IR 05000259/1978017
| ML18024A512 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 09/15/1978 |
| From: | Gibson A, Troup G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18024A507 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-259-78-17, 50-260-78-18, 50-296-78-18, NUDOCS 7811130049 | |
| Download: ML18024A512 (14) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTASTREET, N.W.
ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303
+**y4 Report Nos.:
50-259/78-17, 50-260/78-18 and 50-296/78-16 Docket Nos.:
50-259, 50-260 and 50-296 License Nos.:
DPR-33, DPR-52 and DPR-68 Licensee:
Tennessee Valley Authority 830 Power Building Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401 Facility Name:
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Units 1, 2 and
Inspection at:
Browns Ferry Site, Athens, Alabama Inspection conducted:
July 25-28, 1978 Inspector:
G. L. Troup Reviewed by:
A. F. Gibson, Chief Radiation Support Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch Date Ins ection Summa Ins ection on Jul 25-28 1978 (Re ort Nos. 50-259/78-17 50-260/78-18 and 50-29 78-1 and radioactive waste management programs including reactor coolant chemistry control, radioactive liquid releases, IE circulars and bulletins, follow-up on previously identified items, and monitoring for iodine in gaseous effluents.
The inspection involved 29 inspector-hours on site by one NRC inspector.
Results:
Of the five areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in four areas; one apparent item of noncompliance was identified by the licensee in one area (infraction - release of radioactive effluents above limits (259/78-17-01).
g
~ >
)
IJ'
j~ l
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-259/78-17, 50-260/78-18 and 50-296/78-16 I-1 DETAILS I Prepared by:
G. L. Troup, R diation Specialist Radiation Support Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch Date Dates of Inspectio
Ju 25-28, 1978 Reviewed by:
A. F.
ibson, Chief
'Radiation Support Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch Date All information in Details I applies equally to Units 1, 2 and 3, except where information is identified with a specific unit.
1.
Individuals Contacted
~
~
~
-J.
G. Dewease, Plant Superintendent H. L. Abercrombie, Assistant Plant Superintendent-J. L. Harness, Quality Assurance Supervisor-S.
G. Bugg, Plant Health Physicist W.
C. Thomison, Chemical Engineer A. L. Clements, Jr.,
Chemical Engineer J.
R. Pittman, Instrument Engineer R. E. Burns, Instrument Engineer W. J. Holley, Health Physicist-Training The inspector also talked with and interviewed other licensee employees, including health physics, chemistry and engineering technicians and plant operators.
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Ins ection Findin s
(Open)
Noncompliance (77-23-01)
Radiation Protection Training.
The inspector reviewed the corrective actions contained in the TVA letter of February 17, 1978.
The corrective actions relating to evaluation of the training are incomplete.
This item remains open (paragraph 5).
(Closed)
Noncompliance (77-23-02)
Compliance with Approved Plant Procedures'he inspector reviewed the corrective actions contained in the TVA letter of February 17, 1978.
During the inspection, the
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-259/78-17, 50-260/78-18 and 50-296/78-16 I-2 inspector observed the posting and control of radiation and contami-nation areas throughout the plant and verified that postings were per procedure requirements.
The inspector also observed that health physics training records are being properly maintained.
This item is closed.
(Open)
Noncompliance (78-02-01) Respiratory Protection Program.
The inspector reviewed the corrective actions contained in the TVA letter of March 1, 1978.
The corrective actions relating to periodic medical clearances are incomplete.
This item remains open (paragraph 6).
(Closed) Unresolved Item (78-02-02) Licensee Audits of Health Physics Program.
The licensee has established the system where items identified by audits which relate to the plant health physics program are forwarded to the plant superintendent for corrective action.
This item is closed.
3.
Unresolved Items No new unresolved items were identified during this inspection.
4.
Un lanned Radioactive Li uid Release (Unit 1)
a
~
On July 15, 1978, the licensee notified Region II that an unplanned release of radioactive liquid had occurred from service water system to the Tennessee River.
