ML20041F783
| ML20041F783 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 01/18/1982 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20041F754 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-327-81-39, 50-328-81-48, NUDOCS 8203170411 | |
| Download: ML20041F783 (2) | |
Text
-
3 APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Tennessee Valley Authority Docket No. 50-327 Sequoya h' 1 License No. DPR-77 As a result of the inspection conducted on October 6 - December 5,1981, and in accordance with the Interim Enforcement Policy, 45 FR 66754 (October 7,1980),
the following violations were identified.
A.
10 CFR 50, Appendix A, Criterion 22 " Protection System Independence" and
~
FSAR section 7.2 " Reactor Trip System" require that the effects of normal operating, maintenance, and testing do not result in loss of the protective function.
Contrary to the above, on Novenber 4,1981 the potential existed for conpromising the approved safety design of the plant, due to the violation of the separability requirements, in that tenporary test leads were connected fran test points in two different and redundant reactor protection channels to a common strip chart recorder.
This is a Severity Level V Violation (Suppleaent I.E.).
B.
Technical Specification 6.8.1.c requires that written procedures shall be-established, implemented and maintained covering surveillance and test dCtivities of safety-related equipnent.
Contrary to the above, written procedures for_ surveillance of safety-related equipnent were not implemented in that on November 5,1981, during the performance of SI-90.82 -(IMI-99-SSPS)" Monthly Functional Test of Solid State Protection System" a bad logic point was identified in the "A" train logic and it was not corrected prior to proceeding with the test and the shift engineer was not innediately notified. Both were procedure require-ments. This violation was identified by the licensee on November 6,1981.
This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement I.D.3.).
C.
Technical Specification 3.3.1, Table 3.3-1 requires that the Reactor Trip System Automatic Trip Logic shall be operable in Mode 2 (Startup).
Contrary to the above, the "A" train Reactor Trip System Automatic Trip Logic was not operable in Mode 2 on November 5 and 6,1981 in that the overpower delta temperature function was identified as defective.
The defect was identified on November 5 during perfonnance of Surveillance Instruction SI-90.82 prior to entering Mode 2 and was not corrected until November 6 after approximately twelve hours.
This violation was identified by the licensee on November 6, 1981.
This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement I.D.3.).
8203170411 820309 PDR ADOCK 05000327 G
PDR l
3
. Tennessee Valley Authority 2
Docket No. 50-327 Notice of Violation License No. DPR-77 D.
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion III and section 17.2.3 of TVA-TR75-1, the licensee's accepted Quality Assurance Program Description, requires that modifications to critical structures, systems and canponents (CSSC) shall be controlled to assure that "as-built" quality is not degraded.
Contrary to the above, modifications to CSSC were not controlled in that in April 1980, temporary drain valves were added to the vent condensers of the boric acid evaporators (CSSC) without proper authorization as described in Administrative Instruction AI-19 " Plant flodifications." The valve was added to the "B" boric acid evaporator using a maintenance request in accordance with Al-9 " Control of Temporary Alterations" but the modification has remained in effect for over sixty days without the issuance of a design change request as required.
The unauthorized modification resulted in lack-of configuration control by the operations group and a leak of radioactive material into the auxiliary building on November 10, 1981.
This is a Sever.ity Level V Violation (Supplanent I.E.).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, you are hereby required to subnit to this office within thirty days of the date of this-Notice, a written statement or explanation in reply, including:
(1) admission or denial of the alleged viola-tions; (2) the reasons for the violations if admitted; (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.
Consideration may be given to extending your response time for good cause shown.
Under the authority of Section 182 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, this response shall be subnitted under oath or aff'.mation.
JAN 181982 Da te :
I
___. _ _ _ _