IR 05000259/1979031
| ML18024B165 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 10/26/1979 |
| From: | Dance H, Price D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18024B164 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-259-79-31, 50-260-79-31, 50-296-79-31, NUDOCS 7912050379 | |
| Download: ML18024B165 (9) | |
Text
~S REoy
~4
~o
~i s
cs C
O I
!(
t ee Y.
ss
++*++
UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTAST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303 Report Nos. 50-259/79-31, 50-260/79-31 and 50-296/79-31 Iicensee:
Tennessee Valley Authority 500A Chestnut Street Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401 Facility Name:
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Iicense Nos.
DPR-33, DPR-52 and DPR-68 Inspection at Browns Ferry Site near Decatur, Alabama Inspector:
S. Price Approved by:
H: C. Dance, Section Chief, RONS Branch
'24 o<z g Date Signed Date Signed SIMARY Inspection on October 2-5, 1979 Areas Inspected This routine unannounced inspection involved 32 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of core thermal power calculations, core power limits, component calibra-tions, test instrument calibrations, radioactive discharges, and plant operations.
Results Of the six areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7912 050 3 / 'f
~;
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
+J. L. Harness, Assistant Plant Superintendent-R.
G. Cockrell, Reactor Engineer-R. T. Smith, Quality Assurance Supervisor-R. Cole, QA Site Representative, Office of Power A. Clement, Head Chemical Engineer D.
C. Mims, Chemical Engineer W.
C. Thomison, Assistant Results Supervisor R.
S. Perry, Quality Assurance Engineer J.
E. Stone, Instrument Engineer Foreman Other licensee employees contacted included 8 technicians, 2 operators and 3 office personnel.
NRC Resident Inspector-R. F. Sullivan I-Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on October 5, 1979, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
3.
Iicensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Core Thermal Power Calculations The inspector reviewed the licensee's method of verifying.the accuracy of his on-line computer core thermal power calculations.
The method used by the licensee is an off-line computer program-COPWAR.
This program is run
-2" during start-up testing following refueling as required by Browns Ferry Refuel Test Instruction -13.
The following test results were reviewed for adequacy:
Unit 1 dated January 22, 1979, 0.98$ error Unit 2, dated June 3, 1979, 0.34/ error Unit 3, dated November 27, 1978, 0.31/ error No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
Core Power Limits The inspector reviewed the following process computer printouts to ascertain that the plant was operating within its core power distribution limits:
Unit 1 Core Performance Log, P-l, October 2, 1979, time 1347 Unit 1 Thermal Data in Fuel Assembly, OD-6 options 1,
3 and 4, October 2, 1979, time 1347 Unit 2 Core Performance Log, P-l, October 2, 1979, time 1400 Unit 2 Thermal Data in Fuel Assembly, OD-6 options 1,
3 and 4, October 2, 1979, time 1400 It was verified that the following core parameters were not exceeding the referenced Technical Specification (TS) limit:
Linear Heat Generation Rate - TS 3.5.J Minimum Critical Power Ratio - TS 3.5.K Average Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate - T. S. 3.5.I No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
Component Calibrations The inspector, observed the performance of the following Unit 1 component calibrations to verify their conformance with local procedures:
Average Power Range Monitor Output Signal Calibration - Surveillance Instruction (SI) 4.1.B-2.
Residual Heat Removal (RHR) Puhp Discharge Pressure - Surveillance Instruction 4.2.B-20.
It was noted 'that section 1 of SI 4.2.B-20 gives the required trip level for the RHR pump discharge.pressure as 90.5 to 110.5 psig.
Section 5.1 of this procedure requires the technician to verify that the as found data is less than 90.5 psig or greater than 110.5 psig.
The inspector was informed by the Assistant Plant Superintendent that a procedural change would be initiated to correct this inconsistenc During the performance of SI 4.2.B-20 the inspector observed some diffi-culty, by the technicians in interpreting test instrument data.
The problem was discussed with the technicians, their foreman, and plant management.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
Test Instrument Calibration The inspector selected the following test devices and verified that their calibration frequency and accuracy had been met and that the accuracy was traceable to the off-site calibration standard used:
Simpson 260 multimeter, number 259379 Pressure Indicator PI-LI, number 000043 No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
Radioactive Discharges The inspector reviewed the licensee's records of radioactive effulent releases for the period September 16-22, 1979.
The review verified that release approvals had been obtained where appropriate and that the dis-charge limits and sampling requirements of Technical Specification 3.8 had been met.
Calibration records for discharge monitors and automatic dis-charge isolation valves were also reviewed to verify that this equipment was operable during the period under review.
The inspector witnessed the preparations for a discharge from the Laundry Drain Tank on October 3, 1979.
This included the required sampling and analysis of drain tank liquid.
SI 4.8.A.162, Release Procedure - Liquid Effluents, instructs the labora-tory analyst to analyze a sample of the effluent per Radwaste Liquid Analysis Batch Release Procedure, RLM 1137 section IV. The correct ref-erence for their analysis is RLM 1137 section III. The inspector was informed by plant management that a revision to SI 4.8.A.182 was presently being written which would correct this discrepancy.
Three sampling/
analysis errors by the analyst were noted.
One, which was observed by the lead laboratory analyst and corrected prior to sample count, involved the failure to add unstandardized iodine carrier solution to the liquid sample prior to boildown.
Two other errors not noted by licensee personnel involved a short flush time for one sample, and an improper rinse technique for the boildown beaker.
These errors were brought to the attention of licensee management.
I The inspector had no further questions.
Plant Operation At approximately 0805 on October 4, 1979 a fire occurred in the Unit 3 Main Turbine Oil Tank.
The fire was extinguished within about 10 minutes by
spray from portable carbon dioxide fire extinguishers.
The response by plant personnel to the fire appeared good to the inspector.
Subsequent investigation revealed the cause of the fire to be a short in the circuitry of a heater internal to the oil tank.
The inspector had no further questions.