Search Options | ||||
Index | Site Map | FAQ | Facility Info | Reading Rm | New | Help | Glossary | Contact Us |
EA-96-269 - Sequoyah 1 & 2 (Tennessee Valley Authority)EA 96-269 Tennessee Valley Authority SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY - $50,000 (NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-327 AND 50-328/96-10) Dear Mr. Kingsley: This refers to the inspection conducted during the period July 8 through August 22, 1996, at your Sequoyah Nuclear Plant. The inspection included a review of the fire protection program and associated corrective actions previously identified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA's) Quality Assurance (QA) organization. The results of this inspection were sent to you by letter dated September 27, 1996. A closed, predecisional enforcement conference was conducted in the Region II office on October 24, 1996, with members of your staff to discuss the apparent violations, the root causes, and corrective actions to preclude recurrence. A list of conference attendees, NRC slides, and a copy of TVA's presentation materials are enclosed. Prior to the conference, TVA provided, in a letter dated October 18, 1996, its views on the application of the Enforcement Policy to this case. Subsequently, on October 31, 1996, TVA submitted the supplemental information requested by the NRC at the predecisional enforcement conference. Based on the information developed during the inspection, the information that was provided during the conference, and TVA's letter of October 31, 1996, the NRC has determined that violations of NRC requirements occurred. The violations are cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) and the circumstances surrounding them are described in detail in the subject inspection report. Violation A involved three examples of TVA's failure to promptly resolve adverse conditions related to the fire protection program at Sequoyah. Specifically, the first example addresses fire protection program discrepancies which were identified by your QA organization during 1992, 1994, and 1995, for which corrective actions have yet to be completed. The second example addresses numerous fire dampers that did not comply with the vendor's design and installation requirements. Although this issue was identified in 1993, it has yet to be fully resolved. The final example relates to the continuing failure to control combustibles and transient fire loads in the plant in accordance with procedure requirements, including expired transient fire load permits and lack of engineering analyses and approval of the Site Fire Protection Engineer to support continued storage of transient combustibles. Violation B involves the inoperability of the carbon dioxide (CO2) system for the plant computer room. This system was rendered inoperable in May 1990 during modifications to the Control Building HVAC system which added penetrations to the room but failed to equip the penetrations with fire dampers designed to close and isolate the room upon actuation of the CO2 system. Although an hourly fire watch patrol has been established to comply with Technical Specification (TS) requirements, the system remains out of service. Violation C involves your failure to perform the required 18-month surveillances for the Auxiliary Building penetrations in high radiation areas. Violation D involves your failure to demonstrate the operability of fire hose stations in the reactor buildings due to the failure to hydrostatically test fire hoses at these locations. This latter violation was attributable to the failure of TVA's Surveillance Procedure Nos. 1/2-SI-FPU-026-191.R, Fire Hose Inspections, to assure that the fire hose for these locations had been hydrostatically tested as required by TSs. At the conference, you identified the overall root cause of these violations as ineffective management involvement in the fire protection program and a lack of ownership for the program due to the division of responsibilities between various onsite groups. In addition, you stated that the TVA QA program failed to promptly recognize the collective significance of the issues being identified and to raise this concern to the appropriate levels of management in order to achieve resolution. Although compensatory measures, in the form of fire watches are in place to assure compliance with TSs, collectively, the violations are of significant regulatory concern because they represent a significant lack of attention and priority to the overall fire protection program. Specifically, the violations are associated with long standing fire protection issues of which TVA was aware; but, due to a lack of management prioritization, they have not been corrected in a timely manner. In addition, the use of fire watch patrols, such as those being implemented at Sequoyah, are required by the NRC as interim, short-term compensatory measures until degraded fire protection features can be repaired or replaced. Sequoyah's practice of routinely using fire watch patrols in lieu of correcting fire protection deficiencies in a timely manner is not consistent with NRC policy or expectations and compromises the design objective of defense in depth. As a consequence, the fire protection program at Sequoyah has not been fully effective, resulting in the plant's safety related components being more vulnerable to potential fire exposure or damage in the event of a fire. Further, the violations are of concern because the lack of centralization of responsibility for the fire protection program should have been identified earlier, specifically, during your previous organizational reviews conducted earlier in the 1990's. Therefore, these violations are classified in the aggregate in accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600, as a Severity Level III problem. In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty in the amount of $50,000 is considered for a Severity Level III problem. Because your facility has been the subject of escalated enforcement actions within the last two years1, the NRC considered whether credit was warranted for Identification and Corrective Action in accordance with the civil penalty assessment process described in Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy. In this case, the NRC concluded that credit was warranted for Identification because TVA, in general, identified the issues to be corrected in this case. Regarding Corrective Action, at the conference and in TVA's October 31, 1996, letter, TVA stated that its actions included: (1) assignment of a new Fire Protection Manager on July 31, 1996; (2) conduct of a self-assessment of the fire protection program in September 1996; (3) revision of transient fire load procedures on August 16, 1996, and initiation of actions to reduce transient combustibles in the plant; (4) centralization of ownership of the fire protection program within the operations department; (5) weekly senior management involvement in fire protection program status; (6) establishment of schedules for completion of the remaining fire protection issues; (7) appropriate procedure revisions and personnel training for fire hose testing; and (8) inspection of the fire penetration barriers in high radiation areas and implementation of disciplinary actions against the responsible individuals. Based on the above, it appears that TVA's attention is now appropriately focused on this program area; however, NRC determined that credit for the factor of Corrective Action was not appropriate in that the actions were not timely. As discussed previously, many of these issues are longstanding, and licensee efforts to prioritize and correct the deficiencies have not been prompt. Therefore, to emphasize the importance of management attention to and oversight of fire protection activities and the need for prompt corrective actions, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) in the base amount of $50,000 for the Severity Level III problem. Please be advised that the NRC did consider your October 18, 1996, letter in applying the Enforcement Policy in this case. However, based on the NRC's determinations related to Identification and Corrective Actions, Sequoyah's escalated enforcement history related to employee protection had no impact on the resultant proposed civil penalty. You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. The NRC will consider your response, in part, to determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its enclosures, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR). Sincerely, Original Signed by L. A. Reyes Stewart D. Ebneter Regional Administrator Docket Nos. 50-327, 50-328 Enclosures: cc w/encls: Dr. Mark O. Medford, Vice President R. J. Adney General Counsel Raul R. Baron, General Manager Pedro Salas, Manager Ralph H. Shell, Manager Michael H. Mobley, Director County Executive AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY Tennessee Valley Authority Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328 Sequoyah Nuclear Plant License Nos. DPR-77 and DPR-79 EA 96-269 During an NRC inspection conducted during the period July 8 through August 22, 1996, violations of NRC requirements were identified. In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600, the NRC 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. Technical Specification (TS) 6.8.1.f provides that written procedures shall be established, implemented and maintained covering the Fire Protection Program. This is a Severity Level III Problem (Supplement I). Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, the Tennessee Valley Authority (Licensee) 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 of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice). This reply should be clearly marked as a "Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each alleged violation: (1) admission or denial of the alleged violation, (2) the reasons for the violation if admitted, and if denied, the reasons why, (3) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (4) the corrective steps that 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 or a Demand for Information may be issued as to 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. 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, money order, or electronic transfer 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 protesting the civil penalty in whole or in part, such answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalty. 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 other provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, regarding the procedure for imposing a civil penalty. Upon failure to pay any civil penalty due which subsequently has been 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. 2282c. The response noted above (Reply to Notice of Violation, letter with payment of civil penalties, and Answer to a Notice of Violation) should be addressed to: Mr. James Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-2738, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector at the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant. Because your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), to the extent possible, it should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction. If personal privacy or proprietary information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, then please provide a bracketed copy of your response that identifies the information that should be protected and a redacted copy of your response that deletes such information. If you request withholding of such material, you must specifically identify the portions of your response that you seek to have withheld and provide in detail the bases for your claim of withholding (e.g., explain why the disclosure of information will create an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or provide the information required by 10 CFR 2.790(b) to support a request for withholding confidential commercial or financial information). If safeguards information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, please provide the level of protection described in 10 CFR 73.21. Dated at Atlanta, Georgia 1. A Severity Level II violation and proposed civil penalty of $80,000 were issued on February 20, 1996 (EA 95-252) related to employee discrimination in Department of Labor Case Nos. 92-ERA-19 and 92-ERA-34. |
Privacy Policy |
Site Disclaimer |