ML20235U704
| ML20235U704 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 10/02/1987 |
| From: | Zech G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235U703 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-327-87-56, 50-328-87-56, NUDOCS 8710140210 | |
| Download: ML20235U704 (2) | |
Text
.,
L' 1
(
4 l
r i
ENCLOSURE 1 N_0TICE OF VIOLATION 0
Tennessee Valley Authority Docket Nos.-
50-327 and 50-328 Sequoyah Units 1 and 2 License Nos..
DPR-77 and DPR-79 During the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspection conducted on August 17-21, 1987, violations of NRC requirements were identified.
The violations involved failure to control a high radiation area, failure to perform a 10 CFR 50.59 review, and failure to have a change to a procedure reviewed and approved prior to implementation. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Pan 2, Appendix C (1986), the violations are listed below:
A.
Technical Specification 6.12.2 requires that each high radiation area in which the intensity of radiation is greater than 1000 millirem / hour shall be barricaded and conspicuously posted as a high radiation area and locked doors shall be provided to prevent unauthorized entry into the area.
Contrary to the above, on May 26, 1987, the licensee failed to post, barricade, and control entry to high radiation areas in the Auxiliary Building railroad access bay, refueling floor and cask decontamination room.
Radiation levels in the areas up to 1200 millirems per hour originated from a radioactive wat,te shipping liner initially located in i
the railroad access bay and later transferred across the refueling floor to the cask decontamination room.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement IV).
This violation is similar to a Licensee Identified Violation described in Inspection Report Nos. 50-327/87-03 and 50-328/87-03.
B.
10 CFR 50.59 states that the holder of license authorizing operation of a utilization facility may make changes in the facility as described in the
~
safety analysis report, without prior Commission approval, unless this proposed change itivolves a change in the Technical Specifications incorporated in the license or an unreviewed safety question.
Ihe licensee should maintain records of changes in the facility which shall include a written safety evaluation which provides the bases for the determination that the change does not involve an unreviewed safety question.
Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), Chapter 11.2 states that the laundry and Hot shower drum tank is normally sampled and discharged as an effluent, with the ' provisions for processing the liquid through the condensate deminoralizer waste evaporator (CDWE) if the sample result was above the discharge limit.
I 8710140210 871002 l
PDR ADOCK 05000327.
PDR j
g l
x l Tennessee Valley-Authority
-Docket Nos.:
50-327 ar.d 50-328 Sequoyah Units 1 and 2
~2 License Nos.:
-(
- C_untrary,. to the above, on May 1987, the licensee failed to perform an adequate safety evaluation 'for a change in the laundry and hot shower waste water' process.which directed all the waste water to the CDWE' causing.
.an increase in'.the volume and concentrations of contaminants into the CDWE.
'Thi-s~is aLSeverity Level IV violation (Supplement I).
C.
Technical' Specification 6.8.2 requires that changes to the ' Radioactive Waste : Processing Procedures be reviewed by the Plant Op6 rations Review Committee' (PCRC). and approved by. t he Plant Superintendent prior to
. implementation.
Contrary to.the above, on May 20. 1987, the licensee failed to review and obtain approval.p'rior.,to implementing a change in the Radioactive Waste Processing. Procedures to permit use of an air hose to dissipate excessive heat produced during the solidification of a radioactive waste liner.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement IV).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201., Tennessee Valley Authority is 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 (for each violation):
(1) admission or denial of the violation,
'(2) the : reason for the viciation 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 Gary G. Zech, Assistant Director f
for Inspection Programs TVA Projects Division Office of Special Projects Dated at Atlanta, Georgia this 2nd day of October 1987 i
. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _. _ - - _ -