ML18033A843
| ML18033A843 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 07/13/1989 |
| From: | Wilson B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18033A842 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-259-89-18, 50-260-89-18, 50-296-89-18, NUDOCS 8907260285 | |
| Download: ML18033A843 (3) | |
Text
'ENCLOSURE 1 NOTICE OF VIOL'ATION Tennessee'alley, Authority Browns Ferry 1, 2,,and 3
Docket Nos.
50-259, 50-260, 50-296 License Nos'.,DPR-33, DPR-52, DPR-68
,During the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspection conducted on January 4-12,
- 1989, February 10 -
May 22,
- 1989, and June 12-14, 1989 three'iolations
.of NRC requirements were identified.
The violations involved failure to comply with Technical Specifications and with 10 CFR 50.59.
In, accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforce-,,
ment Actions,"
10 CFR Part, 2, Appendix C (1989), -the violations are listed below:
A.
Technical Specification 6.8. 1. l.a requires that written procedures shall be established and maintained for the applicable procedures in Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2,
February 1978.
This includes refueling procedures.
TVA Nuclear equality Assurance Manual, Part 2, Section
- 1. 1, Paragraph 3.2.2 required that fuel handling procedures for core loading provide for continuous monitoring of the neutron flux throughout core loading.
Contrary to the
- above, the core loading procedures (2-GOI-100-3, TI-147 and the MRTI) did not contain provisions to ensure continuous monitoring of neutron flux throughout the core loading prior to beginning the loading of Unit 2 on January 3, 1989.
(Other procedure deficiencies are identified in paragraph 4 of the report.)
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I) and is applicable to Unit 2.
B.
10 CFR 50.59(a)(2) states that a
proposed change shall be deemed to involve an unreviewed safety question if the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification is reduced.
Technical Specification Basis
- 3. 10.A states that refueling interlocks reinforce operational procedures that prohibit taking the reactor critical.
The margin of safety is provided by both the interlocks and the procedures.
Contrary to the above the licensee did not identify that their scheme for reloading the Unit 2 core for Cycle 6
on January 3,
1989 constituted an unreviewed safety question in that the reloading procedures were not
- adequate, thereby reducing the safety margin.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I) and is applicable to Unit 2.
85'0726028 I 890718 PDR ADOCK 0500025%'
Tennessee Valley Authority Browns Ferry 1, 2, and 3
2 Docket Nos.
50-259, 50-260, 50-296 License Nos.
Technical
.Specifications '6. 5. 3.1 "and 6:5. 3.3 require that changes to procedures such as operating and refueling procedures be subjected to a cross-disciplinary review if necessary.
SDSP-7.4, "Onsite Technical Review of. Procedures,"
Section
- 6. 1.4 requires that a cross-disciplinary review shall be performed when the procedure revision affects the conduct of operation of other plant groups.
Contrary to the
- above, procedures 2-GOI-100-3, Revision 2; 2-GOI-100-3, Revision 3;
and 2-0I-74, Temporary Change 10 each involved changes that were not reviewed by the additional plant groups affected by the changes.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I) and is applicable to Unit 2.
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, the Tennessee Valley Authority is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanatiop 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, Browns Ferry, 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 rfor each violationj:
(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 Original Signed 5!
BRUCE A. Vl!LMPt Bruce A. Wilson, Assistant Director for Inspection Programs TVA Projects Division Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Atlanta, Georgia this /34~~ day of 8eae 1989 J~lg