IR 05000259/1978030
| ML19263B985 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 12/07/1978 |
| From: | Jackson L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19263B980 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-259-78-30, 50-260-78-33, 50-296-78-31, NUDOCS 7901260166 | |
| Download: ML19263B985 (7) | |
Text
.
UNITED sT ATEs g># " egg'o NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
,
REGloN 18
,.f.(
)
101 M ARIETT A sT R E E T. N.W.
%"-
t
-
'b
[
ATL ANT A. GE oRGI A 30303 ogv.....f
,
.
':
Report No.-
50-259/78-30, 50-260/78-33, 50-296/78-31 Docket No.:
50-259, 50-260, 50-296 License Nos.:
.
Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority 830 Power Building Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401 Inspection at:
Browns Ferry 1, 2, and 3 Inspection conducted:
November 13-17, 1978
h.
Inspector:
L. L. Jackson i
s Approved by:
, \\ 6 M'
IR f 7 !76 J. T. Sutherland, Chief Date Fuel Facility and Materials g
Safety Branch
\\
L Inspection Summary Inspection on November 13-17, 1978 (Report Nos. 50-259/78-30, 50-260/78-33, and 50-296/78-31)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the radiation protection program including calibration of instrumentation and independent contamination surveys, made by the inspector, in the main lunchroom and in the hallway leading from the plant area to the lunchroom.
The inspection involved 32 hours3.703704e-4 days <br />0.00889 hours <br />5.291005e-5 weeks <br />1.2176e-5 months <br /> onsite plus eight hours at the Radiological Hygiene Branch facilities in Muscle Shoals, Alabama. Only one inspector was involved.
Results: Of the two areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in one area; one apparent item of noncompliance was identified in one area [Inf raction - Main Steam Line High Radiation Monitor Setpoints (78-33-01) - paragraph 4.d].
,
b
~
790126ol66
.
.
.
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-259/78-30, 50-260/78-33, and 50-296/78-31 I-1
.
\\
.
{yflh/
DETAILS I Prepared by:
)
~
't -
)
L. L. Aackson, Radiation Specialist Date fal Radiation Support Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch Dates of Inspec 1o vember13-17,i978 Reviewed by:
t/r v'
I U f 'l A.
. Gibson, Chief Date Radiation Support Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch 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 Division of Power Production - Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant
- J. G. Dewcase, Plant Superintendent H. L. Abercrombie, Assistant Plant Superintendent k'. C. Thomison, Chemical Engineer
- S. G. Bugg, Plant Health Physicist J. R. Burns, Cognizant Engineer, I&C
- J. R. Pittman, Instrument Engineer R. G. Metke, Pesults Supervisor
- J. L. Harness, Quality Assurance Supervisor Division of Environmental Planning - Radiological Hygiene Branch E. A. Belvin, Chief, Radiological Hygiene Branch T. H. Youngblood, Jr., Health Physicist J. L. Lobdell, Supervisor, Radiation Surveillance and Service Section Division of Environmental Planning - Laboratory Branch R. F. Atwell, Jr., Supervisor, Equipment Design and Testing Section The inspector also talked with other licensee employ'ees, including health physics technicians, instrument and control tec5nicians, plant
',
operators and a shif t engineer.
,
-
- Denotes those present at the exit intervie.
.
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-259/78-30, 50-260/78-33, and 50-296/78-31 1-2
.
- -
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Open) Noncompliance (78-27-01, 78-30-01, and 78-26-01), Failure to issue ratemeters to individuals or groups of individuals entering high radiation areas. Because of the short time span between inspections the licensee has not had time to achieve a permanent solution to the problem; however, the inspector verified by discussion with a licensee representative that a temporary solution was in effect pending a permanent solution to the problem.
This item will remain open pending a formal reply stating the permanent solution.
3.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance, or deviations.
One unresolved item disclosed during this inspection is discussed in paragraph 4.d. (10).
4.
Instrument and Equipment Calibrations a.
Portable Health Physics Equipment (1)
In order to perfo rm the surveys required by 10 CFR 20.201 health physics instrumentation and equipment must be calibrated.
This is also a licensee commitment in the Operation's Quality Assurance Manual.
(2) The inspector identified several portable radiation measuring instruments and several air samplers in use by the plant health physics organization and verified that calibrations had been performed at the intervals specified by the licensee's procedures.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
b.
Thermoluminescent Dosimeters (TLD's)
(1)
10 CFR 20.202 requires that personnel monitoring equipment be supplied to individuals when certain conditions, relating to radiation hazards, exist.
(2) The inspector discussed the use and processing of TLD's with
-
a licensee representative. The inspector observed the equipment used to process TLD's and discussed the procur'ement (purchase
-
specifications); QA checks prior to use; caIIbration of the TLD's and the TLD reading equipment; and some pf the computer-ized controls for a erting the attending technician of equipment n
problems and of TLD readings which exceed a predetermined action leve.
.
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-259/78-30, 50-260/78-33, and 50-296/78-31 1-3
.
?
-
No items of noncompliance or deviations were found.
c.
Control Room Air Supply Duct Radiation Monitors (1) Technical Specification Table 4.2.G requires that the Control Room Air Supply Duct Radiation Monitors (RM-90-259 A&B) be calibrated once per three months and functionally tested once per month.