The source of the release was determined to be a leak in the 1-A residual heat removal system heat exchanger.
The estimated activity released was 0.042 curies, of which the predominant isotopes were iodine-131 and iodine-133.
Concentrations in the service water discharge of these isotopes were 34.8 and 9.8 times the maximum permissible concentration specified in
CFR 20, Appendix B, Table II, Column 2, respectively.
b.
Technical Specification section 3.8.A. 1 states that the radioactivity concentration in liquid effluents shall not exceed the values specified in
CER 20, Appendix B, Table II, Column 2.
In that the concentrations of the release exceed the limits of Technical Specifications section 3.8.A.l, the inspector informed licensee management that this was considered an item of noncompliance.
This was acknowledged by a licensee management representative.
(78-17-01)
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-259/78-17, 50-260/78-18 and 50-296/78-16 I-3 5.
Radiation Protection Trainin a.
b.
This was identified in IE Report Nos. 50-259/77-23, 50-260/77-23 and 50-296/77-23 as an item of noncompliance in that the retraining program in radiation protection did not meet
,the requirements of Technical Specifications 6.1.F.
Specific items cited were (1) training periods exceeded the two year frequency of ANSI N18.1, and (2) no method had been established to evaluate the effectiveness of the training program as required by ANSI N18.1.
The licensee's reply in a letter dated February 17, 1978, stated that the training status of workers was being placed on a computer tracking system and that further action was being considered to evaluate the effectiveness of the training program.
The inspector reviewed the computer tracking system for training and determined that the system was functional.
A licensee representative showed the inspector that training dates were carried on the list, then at the beginning of a quarter a run is made of all personnel requiring training during the quarter. If an individual does not receive the necessary training by the end of the quarter, a second run is made of all overdue training.
The health physics staff then sends a memo to the plant superintendent listing those persons who are overdue so that remedial action can be taken or the individual's access badge is pulled pending retraining.
The inspector stated that he had no further questions on the training records'.
The inspector also reviewed the evaluation of the effectiveness of the training program.
A licensee representative showed the inspector a
memo discussing a breakdown of the results of tests given to attendees at the plant.
A second licensee representative discussed the content of the tests with the inspector and, in response to the inspector's question, stated that no minimum score had been established for the test to determine pass/fail.
The inspector pointed out that plant procedure BFA-17 states that instructors for training courses shall provide a
method of evaluating class comprehension and that "inability to demonstrate proficiency in the material presented will result in further instruction."
The inspector stated that in the absence of a
minimum acceptable score, it was not clear how "satisfactory proficiency" could be demonstrated.
A licensee representative stated that this was being evaluated based on the results of the evaluation of previous test RII Rpt. Nos. 50-259/78-17, 50-260/78-18 and 50-296/78-16 I-4 d.
The inspector informed licensee management that this item was still open as the evaluation of the training program was incomplete and no basis had yet been established for determining
"satisfactory proficiency" in radiation protection training.
A licensee management representative acknowledged this.
6.
Res irator Protection Pro ram a
~
This item was identified in IE Report Nos.
50-259/78-2, 50-260/78-2 and 50-296/78-2 as an item of noncompliance in that the licensee's respiratory protection program did not meet the requirements of 10 CFR 20.103(c)
The licensee's reply in a letter dated March 1, 1978, listed the actions being taken to correct the item.
b.
The inspector reviewed the correction actions listed in the letter and determined the following:
(1)
procedures
- Health Physics Section Instruction Ietter 8 (SIL-8)
was revised and issued on January 9,
1978.
This corrects the previous discrepancies between SIL-8 and Radiological Control Instruction 3 (RCI-3).
(2)
cleanliness
- SIL-8 now requires that when bags are used for temporary storage of respirators, the bags shall be changed daily and shall be kept clean.
(3)
periodic inspection of equipment - SIL-8 requires a monthly random check of respiratory protection equipment (vice weekly as previously required).
