ML18153B560

Responds to NRC 881129 Ltr Re Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-280/88-42 & 50-281/88-42.Corrective Actions:Security Officer Posted at Exit Areas of Both Security Bldgs to Ensure Proper Response to Alarms from Portal Monitors

ML18153B560
Person / Time
Site:	Surry
Issue date:	12/29/1988
From:	Cartwright W VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.)
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
References
88-800, NUDOCS 8901040397
Download: ML18153B560 (3)

Text

• I

• VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23261 W. R. GAB.TWBIGHT VICE PBBSIDBNT . December 29, 1988

• NUCLBAB U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document_Control Desk ~ashington, D. C. 20555 Gentlemen:

VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY SURRY POWER STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 Serial No. NO/GDM:pmk Docket Nos. License Nos. NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-280/88-42 AND 50-281/88-42 ,88-800 Rl 50-280 50-281 *nPR-32 DPR-37 We have reviewed your letter of November 29, 1988 in, reference to the inspection conducted at Surry Power Station from October 11-14, 1988 and reported in Inspection Report Nos. 50-280/88-42 and 50-281/88-42.

Our response to the violation described in the Notice of Violation is provided *in the attachment . We have no objecti6n to thi~ inspection report being made a matter of public disclosure.

If you have any further *questions, please contact us. *w. R. Cartwright Attachments cc: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Region II 101 Marietta Street, N.W. Suite 2900 Atlanta, GA *_30323 Mr. W. E. Ho 11 and NRC Senior Resident Inspector Surry Power Station ---1

,. NRC COMMENT: . RESPONSE Tb THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION REPORTED DURING THE. NRC INSPECTION CONDUCTED ON OCTOBER 11~14, 1988 INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-280/88-42 AND 50-281/88-42 During the Nuclea.r Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspection conducted on October 11-14, 1988, a violation of NRC requirements was identified.

In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions, 11 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1988), t~e violatio~

is listed below: Technical Specification 6.4.D requires that radiation control procedures be followed.

• The 'Comp~ny Radiation Protection Plan, Chapter II,. Attachment II-1, requires in item 2 that individuals obey posted, verbal and written Health Physics (HP) instructions.

Health Physics Procedure; HP-9.0.702, Calibration and Operation of Eberline Model PMC-4B/PMP-4C (portal radiation monitor);

dated August 29, .1988i requires in Attachment 1, item 2.0 that, once an alarm has sounded, Health Physics is to be notified and the individual causing the alirm is to remain in the area until released by HP,* HP Instructions posted on the portal monitors at the exits in the security control points require, in item 5, that when a contamination alarm sounds with a red

• lamp: a. Confirm contamination by using second monitor. b. If alarm sounds again, individual is to remain in the area. c. Health Physics is to be notified.

Security General Order Number 24, Duties of Exit Control Officers, dated . March 28, 1988, requires in item 5.0, that the exit control officer notify HP if an individual cannot clear the radiation portal monitor and have the person standby ~or HP instructions.

• Contrary to the above, the requirement to follow radiation control procedures was not met in that, during the weeks of September 12-16 and* 26-30, 1988, a total of thirteen people were noted exiting the site through alarming or non-functional portal monitors and the individuals were not stopped by security personnel nor did they remain in .the area to await release by Health Physics. This is a* Severity Level IV violation (Supplement IV). ----------...------------------------------------------. -*_

• RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-280/88-42 AND 50-281/88~42

1. ADMISSION OR DENIAL OF lHE ALLEGED VIOLATION:

The violation is correct as stated. 2. REASON FOR THE VIOLATION:

The reason for the violation is inappropriate actions by personnel in response to a malfunctioning portal monitor alarm including the use of an out-of-service monitor. In addition, security personnel were not appropriately po~itioned to observe the alarm status of the portal monitors or how exiting personnel were using the portals. 3. CORRECTIVE STEPS-WHICH HAVE BEEN TAKEN AND THE RESULTS ACHIEVED:

A security officer has been posted at the exit areas of both security buildings to ensure proper personnel use of and response to alarms from the portal monitors.*

Audible and visual alarms have also.been installed within the main security building to alert Security when a portal monitor alarm has activated.

Additionally, the* electroni~

components suspected -of causing spurious alarms and monitor malfunctjons have been replaced.

4. CORRECTIVE STEPS WHICH WILL BE TAKEN TO AVOID FURTHER VIOLATIONS:

As an additional enhancement, out-of-service portal monitors will be equipped with physical barriers to prevent their use by exiting personnel.

5. THE DATE WHEN FULL COMPLIANCE WILL BE ACHIEVED:

Full compliance was assured when a security officer was posted at each security-controlled exit point on September 27, 1988. The additional enhancement noted in -item_ 4 above wil 1 be completed by January 31, 1989.