(2) Technical Specification Table 3.2.G requires the trip setting for these monitors to be set at 270 cpm above background.
(3) The inspector reviewed calibration and functional test records back to the first quarter of 1978. Records indicate that the calibration and functicnal tests were performed within the required intervals and that the setpoints were at or less than 270 cpm above background.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were found.
d.
Main Steam Line High Radiation Monitors (1) Technical Specification Table 4.1.B requires that the main steam line high radiation monitors be calibrated every three months using a standard current source and every refueling using a known radiation source.
(2) Technical Specification Table 4.2. A requires that the main steam line high radiation monitors be functionally tested every month.
(3) Technical Specification Table 3.2. A requires that the main steam line radiation monitor trip setting be $3 times the normal full power background and that the alarm setting be
$1.5 times the normal full power background.
(4) The inspector reviewed the latest radioactive source cali-brations for all three units.
The inspector had no questions in this area.
~
(5) The inspector reviewed the standard current sdu,rce calibrations and functional tests completed in 1978 (prior to the inspection).
-
i, The inspector found no problem as to the timeliness of the calibrations and functional test.
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-259/78-30, 50-260/78-33, and 50-296/78-31 1-4
'
,
(6) The inspector compared the actual readings (u' nit at nominal full power of 1090+ MWe) on the Unit 2 main steam line high radiation monitors with the trip level setpoints as given in Surveillance Instruction 4.1.B-10, (Calibration) and Surveil-lance Instruction 4.1.A-10, (Functional Test).
The trip level setpoints on Channels B, C, and D exceeded the monitor readings by more than a factor of three.
The inspector confirmed by discussions with an Instrument Technician who was performing calibrations on the Unit 2 main steam line high radiation monitors, that the values give.n in Surveillance Instruction 4.1.B-10 were the values to which the trip level settings were adjusted.
(See setpoint values in Table I) The inspector observed an actual check of the setpoint on Channel D and found it to be approximately 1375 mr/br. Based on this check it was assumed that the setpoints for the other channels would be at or near the values specified in Surveillance Instruction 4.1.B-10.
(7) The inspector gathered the following data:
TABLE I Unit 2 at Nominal Full Power (1092 + MWe)
Background Reading Setpoint(2) Setpoint Background Channel 11/14/78 XI.5 X 3.0 A
550(I)
825 1650 1025 1.9 B
300 450 900 1025 3.4 C
160 240 480 850 5.3 D
400 600 1200 1375 3.4 (1) All readings in er/br.
(2) Setpoints from Technical Instruction 24.
(8) The inspector informed licensee management this would be an item of noncompliance (78-33-01) in that Trip Level Settings for three of the four main steae line high radiation monitors (Channels B, C, and D) on Unit 2 exceeded 3X the normal full power background.
- ,
-
s
'
e
.
.
.
.
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-259/78-30, 50-260/78-33, and 50-296/78-31 1-5
.
!
(9) The inspector identified a potential problem concerning the alarm level settings for the main steam line high radiation The alarms are actuated by cam operated switches monitors.
on a recorder. The recorder is a two pen recorder with one pen monitoring Channel A or C and one pen monitoring Channel B or D.
Only one setpoint can be set for each pen. By referring to Table 1, one can see that if the recorder Alarm Level Setpoint were set on 1.5X, the channel A reading, tben the recorder switched to monitor channel C, channel C could exceed the Trip Level Setting without having actuated an (The one alarm setting must serve both channels.)
alarm.
that the present (10) The inspector informed licensee management arrangement for initiating the alarm would be carried as an Unresolved Item (78-30-01, 78-33-02, 7831-01) since it was possible, because of the single setpoint per two channels, to have a nonconservative combination. This problem is common to all three units.
result of calibration, the (11) The inspector observed that as a Channel A reading went from 550 mr/br to 340 mr/hr. Later in the week the inspector was informed that Channel C had been adjusted to bring the reading from approximately 170 mr/br to approxima*.ely 340 mr/br.
The inspector informed licensee representatives that these large changes indicate that the are drif ting significantly between calibrations instruments and that plant operators should be given procedural guidance for determining when an instrument should be considered inoperable.
This item will be followed-up in conjunction with the Unresolved Item in paragraph (10).
5.
Independent Heasurements inspector, utilizing a pancake type Geiger-Mueller detector held The very close to the surface being surveyed, surveyed large areas of the main lunch room floor and the hallway floor leading from the contami-nated laundry area to the lunchroom.
Nothing above what the inspector determined to be background was found.
.
.
6.
Exit Interview i
s.
At the conclusion of the inspection on Novepber b7, 1978, the
~
inspector met with the licensee representatives, (denoted in paragraph 1) and sunsnarized the scope and findings of the inspectio.
-.
.
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-259/78-30, 50-260/78-33, and 50-296/78-31 I-6
.
'
b.
The Plant Superintendent, acknowledged the item of noncompliance.
He further stated that the instrument trip level setpoints had been reset to conform to Technical Specifications and that a Licensee Event Report had been submitted. The Plant Superintendent also stated that a requirement to compare main steam line high radiation monitor readings with monitor. trip setpoints cauld be included in a refueling test procedure.
.
The Plant Superintendent acknowledged the unresolved item and stated that his staf f would pursue an acceptable solution to the c.
problem.
.
,
T
.
'
r t'
.