ML18025B404
| ML18025B404 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 03/10/1981 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18025B403 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-259-80-47, 50-260-80-37, 50-296-80-41, NUDOCS 8103240666 | |
| Download: ML18025B404 (4) | |
Text
e APPENDIX A, NOTICE OF VIOLATION Tennessee Valley Author ity Browns Ferry 1, 2,.and 3
Docket Nos.
50-259, 50-260 5 50-296 License Nos.
OPR-33,. DPR-52 8
OPR-68 As a result of the inspection conducted on December 1-31,
- 1980, and in accordance with the Interim Enforcement Policy, 45 FR 66754 (Oc ober 7, 1980), the following
~
. violations were:identif jed.
0 A.
10 CFR 50.59(a)(1) permits a licensee to make changes in
.he facili.y as described in the safety analysis report without prior Commission approval, unless the proposed. change involves a,change in the technical specification or an unreviewed safety question.
Changes to the Hydrogen -
Oxygen (H
- 0 ) monitoring system as described in the safety analysis
- report, section 5.2 were made and included -a written safety evaluation.
The safety evaluation required that during plant operation, the torus access shield plugs must remain installed unless another safety evaluatioa is made to determine if the cooling water-supply to the H -02 monitor was adequate for a post, loss of coolant environment.
g ~
I B.
'Contrary to.the 'above,',oa December 2,
- 1980, the inspector observed that the torus access shi'eld plugs were not installed while Unit 2 was operating at power with no safety evaluation having been performed,to determine if the cooling water supply'o the Hayes-Republic H -0 monitor was adequate if a 1'os.s of'oolant accident. occurred.;
This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement I.O. 1.) applicable to Unit 2.
Technical Specification 6.3.O.Z requi'res each High Radiation area in which the intensity of the radiation.is greater than 1,000 mrem/hr shall be provided with locked doors to prevent unauthorized entry and the keys maintained under administrative control of the Shift Engineer on duty.
Technical Specification 6.3.A requires detailed wri ten procedures to be pre'p'ared; approved'.and idh'ered to; Mechaaica'1 Main enaace I'nstruc i'on No.
77.requires that during.'he: replacement. of the maia steam'afety. valve the flange'gaskets be 'removed and the fl.ange surfaces be'lea'ned with a stain-less steel wire brush.
.s xo 3 s.40( &&
Contrary to the above, on December Z2, 1980, the door to Unit 3, 3A Reactor Cleanup Pump Room was not; locked or'.guarded to pr'event unauthorized 'entry.
This room is pasted as a High Radiation area and a radiological survey was conducted on December 16, 1980 and the highest general area radiation
".-="'- reacfTng"w'as-2',000':mremf'hr;-"" '"".-:
e 4 ~
This is a Severity Level V Violation (Supplement I.E.) applicable to Unit O.
W k.
0 Notice of Violation Tennessee Yal 1 ey Authority Oocket Nos.
50-259, 50-260 5 50-296 License Nos.
OPR-33, OPR-52 8
OPR-68 Contrary to the
- above, on Oecember 19,
- 1980, the main steam safety valve flange gaskets were not removed nor were the flange surfaces cleaned prior to valve installation.
'I This is a Severity Level V Violation (Supplement I.E.) applicable to Unit 3
I O.
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XI implemented by Topical Report TVA-75-01, Table 17.2.3 and Operational guality Assurance Manual, Appendix B, requires in part that, test results shall be documented and evaluated to assure that reouirements have been satisfied; Work Plan Nos.
6371 and 7703 (which were
, 'issued to,install hioh density spent fuel storage racks into Unit 1.and,3 spent fuel pools).re'quired'that:
'(1) Test results (conduc.ed 'to assure that
'eutron absorbing material had been ins'alled) shall be evaluated and verified for acceptability (2) The work plans are to be reviewed for comple-tion by guality Assurance.
~ ~I Contrary to the abo've,
'an evaluation and verification of the test results had not been perfo'rmed for Unit 1 fuel storage modules 2, 3, 5,
6, and 7
until Oecember 2,
1980.
Spent fuel had been loaded into fuel storage modules 2,
5, and 6
since January 1980.
The work plan had not been reviewed for completion by guality Assurance for the aforementioned fuel storage modules.
The work plan for Unit 3 did not have guality Assurance review accomplished for fuel storage modules 3 and 6.
Spent fuel had been loaded into fuel storage module 6 since August 1979.
The fuel storage modules were installed September.
1978; This is a S'everity Level V Violation (Supplement I.E.) applicable to Units 1 and 3.
'Pur's'uant..to Che-pi ov'i'si'ons,of:10'CFR;Z:,201,;
'Tennis'see Valley'Authority.iser'eby-:
equired to submit to th'is'ffice within twe'nty-five days of'he date'f this
- Notice, a written statement or explanation in reply, including:
(1) admission
'r denial'f the al'7eged 'v'iolations
'(2) the reasons for the violations if ad-mitted; (3) the corrective steps which have been. taken and the results achieved; (4) corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further violations; and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
Under the authority of Section 182 of the Atomic Energy Act of
- 1954, as
- amended, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.
tegi O.ASS)
Oate:
P I