ML18033B013
| ML18033B013 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 10/21/1989 |
| From: | Wilson B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18033B012 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-259-89-47, 50-260-89-47, 50-296-89-47, NUDOCS 8911030131 | |
| Download: ML18033B013 (3) | |
Text
ENCLOSURE 1
NOTICE OF VIOLATION Tennessee Val 1 ey Author ity Browns Ferry 1, 2, and 3
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 September 25-29,
- 1989, a violation of NRC requirements was identified.
The violation involved failure to maintain adequate document control of a
Technical Specification (TS) amendment and controlled copies of TSs.
In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,"
Appendix C (1989),
the violation is listed below:
10 CFR 50 Appendix B Criterion VI, Document
- Control, requires that measures shall be established to control the issuance of documents including changes
- thereto, which prescribe all activities affecting quality.
These measures shall assure that documents, including changes, are reviewed for adequacy and are distributed to the location where the prescribed activity is performed.
Nuclear guality Assurance Manual Part I; Section 2.6, Document Control, Paragraph S. 1, 1.,
requires that programs and procedures shall be established for the control of documents for activities that affect safety-related functions.
Site Directors Standard Practice
- 2. 12, Controlling Documents, establishes the requirements for the processing of controlled documents to ensure that the latest applicable controlled documents are available and distributed to identified recipients and to minimize the inadvertent use, of voided or superseded documents.
Contrary to the
- above, these requirements were not met in that adequate document control was not maintained for a
TS amendment and controlled copies of TS for the following three examples:
1.
Adequate document control was not maintained for TS Amendment
- 135, 131, 106, dated August 20, 1987, which revised TS definition 1.0.C.2 to clarify its appl'icabi lity during Cold Shutdown or Refueling.
On September 26,
- 1989, the inspector identified that page 1.0-2 located in controlled copies of the TS did not reflect the approved and issued change.
The correct wording had been incorporated into controlled copies of the TS but not into the plant licensing's staff master copy. 'n February
- 1989, TS Amendment
- 158, 157, 129 revised different information contained on the same page.
This resulted in inadvertent use of the outdated wording in TS definition 1.0.C.2.
Tennessee Valley Authority Browns Ferry 1, 2, and 3
Docket Nos.
50-259, 50-260, and 50-296 License Nos.
Unit 2 TS controlled copy 52 was not properly maintained with the latest amendment to TS.
On September 27,
- 1989, the inspector identified that existing pages
- 1. 1/2. 1-2 through
- 1. 1/2. 1-4 of copy 52 reflected the original amendment dated March 19,
- 1987, instead of amendment 143 dated March 3, 1989.
3.
Unit 2
TS Control Room copy 40 was not properly maintained.
On September 27,
- 1989, the inspector identified that two copies of page 3.7/4.7-16 existed but only one of which was annotated with information pertaining to compensatory measure 88-64-2-007, in effect at the time..
The above instances are examples of a
Severity Level V Violation (Supplement I) and is applicable to all three units.
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Tennessee Valley Authority is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation 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 Regulation, and a
copy to the NRC Resident Inspector, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice.
This reply should be clearly marked as a
"Reply to a
Notice of Violation", 'and should include
[for each violation]:
(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.
If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order may be issued to show cause why.the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ruce A. Wilson, Assistant Director for Inspection Programs TVA Projects Division Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Atlanta, Georgia thi s 3 l~ day of >~~<<< 1989