The inspector reviewed the reports for January-May 1978 and verified that they were completed and on file as required.
(4)
medical clearances for contractors
- Division of Power Production Procedures Manual (DPM)
procedure N71A13,
"Medical Examination Requirements" states that contractor personnel will be referred to a TVA medical facility and that Medical Services will evaluate or confirm that contractor personnel are medically approved to use respiratory equipment.
The inspector had no further questions on these items.
c ~
As part of the medical clearance required by Regulatory Guide 8.15, section C.4.h requires that the medical status of the user
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-259/78-17, 50-260/78-18 and 50-296/78-16 I-5 be reviewed at least annually.
DPM N71A13 states that a medical survey of assigned personnel shall be conducted annually and that individuals selected based on the survey shall be referred to a medical facility for medical reevaluation.
The inspector asked a
licensee representative how this "survey" was being conducted and what were the criteria for medical reevaluation.
The licensee representative stated that the survey mechanism had not been established as yet.
d.
The inspector informed licensee management that this item was still considered open in that the annual medical review had not been implemented.
The inspector also emphasized to licensee management that in light of the heavy workload during the last four months of the year it was important that the medical clearances be resolved soon.
These comments were acknowledged by licensee management.
7 ~
Unit 3 Off as S stem Adsorber Bed Tem erature Transient
~
~a.
Reportable Occurrence BFRO-50-296/77-12 describes an occurrence of zgnitxon of charcoal xn the offgas adsorber beds, resulting in temperature transients in the beds.
The initial report and the licensee's subsequent corrective actions were discussed in RII Report Nos. 50-296/77-23 and 50-296/78-2.
A supplemental report was submitted by the licensee on March 30, 1978, and described the results of the design review, modifications to the system, procedural changes and startup test results.
b.
The inspector reviewed the procedural changes and the modifications to the system with licensee representatives.
A licensee representative stated that although this occurrence had been in the Unit 3 system the design changes were being made to the systems for all three units.
The inspector reviewed the status of the various changes and determined that the installation of the new drain lines was complete and that new installations of sample lines was proceeding as material and access to the beds became available.
The inspector informed licensee management that he had no further questions on this report.
8.
Tests of Reactor Coolant Water ualit a
~
Technical Specifications section 3.6.B specifies the Limiting Condition for Operations (LCO) for coolant chemistry under various operating conditions.
Technical Specification 4. RII Rpt. Nos. 50-259/78-17, 50-260/78-18 and 50-296/78-16 I-6 specifies the surveillance requirements for implementing the LCO's.
Parameters to be monitored are conductivity, chloride, pH and dose equivalent iodine-131 (D.E. I-131).
The surveillance requirements are implemented by plant Surveillance Instruction (SI) 4.6.B, Coolant Chemistry.
b.
The inspector reviewed the SI 4.6.B records for Units 1, 2 and
for the periods April 1-30, 1978 and June 26-July 24, 1978'he review included verification that the required measurements were made within the specified time intervals, results were within specification or required corrective actions were taken, and that special or more frequent measurements were taken when required for changes in operating conditions.
All surveillance requirements were apparently met; the inspector had no further questions.
c The inspector reviewed the monthly isotopic analyses for radioiodines and the D.E. I-131 analysis for all three units for the period January-June, 1978.
The inspector also calculated the values for D.E.
I-131 for each unit for a
selected month and compared the results with those determined by the licensee.
All surveillance requirements were apparently met; the inspector had no further questions.
9.
Li uid Radioactive Waste Releases a.
Technical Specifications section 3.8.A specifies the I,CO's for liquid radioactive waste releases for concentrations released, release rates, use of process equipment and curie limits in tanks.
Technical Specifications section 4.8.A and Table 4.8.A specify the survey requirements for implementing the I.CO's.
The requirements are implemented by plant Surveillance Instructions 4.8.A-l 6 2 and 4.8.A-4.
b.
