ML18031A769
| ML18031A769 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry, Pilgrim  |
| Issue date: | 09/11/1986 |
| From: | Zech G NRC - TVA OVERSIGHT GROUP, NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18031A768 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-259-86-25, 50-260-86-25, 50-296-86-25, NUDOCS 8609220204 | |
| Download: ML18031A769 (4) | |
Text
ENCLOSURE 1
NOTICE OF VIOLATION Tennessee Valley Authority Browns Ferry 1, 2, and 3
I Docket Nos.
50-259, 50-260, and 50-296 License Nos.
DPR-33, DPR-52 and DPR-68 During the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspection conducted on July 1-31,
- 1986, two violations of NRC requirements were identified.
The violations involved failure to document a
change to the facility per 10 CFR 50.59, and failure to have plant systems and components configured per approved drawings.
In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforce-ment Actions,"
10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1985),
the violations are listed below:
A.
10 CFR 50.59(a) allows the holder of a
license to make changes in the facility as described in the Final Safety Analysis Report
( FSAR) without'rior Commission approval unless it involves a
change to the Technical Specifications or is an unreviewed safety question.
An unreviewed safety question is created if the consequences of an accident or the malfunction of the equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR are increased.
10 CFR 50.59(b) requires in part that the licensee maintain records of changes in the facility to the extent-that such changes constitute changes-in the facility as described in the FSAR.
These records shall include a
written safety evaluation which provides the basis for the determination that the change does not involve an unreviewed safety question.
Contrary to the above, the licensee changed-the facility as described in the Final Safety Analysis Report without maintaining a record of the change.
On July 16, 1986, it was found that the licensee maintains three flood protec-tion doors normally open for convenience of personnel and equipment trans-fers.
These doors (two radwaste building external doors and the reactor building equipment access floodgate) are described in Sections 12.2.5.2.
1 and 12.2.9.3 '
of the FSAR as normally closed to provide watertight units.
The 'length of, time these doors had been maintained normally open prior to July 16, 1986, is unknown but is believed to have been since October 1981.
This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement I) and is applicable to all units.
B.
10 CFR 50 Appendix B Criterion V requires that activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings, of a
type appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished in accordance with those instructions, procedures, or drawings.
1.
Contrary to the
- above, this requirement was not met in that the fire protection pre-action sprinkler system on the 593 foot elevation of the Unit 3 reactor building was neither prescribed as in Plant, Drawing 8609220204 860911 PDR
- DOCK 05000259 G
Tennessee Valley Authority Btowns Ferry 1, 2, and 3
2 Docket Nos.
50-259, 50-260, and 50-296 License Nos.
DPR-33, DPR-52 and DPR-68 47W491-30 nor installed with an adequate system flush as required by note two of Drawing 47W491-1
~
Note two of the drawing states that fire protection pipes shall be cleaned free of scale, dirt, rust, and welding icicles, flushed with treated water and blown out with corn pressed air prior to final closure.
Failure to remove the welded plug and perform an adequate flush as required resulted in the sprinkler heads being unable to provide water spray to the cable trays and equipment in the area.
This condition was thought to have existed since 1977.
0 2.
Contrary to the
- above, the requirement was not met in that various Control Rod Drive Hydraulic Control Units were not installed in the design support mounting configuration as required by design drawing 919D615.
Numerous missing component
- washers, misaligned channel nuts and loose bolting was found on all units'.
Contrary to the
- above, there is no documented instruction, procedure or drawing which prescribes the anchoring details of the Control Room Emergency Ventilation System (CREVS) filter train and blower assembly The train A and B assemblies are mounted differently with train B
cantilevered off its anchoring pad.
Since no anchoring details could be
- located, the installed configuration represents an unanalyzed condition.
~
~
This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement I) and is applicable to all units.
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, you are hereby required to submit to this Office within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice a
written statement or explanation in reply including:
(1) admission or denial of the violation, (2) the reason for the violation if admitted, (3) the corrective steps which have been taken and the results
- achieved, (4) the corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further violations, and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
Where good cause is
- shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time FOR THF NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ORIGlhlALSlGNEO Bv GARY G. ZEGH
~ Gary G.~Zech, Director TVA Projects Dated at Atlanta, Georgia t
this 11th day of September 19B6