.nvolvement in cases of personnel errors.
Internal licensee instructions and memos have been issued in an effort to heighten awareness of proper plant operations.
The number of tagging errors and use of temporary hoses and jumpers has decreased.
C. Contention "The licensee experienced difficulty in responding to unplanned maintenance
(
~
problems,. failed t.o take corrective actions in response to several recurring problems, and did not adequately test equipment following maintenance on several occasi,ons."
P
- 1. Basis Reference The licensee's onsite engineering, IE Rpt. 50-280/79-63, maintenance and testing staff were minimal, 79-67, 80-10 and experienced difficulty in responding IE Rpt. 50-281/80-11 to unplanned maintenance problems.
Periodic testing was not properly LER 280/80-09 performed or evaluated, and engineering solutions to recurring problems were delayed due to the workload of the
'i staff.
Routine maintenance was delayed because of priority maintenance on failed equipment.
In December 1979 and January 1980, so'me 50 health physics
. ;,j requests for engineering studies were q
submitted to the engineering staff.
d These requests were to determine the feasibility of adding shielding to U
il certain components and piping, for radiation exposure reduction, without
.i overstressing the components or piping.
1 As of January 1981, none of the
- t requests had been reviewed by the U
engineering staff due to higher priority j
items.
A.
The licensee's failure.to take 4 i) corrective action in response to j
several recurring problems is y
exemplified by the continued problem i
with procedural noncompliance and design problems in the heat tracing
^
[
and service water systems.
- 2. NRC Action These and.related topics were discussed with senior licensee management at a meeting on October 8, 1980.
Items of noncompliance were issued as noted in the references given in the Basis, above.
In addition, inspection activities have increased in the problem areas.
- 3. Licensee Corrective Action The licensee took appropriate corrective licensee letter of 8/1/80 action on the items of noncompliance ref.erenced above.
Additional staffing was acquired allowing greater response to unplanned maintenance with less impact on other tasks.
A corporate
(
office re'organizat' ion has occurred in an effort to provide thorough
?
k'.
evaluation and corrective action of recurring problems.
D. Contention
" Weaknesses in the radiation protection area were indicated by numerous radiation procection items of noncompliance and escalated enforcement action concerning inadequate radiological surveillance on a radioactive waste shipment."
- 1. Basis Reference On April 14, 1980, the ifcensee shipped IE Rpt 50-280/80-16 a radioactive waste shipment to Barnwell, SC which violated NRC and IE Rpt. 50-281/80-17 Department of Transportation (DOT) i regulations.
Radiation levels on the external surface of the vehicle were higher than allowed resulting in two items of noncompliance (exceeding DOT limits and failure to perform an adequate survey).
Other inspection findings included IE Rpt. 50-280/79-24, eight items of noncomplaince related 79-32, 79-64, 79-70 i'
to a failure to follow Technical N,$
, Specifications, radiation protection IE Rpt. 50-281/79-42, y
i-j procedures, and 10 CFR 20 (Standards for 79-50,-79-80, 79-84 Protection Against Radiation).
- 2. NRC Action
~
A special inspection was conducted IE Rpt. 50-280/B0-16, and on April 25, 1980 regarding the radio-50-281/80-17 active waste shipment. On April 30, 1980, an enforcement conference was held NRC letter of 5/28/80
.tp discuss NRC concerns over the ship-Licensee letter of ment.
On May 28, 1980, the licensee 6/20/80 was issued a Civil Penalty relating to the waste shipment. The licensee's June 20, 1980 response to the May 28, 1980 escalated enforcement action was reviewed, and the licensee's actions to correct the problems were found acceptable. These and related topics were discussed with senior licensee management at a meeting on October 8, 1980.
~~'
Notices of Violations were issued for IE Rpt. 50-280/79-24, the remaining items of noncompliance.
79-32, 79-64, 79-70
(
IE Rpt. 50-281/79-42, 79-50, 79-80, 79-84
~.
..r..
~.
K
<~
- 3. Licensee Corrective Action The licensee has taken specific IE Rpt. 50-280/80-11 corrective actions in response to the IE Rpt. 50-281/80-9, 80-12 identified items of noncompliance.
E. Contention i
" Quality assurance weaknesses were characterized by instances of longstanding and uncorrected design problems in plant systems, instances, where the licensee used unqualified parts in safety-related maintenance, i
and se'veral procedures that were not properly revised following technical specification revisions."
l
- 1. Basis References Instances of longstanding and uncorrected LERs 280/79-33, 79-35, 4
l design problems in plant systems included 79-37, 79-39, 80-18, numerous problems with the heat tracing 80-23, 80-27, 80-32, and service water systems. Heat tracing 80-50, 80-69; r
problems included repeated replacement of 281/80-18, 80-28, 80-29 heat tape, low circuit current, excessive system heat and failure to replace insula-tion after piping repairs were completed.
i Service water problems included valve degradation and low discharge pressure.
Qh I
An unqualified gasket was used during IE Rpt. 50-2F0/80-1 and pressurized valve repairs.
281/80-3 Examples of proceduras which were not IE Rpt. 50-280/80-20, properly revised following technical.
80-34 specification changes include one IE Rpt. 50-281/80-21, 1
resulting in a violation of the 80-37 minimum level requirements in the Radwaste Storage Tank and the Chemical Addi. tion Tank,ification violation and one involving a tech 2ical spec of containment pressure and temperature limits.
- 2. NRC Action These and related topics were discussed with senior licensee management on October 8, 1980. Notices of violation were issued as documented in the above references.
- 3. Licensee Corrective Action
~
The licensee has taken specific correc-NRC letter of 5/23/80 l
tive actions"in response to identified license letter of 8/1/80
(
items of noncompliance and to the pro-IE Rpt. 50-280/80-19, blems associated with the' heat. tracing,.
80-43 Ns A
f and service water systems. The licensee IE Rpt. 50-281/80-19 has committed to a comprehensive review of their Quality Assurance program to meet more current NRC and industry standards.
F. Contention
"... there was one instance where escalated enforcement action was taken to assure corrective action by the license."
The basis, NRC ictions, and licensee corrective actions for this contention are discussed in contention D, above.
~
O 9
e e
Q n,
~,a' e
q e
e
=
g
=
.