ML20151Q511

Ack Receipt of Payment of Civil Penalty in Amount of $100,000,per Util .Violation B Re Maint Procedure for Replacing in-core Flux Mapping Detector Remains as Stated

ML20151Q511
Person / Time
Site:	Surry
Issue date:	08/04/1988
From:	Lieberman J NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE)
To:	Cruden D VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.)
References
EA-88-117, NUDOCS 8808110192
Download: ML20151Q511 (1)

Text

<-

be5

' AUG 041988 Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50 281 License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37  ;

EA 88-117 l 1

Virginia Electric and Power Company l ATTN: Mr. D. S. Cruden, Vice President l Nuclear Operations Post Office Box 26666 Richmond, Virginia 23261 Gentlemen:

This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated July 13, 1988 and your check for $100,000 in payment for the civil penalties proposed by NRC in I a letter dated June 13, 1988. Your corrective actions will be examined during future inspections. I i

In your response to Violation B, you stated that Maintenance Procedure IMP-C-IFM-20, Replacing Incore Flux Mapping Detector, provided sufficient detail to ensure work quality and to ensure that safety of station operations was not affected. It is the NRC position that sufficient precautions and limitations were not indicated in the procedure. The procedure failed to address such precautions and limitations as assessing the detector's location in the core prior to start of the work, stopping work if a pre-determined radiation level was reached and reevaluation of the work if the detector could not be retracted using the drive unit as specified. It is also the NRC position that the deviation or change to the procedure that was written to free the stuck incore detector did change the intent of the procedure and should have received SNSOC approval prior to implementing the change. The procedure was written to cover the routine replacement of the incore detector using the drive units to move the detector. Although no change was made to the "purpose" statement of the procedure, the scope or purpose of the procedure was actually changed by adding instructions to free the stuck detector, which was not addressed in the original procedure. Accordingly, we consider Violation B to be correct as stated in the Notice of Violation.

Sincerely, OriginalSigned By James Ueberman James Lieberman, Director Office of Enforcement cc: J. N. Grace, RII Distribution GJenkins, RII JLieberman, OE 8808110192 880804 EFlack, OE PDR ADOCK 05000280 o PNU Day File EA File DCS g OEW RA:RII O EFlack JNGrace oberman t 8/3/88 8/S/88 8 3/88 I o gMl

-. . . . .. . . _-. .