IR 05000259/1979002
| ML18024A755 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 02/19/1979 |
| From: | Gibson A, Jackson L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18024A753 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-259-79-02, 50-259-79-2, 50-296-79-03, 50-296-79-3, NUDOCS 7903260089 | |
| Download: ML18024A755 (10) | |
Text
~S REC0, (4 tp.
~4
Cy nO I
Op
++*++
UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTASTREET, N.W.
ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303 Report Nos.:
50-259/79-2, 50-260/79-2 and 50-296/79-2 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 3 Inspection at:
Browns Ferry Site, Athens, Alabama Inspection conducted:
January 8-12, 1979 Inspector:
L. L. Jacks n
Reviewed by:
A. F. Gib on, ief Radiation Support Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch Date Ins ection Summar Ins ection on Januar 8-12 1979 (Re ort Nos. 50-259/79-2 50-260/79-2 and 50-29 /79-2 releases, liquid effluent monitor calibrations, plant chemistry, licensee action on previous inspection findings and follow-up on licensee event reports.
The inspection involved 36 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were disclosed.
7 9 0 3 3 6 0 0 gf
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-259/79-2, 50-260/79-2 and 50-296/79-2 DETAILS I Prepared by L.
. Ja on, Radiation Specialist Radiat on Support Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch at Dates of Inspection:
Januar 8-12, 1979 Reviewed by:
A. F. Gi son, Chief Radiation Support Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch Date All information in Details I applies equally to Units 1,
and 3 except where information is identified with a specific unit.
1.
Individuals Contacted
- "J.
G. Dewease, Plant Superintendent-H.
LE Abercrombie, Assistant Plant Superintendent-W. C. Thomison, Chemical Engineer S.
G. Bugg, Plant Health Physicist J.
R. Pittman, Instrument Engineer-J. L. Harness, Quality Assurance Supervisor D. C. Mims, Cognizant Engineer, Radioactive Effluents W. E. Baggett, Shift Engineer D. L. South, Assistant Shift Engineer-R. L. Sullivan, US NRC Resident Inspector The inspector also talked with other licensee employees, including engineers, health physics te'chnicians and one plant operator.
2.
"-Denotes those present at the exit interview.
Licensee Action on Previous Ins ection Findin s
a
~
(
en) Infraction (259/78-17-01):
Release of radioactive effluents above limits.
The inspector was informed by licensee representa-tives that corrective actions were not complete because off-line monitors installed to detect radioactivity in the effluent from the RHR heat exchangers are not sensitive enough to detect radio-activity in the effluent before it exceeds
CFR 20, Appendix B, Table II, Column 2 limits.
A study is being conducted by the licensee to determine if the sensitivity of these monitors can be improve RII Rpt.
Nos. 50-259/79-2, 50-260/79-2 and 50-296/79-2 (Closed) Infraction (259/78-22-01 260/78-25-01 296/78-21-01
Surveillance of air cleaning systems.
The inspec-tor reviewed the records of tests of the Unit 2 Primary Containment purge system and the Unit 3 Primary containment purge system and control room emergency ventilation system which were performed as part of the corrective actions for this item. It was also verified that the surveillance instruction schedule has been corrected to reflect the requirement to test these systems every 18 months or once per operating cycle, whichever comes first.
These correc-tive actions are satisfactory.
(Closed) Infraction (259/78-27-01 260/78-30-01 296/78-26-01):
Failure to provide instruments that continuously indicate the dose rates to individuals or groups of individuals entering a
The inspector determined through dis-cussions with licensee representatives that dose rate instruments are being provided to personnel entering high radiation areas.
(Closed) Infraction (259/78-27-03 260/78-30-03 296/78-26-03):
Failure to follow procedures licensee representative failed to conduct an amyl acetate or irritant smoke test while fitting an NRC inspector with a respirator).
The inspector discussed this incident with licensee representatives and concluded that the corrective actions were satisfactory.
(0 en) Infraction (260/78-33-01):
Main steam line high radiation monitor setpoints higher than allowed by technical specifications.
The inspector determined that the corrective actions stated in the January 2,
1979 letter from the Assistant Manager of Power, TVA, to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, US NRC Region II, had been completed.
In following up however, the inspector observed that three of the main steam line high radia-tion monitors still appeared to have questionable setpoints.
The posted setpoints were slightly greater than three times the monitor readings however, the unit was at just slightly less than rated full power.
It was not determined whether or not the setpoints would have been nonconservative if the unit had been at rated power since there is no requirement that monitor readings be correlated to different power levels.
It was suggested by operations personnel that recent reductions in air inleakage into the RCS (via the condensate system)
may have caused a reduction in the radiation background for the monitors, thus causing the monitor setpoint limits to be approached.
A management repre-sentative stated that a study would be conducted to determine what are probable causes of variations in the normal full power background and when these variations constitute real changes to the normal full power background which require adjusting the mainsteam line high radiation monitor setpoints.
The inspector will followup on this item during the next inspectio RII Rpt.
Nos. 50-259/79-2, 50-260/79-2 and 50-296/79-2 b.
Unresolved Items (Closed)
(259/78-04-10 260/78-04-10 296/78-04-10):
Licensee personnel not using the portal monitors installed at the exit to the protected area.
The inspector observed that the hallway leading to the exit has been blockaded in such a manner that personnel are forced to exit through the portal monitors.
(Closed)
(259/78-30-01 260/78-33-02 296/78-31-01):
Alarm set-points for the main steam high radiation monitors.
The inspector observed that the wide differences in readings between the paired channels on the recorder)
had been narrowed significantly since the last inspection.
This was accomplished by taking actual readings in the main steam tunnel and adjusting the monitors correspondingly.
The monitor alarm setpoints are therefore very close for all four channels.
This assures that the operator will not inadvertently defeat an alarm function when switching channels.
3.
Unresolved Items Unresolved item s are matters about which more information is required 1n order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance or deviations.
No new, unresolved items were identified during this inspection.
4.
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 4.6.B specifies the surveillance requirements for implementing the ICO'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 selected records for Units 1, 2 and 3 from the period January 1,
1978 through January 5,
1979.
The review, of parameters other than D.E.I-131, included verification that the required measurements were made within the specified time inter-vals, results were within specification or required corrective actions were taken when required for changes in operating condi-tions.
For those records reviewed, all surveillance requirements were apparently met; the inspector had no further questions.
c.
The inspector reviewed the monthly isotopic analyses for radio-iodines and the D.E.
I-131 analysis for all three uncs for the period August through December 1978.
The inspector verified the
RII Rpt.
Nos. 50-259/79-2, 50-260/79-2 and 50-296/79-2 calculations for D.E. I-131 for three analyses.
For those records reviewed, all surveillance requirements were apparently met; the inspe'ctor had no further questions.
~
Li uid Radioactive Waste Releases a.
Technical Specifications section 3.8.A specifies the LCO's for liquid radioactive waste releases including 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 surveillance requirements for imple-menting the LCO's.
b.
The inspector reviewed ten liquid discharge permits completed during November 1978 and determined that the discharges met the requirements of the Technical Specifications for concentrations, flow rate, sampling and analysis.
The inspector also reviewed the records for the batch, monthly, and quarterly samples re-quired by Technical Specifications Table 4.8-A and determined that the required analyses had been performed on a monthly basis for July-December 1978 and for the third and fourth quarters, 1978.
c
~
The inspector discussed with licensee representatives the manner in which the licensee is addressing the requirement to process liquid waste prior to release if the projected cumulative release will exceed 1.25 curies in any calendar quarter.
The licensee maintains that if a release will not cause the quarterly total to exceed 1.25 curies then the release is not required to be pro-cessed prior to release.
With this manner of operation, releases may approach 1.25 curies before the licensee is required to consider processing the waste.
The inspector stated it was his intent to determine whether or not the licensee should be making formal cumulative quarterly release projections based on each batch in order that waste processing would commence early enough to keep releases within 1.25 curies per quarter.
Although releases are below the actual limits of 20 curies per quarter, it has not been determined whether or not releases are as low as reasonably achievable (259/79-02-01, 260/79-02-01, 296/79-02-01).
d.
The inspector reviewed records for the months of September, October and November, which indicated 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
curie limit of Technical Specifications section 3.8 A.5.
In conducting this inspection, the inspector verified that the
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-259/79-2, 50-260/79-2 and 50-296/79-2-5-licensee was retaining records in accordance with Technical Specifications section 6.6.A.9.
The inspector had no further questions on liquid releases.
6.
Li uid Effluent Monitor Calibration a
~
Technical Specification 4.8.A.4 requires the liquid effluent radiation monitor to be calibrated quarterly with a known radio-active source.
The same specification also requires that a
monthly channel test be performed on the instrument.
b.
The inspector reviewed records which indicated that calibrations had been performed for the last three quarters of 1978 and that monthly channel tests had been performed for June through December 1978.
c
~
In reviewing the channel test and calibration data, it was noted that readings recorded when the instrument was exposed to a known source varied significantly from month to month even though the same source was used.
Background readings over these same months changed relatively little.
A management representative stated that the procedure would be reviewed to determine why the monitor reading, when exposed to the same source, is varying while the background remains relatively constant (259/79-02-02, 260/79-02-02, 269/79-02-02).
This item will be followed up on the next inspection.
7.
Licensee Event No. 50-259/78-32
"Loss of Continuous Off as Sam lin Due to Sam le Pum Failure" The licensee reported this event by letter on November 15, 1978.
The inspector discussed this event with licensee representatives and determined that the licensee was prepared to implement temporary sampling measures within a short time frame should a similar event occur in the future.
Based on these discussions the inspector concluded that the corrective actions of the licensee appear to be adequate and there were no further questions.
8.
Licensee Event No. 50-259/78-33
"Loss of Continuous Effluent Recordin Due to Failure of Recorder on the Radwaste Airborne Effluent Monitor" The licensee reported this event by letter on November 15, 1978.
The inspector discussed this event with licensee representatives and concluded that the information in the licensee event report was correct and that corrective actions were adequate.
There were no further question RII Rpt.
Nos. 50-259/79-2, 50-260/79-2 and 50-296/79-2 9.
Other Items of Interest a
~
The potential contamination of the plant breathing air system, used for supplied air type respirators, via cross-connections with contaminated systems was discussed with management repre-sentatives.
A management representative stated that breathing air is sampled once per week for radioactivity analysis and that no problems have been identified.
A management representative stated that the system would be reviewed for possible cross-connections with contaminated systems.
The inspector stated that such system cross connections should have at least two isolation valves.
The inspector had no further questions.
(1)
The inspector informed licensee representatives that several recent events have occurred which raised questions about safety system circuit designs which incorporate manual override (bypass)
features.
An example would be overriding a
high radiation signal to allow purging of containment.
(Containment purge valves would normally automatically isolate upon a high radiation signal from a certain monitor.)
It has been found in such a case, that not only is the high radiation signal defeated, but also all other isolation signals to these valves.
More information is available in IE Circular No.
78-19, dated December 29, 1978, which was not availble at the time of the inspection but which has been sent to the licensee.
(2)
A licensee representative stated that radiation monitors at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant do not have the manual over-ride features in question.
The inspector had no further questions.
c ~
An item of interest identified on a prevous inspection was the need for clarification of acceptance criteria, related to train flows during testing, given in SI 4.7.8.10.
This procedure has been revised and this item (259/78-22-02, 260/78-25-02, 296/
78-21-02) is closed.
10.
Plant Tour The inspector walked through various areas of the plant to inspect general cleanliness and housekeeping.
For those areas inspected, the inspector found no problem RII Rpt. Nos. 50-259/79-2, 50-260/79-2 and 50-296/79-2-7-11.
Exit Interview a.
At the conclusion of the inspection on January 12, 1979, the inspector met with the licensee representatives denoted in para-graph 1 and summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
b.
The Plant Superintendent acknowledged the status of the pre-viously identified items which remain open and the questions regarding the projection of liquid releases and the liquid monitor calibration and channel check data.
He stated that his staff would pursue the resolution of questions surrounding these item