IR 05000259/1979005
| ML18024A797 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 03/22/1979 |
| From: | Dance H, Price D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18024A796 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-259-79-05, 50-259-79-5, 50-260-79-05, 50-260-79-5, 50-296-79-05, 50-296-79-5, NUDOCS 7905150147 | |
| Download: ML18024A797 (8) | |
Text
~5 IIE00~
~o
+
++*++
UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION It 101 MARIETTASTREET, N.W.
ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303 Report Nos.
50-259/79-5, 50-260/79-5 and 50-296/79-5 Licensee:
Tennessee Valley Authority 500A Chestnut Street Tower II Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401 Docket Nos.
50-259, 50-260 and 50-296 License Nos.
DPR-33, DPR-52 and DPR-68 Inspection at Browns Ferry Site, Athens, Alabama Inspector:
D. S.
P ice Approved by:
H.
C. Dance, ection Chief, RONS Branch ate Signed ate ig ed SUMMARY Inspection on February 26 - March 2, 1979 This routine, unannounced inspection involved 38 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of reportable secondary containment leak rate testing, Inspection and Enforcement (IE) Circulars and Bulletins and Surveillance Instructions (SIs).
Results Of the four areas inspected, no apparent items of noncomplicance or deviations were identifie DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Em lo ees
- J.
G. Dewease, Plant Superintendent
+H. L. Abercrombie, Assistant Plant Superintendent
- J. L. Harness, QA Supervisor
+R.
G. Metke, Results Section Supervisor J.
R. Pittman, Instrument Supervisor-M. A. Haney, Mechanical Maintenace Supervisor J.
D. Glover, Training Supervisor C. Rozear, Quality Assurance Engineer R. Smith, Mechanical Maintenance Engineer
'%. Cole, QA Site Representative, Office of Power
"R, E. Jackson, Captain, Public Safety Service J. E. Brazell, Public Safety Service Officer-M. C. Thomison, Chemical Engineer-G. T. Jones, Outage Director
- S.
G. Bugg, Plant Health Physicist U. S. Nuclear Re ulato Commission Re ion II-R. F. Sullivan, NRC Resident Inspector
- L. L. Jackson, Inspector
- J. M. Fuchko, Inspector
'%. H. Besecker, Inspector-Attended exit interview.
2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on March 2, 1979, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Ins ection Findin s Not Inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspectio.
Review of Nonroutine Events Re orted b the Licensee The following Licensee Event Reports (LERs) were reviewed in office for potential 'generic problems, to detect trends, to determine whether the information included in the report meets NRC reporting requirements, and to consider whether the corrective action discussed in the report appears appropriate.
Licensee action with respect to the reports was reviewed further at the site as discussed below, to verify that the events were reviewed and evaluated by the licensee as required by Technical Specifi-cations, that corrective action was taken by the licensee and that safety limits, limiting safety system settings and limiting conditions for operations were not exceeded.
a.
Licensee Event No. 50-259/78-8 The licensee reported by letter on March 31, 1978 that an analysis based on inplant measurements of actual real and reactive loads indicated that for certain postulated conditions, Technical Specifi-cation 3.9.A.1 could not be met for three-unit operation.
,Two supplemental letters to this report were subsequently submitted, neither of which included an updated LER form.
Unit one Technical Specification 6.7.2 states, in part, that for supplemental reports a
LER shall be completed.
Plant management has stated that a
revised LER will be submitted on this matter and this event will remain open pending its receipt.
b.
Licensee Event No. 50-259/79-2 The licensee reported by letter on February 20, 1979, that the standby liquid control pump 1B relief valve had opened during testing at 700 psig rather than the 1,425+/-75 psig required by Technical Specifications.
It was noted that the report date on the LER form was six days earlier than the date on the LER cover sheet.
Procedures for completing the LER form, contained in NUREG-0161, require that these two dates be identical.
Site quality assurance personnel contacted corporate management by telephone and reported to the inspector that this item would be corrected for all future reports.
This LER is closed.
c ~
Licensee Event No. 50-259/79"3 The licensee reported by letter on February 16, 1979, that local leak rate testing had identified leakage in excess of the Technical Specification limits.
This LER was submitted as a prompt report under Technical Specification 6.7.2.a.(2)
although requirements of this specification were not met in that no 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> notification was given and the written followup exceeded the required two week reporting time by ll days.
Licensee management stated that this
report had been initiated as a
30 day report but had later been changed to a
prompt report prior to leaving the site.
