ML20248C119

Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in Amount of $87,500.Noncompliance Noted:Change Made to Facility as Described in FSAR W/O Performing Written Evaluation & Margin of Safety Reduced W/O NRC Approval

ML20248C119
Person / Time
Site:	Sequoyah
Issue date:	09/22/1989
From:	Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20248C116	List: ML20248C112 ML20248C119
References
NUDOCS 8910030372
Download: ML20248C119 (4)

Text

. ..

NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY l 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 Comission (NRC) inspections conducted from May 6, 1989 through June 5, 1989, violations of NRC requirements were. identified.

) In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC

) 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 l Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205.

l I. 10 CFR 50.59, Changes, Tests, ana Experiments, allows a licensee to make changes in the facility and the procedures as described in the safety analysis report, and conduct tests or experiments not described in the safety analysis report, without prior Commission approval, unless the proposed change, test, or experiment involves an unreviewed safety question or a change in the technical specifications incorporated in the license.

I In part, a change, test, or experiment is deemed to involve an unreviewed safety question if the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evalu-ated in the safety analysis report may be increased, or if the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification is reduced.

Section 50.59(c) further requires the licensee to maintain records of these changes which must include a written safety evaluation which provides the basis for the determination that an unreviewed safety question is not ,

involved.

A. FSAR Section 15.4.2.1, Rupture of a Main Steam Line, assumes operability of the BIT with a high concentration of boric acid (approximately 20,000 ppm).

FSAR Section 6.3, Emergency Core Cooling System, states in part that to prevent cold spots and stratification [that could result in boric acid crystallization making the BIT inoperable), within the Boron Injection Tank.(BIT) during normal operations, the contents are continuously recirculated with the boric acid tanks. Any large scale leakage within the tank will be detected by a flow indicator and an alarm.

Contrary to the above, on April 6,1989, the licensee made a change to the facility as described in the FSAR without_ performing a written evaluation to determine whether the change involved an unreviewed safety question. The change involved taking the BIT out of continuous recirculation which activated the low flow alarm and rendors the BIT

! inoperable. This is an unreviewed safety question because the conse-quences of a main steam line break accident previously evaluated in the safety analysis may be increased due to an undetected malfunction of the BIT.

i 8910030372 890922 PDR G ADDCK 05000327 PNU _

l. ..

Notice of Violation B. FSAR Section 15.4.1.1, Thermal Analysis, states "The ECCS even when operating during the injection mode with the most severe single active failure, is designed to meet the Acceptance Criteria [of 10 CFR 50.46]."

Technical Specification Bases 3/4.5.2, ECCS subsystems, states in part that the Surveillance Requirements for each component ensures the assumptions used in the safety analysis are met. Flow balance testing provides assurance of proper flow split between injection points and an adequate total ECCS flow to all injection points equal to or above that assumed in the ECCS-LOCA analyses. Each RHR pump is required to provide at least 3976 gpm total flow to all four cold leg injection lines.

Contrary to the above, on twenty-six separate occasions between March 22, 1988 through April 20, 1989, without NRC approval, the licensee reduced the margin of safety as defined in the technical specification basis for the ECCS Subsystems by periodically placing the RHR system in a lineup that would allow each RHR pump to inject into only two of the four required cold leg injection lines. Such a system lineup is an unreviewed safety question that resulted from changes made to RHR surveillance instructions that were not properly evaluated by the licensee.

C. FSAR Section 7.2, Reactor Trip System, states in part that the intermediate range high neutron flux trip provides protection during reactor startup by tripping the reactor when one out of two channels exceed the trip setpoint.

Technical Specification Bases 2.2.1, Reactor Trip System Instrumentation Setpoints, state in part that the intermediate range nuclear flux trip provides reactor core protection during react 9r startup by initiating a reactor trip at a current level proportional to approximately 25% of rated thermal power. This trip function enhances the overall reliability of the Reactor Protection System.

Contrary to the above, in March 1989 the licensee made a change in the intermediate i range detector location that significantly raised the reactor trip setpoint above that equivalent to 25% of rated thermal power without performing a safety evaluation. Between April 13-25, 1989, there were four reactor startups for which the intermediate range nuclear flux trip did not provide reactor core protection.

II. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, Corrective Action, states in part that measures shall be established to assure that conditions adverse to quality, such as deficiencies and deviations are promptly identified and corrected. In the case of a significant condition adverse to quality, i the measures shall assure that the cause of the condition is determined dDd Corrective action taken to preclude repetition.

l Notice Violation ,

Contrary to the above, on April 10, 1989, the licensee identified RHR surveillance instruction deficiencies that constituted a significant j condition adverse to quality, but failed to take adequate corrective j action to preclude repetition in that the deficient RHR surveillance instructions were used on April 17 and 20,1989. Use of the deficient procedures placed the plant in an unanalyzed condition.

This is a Severity Level III Problem. (Supplements)

Civil Penalty $87,500 (assessed equally among Violations I.A, B, C, and II).

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, the 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 the letter transmitting this Notice. This reply should be claarly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each alleged violation: (1) admission or denial of the violation, (2) the reasons for the violation if admitted, (3) the corrective steps that 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. 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 modifiedo 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.

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, draft, 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) cany the violation listed in this Notice in whole or in part demonstrateextenuatingcircumstances,(3)showerrorinthisNotice,or(d)(2) show other reasons why the penalty should not be imposed. In addition to protesting the civil penalty, such answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalty.

In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the five factors addressed in 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 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 cther provisions of 10 CFR 2.205 regarding the procedure for imposing a civil penalty.

Notice of Violation 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 be collected by civil action pursuant to Section 234c of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2282.

The responses to the Director, Office of Enforcement, noted above (Reply to a l Notice of Violation, letter with payinent 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, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector, at Sequoyah.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y .

Dennis M. Crutchfield Associate Director for Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 22 day of September 1989

?

)

l.

l

- _ _ - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _