IR 05000259/1979018
| ML18024B039 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 08/06/1979 |
| From: | Dance H, Sullivan R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18024B038 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-259-79-18, 50-260-79-18, 50-296-79-18, NUDOCS 7910020335 | |
| Download: ML18024B039 (5) | |
Text
1'EC(P (4
+4
UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I I 101 MARIETTAST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303 Report Nos. 20-259/79-18, 50-260/79-18, and 50-296/79-18 Licensee:
Tennessee Valley Authority 500A Chestnut Street Tower II Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401 Facility Name:
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296 License Nos.
DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68 Inspection at Browns Ferry Site near Athens, Alabama Inspected by:
/r R. F Sullivan e
Approved by:
H. C. Dance, Section Chief, RONS Branch ate Si ned F'/C 7 c Pat Sig ed Inspection on June 21 - July 6, 1979 Areas Inspected e
This routine inspection involved 42 resident inspector-hours in the areas of plant operations, plant tours, reportable occurences, radiation area controls, mainte-nance and plant physical protection.
Results Of the six areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees J.
G. Dewease, Plant Superintendent H. L. Abercrombie, Assistant Plant Superintendent J. L. Harness, QA Supervisor J.
B. Studdard, Operations Supervisor R. Hunkapillar, Assistant Operations Supervisor J. A. Teague, Maintenance Supervisor, Electrical M. A. Haney, Maintenance Supervisor, Mechanical R.
G. Metke, Results Section Supervisor J. L. Harness, Quality Assurance Supervisor J.
R. Pittman, Maintenance Supervisor, Instrument G. T. Jones, Outage Director W.
C. Thomison, Assistant Results Supervisor A. L. Burnett, Shift Engineer J.
D. Glover, Shift Engineer R. Cole, QA Site Representative, Office of Power Other licensee employees contacted included licensed Senior Reactor Operators and Reactor Operators, auxiliary operators,.craftsmen, technicians, public safety officers, QA personnel and engineering personnel.
2.
Management Interviews
,
Management interviews were conducted on June 22, 29 and July 6, 1979 with the Plant Superintendent and selected members of his staff.
The inspector summarized the scope and findings of his inspection activities.
The licensee was informed that no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items No unresolved items were identified during this inspection.
5.
Plant Operations The inspector kept informed on a daily basis of the overall plant status an d any significant safety matters related to plant operations.
Daily discussions were held with plant management and various members of e
the operations staff.
Frequent visits were made to the shift engineers office and control rooms to review current reactor operating status.
Special visits to specific location in the protected areas were made as deemed advisable to observe activities to verify system or component statu Selected portions of the daily journals and operations data sheets were reviewed on at least a weekly basis during the report period.
The inspector made general plant tours on the following dates:
June 21, 25, 26 and July 6.
Selected areas in the turbine building, reactor buildings and the outside areas were visited.
Observations included witness-ing work activities in progress, status of operating and standby safety s stems valve positions, snubber condition, instrument readings an recordings, annunciator alarms, housekeeping, raditation area contro s
a controls.
Informal discussions vere held with operators and other personnel on work activities and plant status.
Shift change was witnessed in t e control rooms on June 27 and July 6.
6.
Reportable Occurence Review The below listed licensee event reports information provided met NRC reporting included adequacy of event description planned, existence of potential generic significance of each event.
were reviewed to determine if the requirements.
The determination and corrective action taken or problems and the relative safety LER No.
Date Event 260/7820 260/796 260/799 12/5/78 Reactor building ventilation monitor inoperative 5/24/79 A drywell prepurge sample was not taken 6/6/79 Accumulator level switch inoperative on two control rod dives 260/7910 6/7/79 Snubber on RHR system inoperative 260/7912
'
6/26/79
'RCIC overspeed device would not reset 296/793 3/1/79 LHGR was out of limits 296/795 5/)8/79 Standby coolant supply isolated Corrective action indicated on the above items was determined to be adequate.
No items of noncompliance or deviation were identified.
7.
Unit Batteries Qualification Testing The inspector reviewed records at the site relating to seismic qualfxcation testing or e
t t'
the 250 volt unit batteries installed at Brovns Ferry.
Records revealed that a seismic shock test of a single cell, designated L
d March 29 1971 by Myle Laboratories.
The data sheet shoved that the cell was subjected to front-to-back, side-to-side an vibration to simulate seismic shocks.
The data sheet verified that the specimen passed the test.
Following the vibration test a capacity discharge test was performed on the cell which measured 101.8$ of the rate capacity.
Th b tt lls at Browns Ferry are designated LCUH-29 which is not e
a cry ce s
submitted a
i en ica o
e
'd t l t the tested cell'owever, the battery manufacturer to those memoran um w ic corn d
h'
ompared the forces received on the tested cell a
am le test ca cu a
e
.
e l l t d The conclusion was that the test performed was an amp for I,CUN-29.
The above information was provided to the IE Regi n
'on II office for further evaluatio w3 8.
RHRSM Radiation Release Indication The znspec or reviewe Th t
'
d the circumstances of n in-line radiation monitor showing an increase in the activity of the service water being isc arge from the Unit 1 "A" RHR Heat Exchanger during a routine surveillance test on July 6, 1979.
When service flow was established through the heat exchanger the in"line radiation monitor showed a
sudden increase and the flow was promptly halted to limit the release time to less than a mi'nute.
Samples of the service water were taken and analysis revealed the content of radioactive material to be 0.136 of MPC.
An isotopic analysis showed the principal constituents to be Co60, Zn65 and Mn54 which were considered h
b th system from a previous leak.
A leak test of the heat rima side and the exchanger showed no evidence of a leak between the primary sx e
an e
service water side,.
T e o ts o
ing e r i h
b l h ld the radiation detector in place were found to be loose f a release which may have contributed to the in-line instrument indication o greater than the laboratory analysis showed.
Bumping the loose detector
, gave a similar response to that observed during the surveillance test.
The detector mounting was repaired.
The inspector had no further questions.
9.
Plant Physical Protection D 'he course of routine inspection duties, the inspector included observations of certain plant physical protection activities.
urging e
-
- '
l bad ing searching, personnel escort, vehicle search and escort, vital area access control and physical barriers.
o i em noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.
P
~
0