Further review by the licensee has indicated that the information contained in this LER is actually supplemental information to IZR No. 50-259/
78-34 which documented six Main Steam Isolation Valves which exceeded Technical specification leakage limits.
The licensee stated that IZR No.
50-259/79-3 would be cancelled and the information it contained submitted as a supplemental report to LER No. 50-259/78-34.
The inspector expressed concern that the licensee's handling of LERs does not address the handling of those LERs which are initiated as
day reports but are subsequently elevated to prompt reports while in review prior to leaving the site.
Licensee management stated that they viewed this instance as an isolated case and felt that future LERs which are upgraded would be handled properly.
This IZR remains open pending receipt of the supplemental LER No.
50-259/78-34 and the cancellation of LER No. 50-259/79-3.
6.
Seconda Containment Leak Rate Test - 90 Da Re ort The inspector reviewed the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Unit 1 - Secondary Containment Leak Rate Test - 90 day Report, dated February 9, 1979, to ascertain that the information reported by the licensee satisfied the reporting requirements established in Unit 1 Technical Specification 6.7.3.C.l.a.
This specification requires, in part, that the report on the leak rate test of the secondary containment include data on insi e temperatures during the test.
This information was not contained in he report of February 9, 1977.
Licensee personnel stated that this data was taken only for an additional test of the secondary containment performed during the first operating cycle of each unit.
The require-ment for this test had been deleted by Unit 1 Technical Specification Amendment No.
44 dated November 16, 1978, but the requirement for the recording of the temperature data remained and appeared to apply to any secondary containment leak rate test.
Licensee management stated that they would submit a
change to the facility Technical Specifications to delete the requirement of reporting inside temperatures taken for the Secondary Containment Leak Rate Test.
This item remains open pen ing the submission and approval of this Technical Specification Change.
7.
IE Circular and Bulletin Followu The inspector reviewed licensee action on the following IE Circular and Bulletins to ascertain whether they had been received by licensee manage-ment, reviewed for applicability and corrective action taken or scheduled.
In addition the licensee response to the IE Bulletin was reviewed for technical adequacy and to ascertain that it satisfied the requirements established in the IE Bulletin and represented the action taken by the license a.
IE Circular 78-16 Limitor ue Valve Actuators The licensee conducted training for operations personnel on the subject of this circular.
In addition, electrical maintenance instruction 18, Limit and Torque Switch Adjustments for Motor Operated Valves, was revised such that applicable valves are tested for correct motor-driven operation following all periodic manual testing.
The inspector had no further questions.
IE Bulletin No. 78-14 Deterioration of Buna-N Co onents in ASCO Solenoids This Bulletin requested by licensee to report the time since instal-lation, and for installed material, the time since packaging of Buna-N material in his control rod scram system.
The licensee's response dated February 2, 1979, did not address the following:
the time since installation of some Buna-N components in the 370 scram pilot valves of Unit 3, the time since installation of all Buna-N components in the backup scram valves, scram discharge volume vent and drain pilot valves, and scram discharge volume test valves for all three units, and the time since packaging for some Buna-N components installed in the Unit -
1 scram system.
Licensee management stated that a revised response would be submitted which included the above referenced information.
The Bulletin also requested that licensees establish a schedule for replacement of Buna-N components in control rod scram system valves not to exceed a replacement time of three years.
The licensee as stated that for some Buna-N components, he will check for deterioration every three years with the full replacement occuring only every six years.
This item remains open pending receipt of the revised response from the licensee and a review by the inspector with IE Headquarters of'he adequacy of the licensee's proposed extended replacement schedule.
8.
Surveillance Instructions The inspector reviewed the following licensee SI's to verify that set-points required by the instruction were as conservative as the setpoints required by the facility Technical Specifications:
SI 4.1.A-5, High Reactor Pressure SI 4.1.A-6, High Drywell Pressure SI 4.1.A>>7, High Reactor Mater Level SI 4.1.A-8, Scram Volume High Level SI 4.1.A-9, Condensor Vacuum Low
~
~
-5" d b the SI was more conservative
'1't T
hn
S if'io set oint require y
t d th t th t o'
b d'
d
'd b the facz sty ec h
SI C
dd d
'
f ll b t th SI d
st to the value given xn e
d'
en the as found setpoin T chnical Specification vaalues this setpoint was no e
Licensee Hanagemen s
a t t ted that it was their the SI valve as required.
t if it was close to the SI policy to not adjus't the as found setpoint, i i t
knowledged that this policy ocedure and committed to revising the ensee management ac ow b
'
llo d
Th t
applicable SIs to reflec p
b o
be left open pending revision of these S s