The inspector reviewed fifteen liquid discharge permits completed during May, 1978 and determined that the discharges met the requirements of the Technical Specifications for concentrations, flow rate, processing, sampling and analysis.
The inspector also reviewed the records for the batch, monthly, and quarterly samples required by Technical Specifications Table 4.8-A and determined that the required analyses had been performed on a
monthly basis for January-June 1978 and for the first and second quarters, 197 RII Rpt. Nos. 50-259/78-17, 50-260/78-18 and 50-296/78-16 I-7 c ~
The inspector reviewed the two semi-annual effluent reports for calendar year 1977 and verified that the limit of Technical Specification -section 3.8.A.2 that liquid release rates shall not exceed 20 Curies, excluding tritium and noble gases, had been met.
In reviewing the liquid discharge permits the inspector verified that the discharge tanks contained less than the 10 curie limit of Technical Specifications section 3.8.A.5.
In conducting this inspection, the inspector verified that the licensee was retaining records in accordance with Technical Specifications section 6.6.A.9.
The inspector had no further questions on liquid releases.
10.
IE Bulletins and Circulars a
~
"Potential Explosive Gas Mixture Accumulations Associated with BVR Offgas System Operations".
The licensee's review and evaluation of the bulletin are contained in a
TVA letter of March 29, 1978.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's evaluation and associated plant procedures, and discussed the bulletin with licensee representatives.
Based on this review, the inspector informed licensee management that he had no further questions on this bulletin.
b.
Bulletin 78-07, "Protection Afforded by Air-Line Respirators and Supplied-Air Hoods."
This bulletin describes conditions under which the protection factors for air-line respiratory protection devices must be reduced from previously assigned values.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's actions on the bulletin.
A licensee representative informed the inspector that air-line units are not operated in demand mode and that plant procedures were revised to reflect the protection factors were consistent with those of Bulletin 78-07.
The inspector informed licensee management that he had no further questions.
c ~
Circular 77-14,
"Separation of Contaminated Water Systems from Non-Contaminated Plant Systems."
The inspector reviewed the licensee's evaluation of this circular, which included a detailed evaluation for potable and demineralized water systems for possible contamination.
The evaluation indicated one instance where remedial action was necessary due to a:possibility of backflow.
A licensee representative informed the inspector that the installation of check valves to prevent backflow for the identified area had been completed.
The inspector stated that he had no further question I
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-259/78-17, 50-260/78-18 and 50-296/78-16 I-8 d.
Circular 78-03,
"Packaging Greater Than Type A Quantities of Low Specific Activity Radioactive Material for Transport."
The inspector reviewed the licensee's evaluation of the circular and methods for assurring that shipments of radioactive materials comply with
CFR 71.12.
The inspector also reviewed two randomly-selected solid waste shipment records and verified that the shipments of LSA materials met the requirements of 10 CFR 71.12.
The inspector stated that he had no further questions.
ll.
Iodine Monitorin in Gaseous Effluent Streams a
~
An incident occurred at a nuclear facility when an iodine monitor in a
gaseous effluent stream indicated high release rates of iodines, resulting in evacuation of the facility.
Subsequent analyses determined that the indicated high release was due to adsorption of radioactive noble gases on the charcoal filter in the monitor and the resulting anomalous readings were due to the operating characteristics of the monitor system.
b.
The inspector discussed this situation with a
licensee representative and reviewed the monitoring systems for gaseous effluent streams.
The inspector determined that the licensee does not use an iodine monitor as the sole monitoring method on any of the effluent paths, but rather uses a separate gas monitor in conjunction with iodine monitors, or uses a
gas monitor by itself.
The inspector had no further questions.
12.
Exit Interview At the conclusion of the inspection on July 28, the inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1).
The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
Mr. Dewease, Plant Superintendent acknowledged the item of noncompliance and the inspector's comments on the previous items of noncomplianc ~
l.