ML18033A893
| ML18033A893 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 08/10/1989 |
| From: | Wilson B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18033A892 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-259-89-17, 50-260-89-17, 50-296-89-17, NUDOCS 8908210038 | |
| Download: ML18033A893 (3) | |
Text
0 ENCLOSURE 1
NOTICE OF VIOLATION Tennessee Valley Authority Browns Ferry 1, 2, and 3
DPR-68 Docket Nos.
50-259, 50-260, 50-296 License Nos.
DPR-33, DPR-52, During the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspection conducted on May 22-26,
- 1989, violations of NRC requirements were identified.
The violations involve
- 1) failure to comply with the requirement of 10 CFR 50.59 and
- 2) multiple examples of failure to properly implement procedures as required by TS during the design change process.
In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,"
10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C ( 1988), the violation is listed below:
l.
10 CFR 50.59 allows modifications to,the facility as described in the FSAR provided that a written safety evaluation supports the determination that the modification will not result in an unreviewed safety question.
NEP 6.6, which implements 10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluation requirements, requires that a written safety evaluation be performed for modifications to the facility as described in the FSAR.
Contrary to the
- above, DCN
- H3858A, ECN P7113 and DCN
- H0116A, which modified the facility as described in the
- FSAR, were processed without a
written safety evaluation to provide the basis that an unreviewed safety question was not being created.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I) ~
2.
Technical Specification 6.8. 1 requires that written procedures be established, implemented and maintained for activities recommended in Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, February 1978.
Contrary to the
- above, four examples of a failure to properly implement written procedures are identified below:
a.
ECN E-2P7010 was invalidated by the issuance of DCN H1239 Revision A, which is contrary to procedure PI 86-03, which did not permit use of a
DCN to correct an ECN for which a
10 CFR 50.59 review is not val id.
C.
Intent changes to workplans, including change number two to workplan 2317-88 and multiple changes to workplan 2069-88, were incorrectly classified as non-intent changes and were not processed in accordance with the requirements of Site Directors Standard Practice (SDSP) 8.2.
The torque switch and limit switch settings for valve 2-FCV-71-34 were modified by workplan 2181-88 and the required seat leak testing was not specified as required by Site Director Standard Practice SDSP-8.4.
85'082i00=8 eg03i0 PDR ADDCK 05000259 Li PDC
e Tennessee Valley Authority Browns Ferry 1, 2, and 3
2 Docket Nos.
50-259, 50-260, 50-296 License Nos.
During the field work for workplan 2194-88, the leads to the Unit 2 reactor water clean-up pump motor were reversed from that shown on the original design without processing a design change (i.e., field change) as required by SDSP-8.4.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Tennessee Valley Authority is hereby required to 'submit a written statement or expla'nation to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN:
Document Control
- Desk, Washington, DC
- 20555, with a copy to the Associate Director for Special
- Projects, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulatign and a
copy to the NRC Resident Inspector, Browns Ferry, within 30 days of the date. of th letter transmitting this Notice.
This reply should be clear)y marked as a
"Rep to a Notice of Violation" and should include [for each.'violytion]:
( 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 THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION for Inspection Programs TVA Projects Division Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Atlanta, Georgia this Io& day of pugusf 1989
0