ML20034A363
| ML20034A363 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 04/12/1990 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20034A361 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-90-011, EA-90-11, IEB-88-004, IEB-88-4, NUDOCS 9004230123 | |
| Download: ML20034A363 (3) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY Tennessee Valley Authority Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328 Sequoyah Units 1 and 2 License Nos. DPR-77 and DPR-79 EA 90-011 During the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspection conducted on i January 8-12, 1990, violations of NRC requirements were identified. In t accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC I( Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1989), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to impose a civil penalty pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205. The particular violations and associated civil penalty are set forth below: -{ A. 10 CFR Part 50, Aependix B, Criterion XVI, Corrective Action, requires in h part, that measures shall be established to assure that conditions adverse (U to quality, such as failures, deviations and nonconformances are promptly identified and corrected. NRC Bulletin 88-04, Potential Safety Related Pump Loss, issued May 5,1988, 1 alerted licensees to a dignificant condition adverse to quality that involved the potential for the deadheading of one or more pumps in safety-( related systems that have a miniflow line common to two or more pumps or \\ other piping configurations that do not preclude pump-to pump interaction 4 during miniflow operation. Licensee engineering calculation DNE SQN-74-D053, dated July 22, 1988, determined that RHR pump damage would occur for a pump that was run deadheaded for greater than 11 minutes. 10 CFR 50.9 requires, in part, that information provided to the Commission by a licensee, be complete and accurate in all material respects. l Licensee letter to the NRC in response to NRC Bulletin 88-04, dated August 2, 1988, stated that the potential existed for deadheading a safety related RHR pump due to pump-ta wep interaction under miniflow conditions when the head differential stween the pumps exceeded 11 pounds per square inch (psi). The letter also stated that recent surveillance test data demonstrated that the head differential between the two RHR pumps was less than 11 psi, ensuring a minimum flow of 100 gallons per minute to allow pump operation for up to 20 minutes without requiring operator intervention. Contrary to the above, as of December 5, 1989, the licensee failed to adequately identify and correct a significant condition adverse to quality regarding the potential for safety-related RHR pump damage from deadheading due to pump-to pump interaction during miniflow conditions in that: 1. No action had been taken to preclude damage to a RHR pump should i deadheading develop due to pump-to pump interaction under miniflow conditions, until a special test demonstrated that the Unit 1 RHR pumps deadheaded under those conditions on December 5, 1989. 9004230123 900412 PDR ADOCK 05000327 G PNU =,
s a A 'Not' ice of Violation - 2.- i l 2. The licensee's evaluation of Unit 1-RHR pump surveillance ' test data, referenced in their August 2,1988 letter to-the NRC, was inadequate - to identify that-an RHR pump was likely to deadhead due to pump-to-pump interaction, as the majority of the test data from July 1987. through August 1988 indicated that the head differential pressure between the pumps exceeded 11 psi. As a result inaccurate information was provided to the Commission on August 2,.1988.- a B. Technical specification 6.8.1, requires in part, that written procedures - be established implemented.and maintained covering the applicable procedures i recommended in Appendix "A" of Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, February i 1978. j Appendix "A" of Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, requires procedures for 1 combating emergencies and other significant events. Technical Specifications 6.8.2, requires-in part,.that cnanges to procedures be reviewed and approved prior to implementation as set forth.in Specification 6.5.1A. ~ _l. Technical Specification 6.5.1.'A, requires in part, that each review determine whether or not an unreviewed safety question'is involved pursuant. to 10 CFR 50.59. ~ Contrary to the above, on December 6, 1989 the licensee performed an. inadequate review of Emergency Instruction E-0, Reactor Trip and Safety - 3 Injection, Revision 7,-required by Regulatory Guide 1.33 to combat emer-i gency events. The procedure change would terminate RHRl operation prior to the procedure steps requiring operator examination.of certain parameters. i to diagnose whether a LOCA was occurring..The review failed to ensure that 4 the procedure change did not involve an unreviewed safety' question pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59. 1 Violations A.1, A.2, and B are a Severity Level III Problem. (Supplement I). Civil Penalty - $75,000 (assessed equally among the violations) Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Tennessee Valley Authority is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the Director,- Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, within-30-days of the date of this' Notice. This reply should be clearly marked as 'a " Reply to a i Notice of Violation" and should. include for each violation: (1) admission or l denial of the violation, (2) the reasons for the violation if admitted,. (3) the corrective steps that have been taken and the 'results achieved, 3 -(4)-the corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further violations, and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved. 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. Consideration may be given to extending the response time for good cause shown. Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.
Notice of Violation
- Within the same time as provided for the response required above under 10 CFR 2.201, the licensee may pay the civil penalty by letter addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with a check, draf t, or money order payable to the Treasurer of the United States in the amount of the civil penalty proposed above, or may protest imposition of the civil penalty in whole or in part_ by a written answer addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Should the licensee fail to answer within the time specified, an order imposing the civil penalty will be issued. Should the licensee elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205_ protesting the civil penalty, in whole or in part, such answer should be clearly marked as an " Answer to a Notice of Violation" and may: (1) deny the violations listed in this Notice in whole or in part, (2) demonstrate extenuating circumstances, (3) show error in this Notice, or (4) show other reasons why the penalty should'not be imposed. In-addition to protecting the civil penalty, such answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalty. In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the factors addressed in U Section.V.B of 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C should be addressed. Any written answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth separately from the i statement or explanation in reply pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201 but may. incorporate parts of the 10 CFR 2.201 reply by specific reference (e.g., citing page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition. The attention of the licensee is directed to the other provisions of 10 CFR 2.205 regarding the procedure for 4 imposing a civil penalty. Upon failure to pay the penalty due, which has been subsequently determined in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, this matter may be referred to the Attorney General, and the penalty, unless compromised, remitted, or mitigated, may 'e collected by civil action pursuant to o Section 234c of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2282. The responses to the Director, Office of Enforcement, noted above (Reply to a Notice of Violation, letter with payment of civil penalty, and Answer to a Notice of Violation) should be addressed to: Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. 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, Sequoyah. FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Dennis M. Crutchfie d, As iate Director for Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 12th day of April 1990. l}}