IR 05000259/1980016
| ML19318B246 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 04/24/1980 |
| From: | Andrews D, Jenkins G, Perrotti D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19318B216 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-259-80-16, 50-260-80-13, 50-296-80-14, NUDOCS 8006250165 | |
| Download: ML19318B246 (13) | |
Text
,
.
.
UNITED STATES Oi
:
auc'e^a aEGULATORY COMMISSION
e REGION 11
- ,
[
101 MARIETTA ST N.W., SUITE 3100
.
"o b
o A1 ANTA. GEORGIA 30303
APR 2 51980 Report Nos. 50-259/80-16, 50-260/80-13 and 50-296/80-14 Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority 500A Chestnut Street Chattanooga, TN 37401
,
Facility Name: Browns Ferry Units 1, 2 and 3 Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260 and 50-296 License Noss DPR-33, DPR-52 and DPR-68 Inspection at Browns Ferry site, Athens, Alabama; Radiological Hygiene Branch, Muscle Shoals, Alabama; and Central Emergency. Control Center, Edney Building, Chattanooga,Tennsge 2Y cfd Inspecto s:
-
w D. J.
'r'ot i Date Signed
'
p-D. L.
'k
, @ $;
-
-
_
Date Sigred Ycf4 Approved by:
.
.
-
GT R.'Je g ns, Section ChiE, FFMS Branch
-
D~ ate Signed SUMMARY Inspection on March 24-28 and March 31 - April 4, 1980 Areas Inspected This routine, announced inspection involved 62 inspector-hours on site and 17 inspector-hours off site in the areas of coordination wit 2 outside support
~
agencies; emergency facilities, equipment and procedures; emergency training;
,
'
emergency planning audits; emergency drills; followup on previously identified inspection findings and followup on IE Bulletins.
Results Of the seven areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in six areas; two items of noncompliance were found in one, area
,
(infraction ~- Tailure to prepare and adhere to written procedures paragraph
'
l 6.i.; infraction - failure to conduct emergency training for all designated emergency directors paragraph 7).
.
.
- 00essolG,g
,
)
_
_
_
_
.
.
-
O DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- H. L. Abercrombie, Power Plant Superintendent
- J. L. Harness, Assistant Power Plant Superintendent
- J. Lobdell, Chief, Radiological Surveillance and Services Section, Muscle Shoals, AL
- J. W. Hufham, Assistant to the Director, Nuclear Power Division, Chattanooga, TN
- R. Cole, Office of Power Quality Assurance Plant Coordinator
- S. G. Bugg, Health Physics Supervisor
- R. Phifer, Safety Engineer
- J. R. Pittman, Instrument Maintenance Supervisor R. Smith, Quality Assurance Supervisor
- C. J. Rozear, Quality Assurance Lead Engineer
- R. G. Metke, Results Section Supervisor R. Goodman, Plant Training Coordinator J. D. Glover, Training Officer, Operations D. Gilbert, RN, Medical Unit R. Jackson, Public Safety Services Supervisor G. Lard, Public Safety Services Training Officer E. Corgill, Assistant Health Physics Suparvisor M. W. Gant, Assistant Shift Engineer G. McChristian, Shift Engineer C. McWherter, Office of Power QA Team Leader, Chattanooga, TN R. Williams, Shift Engineer Duty Specialist Office, Chattanooga, TN
,
R. Hunkapillar, Assistant Operations Supervisor Other Organizations J. Torres, Associate Executive Director, Colonial Manor Hospital L. Smith, RN, Director of Inservice Education, Colonial Manor Hospital N. Emmons, Metro-Shoals Emergency Medical Ambulance Service J. Owings, MD, Medical Consultant, Florence, AL W. Craig, Chief, Athens Fire Department F. Edmonds, Director of Environmental Service, Decatur General Hospital A. Warren, RN, Emergency Room Supers 4.sor, Decatur General Hospital Z. Wesnor, RN, Inservice Instructor, Decatur General Hospital
)
K. Chandler, MD, Medical Consultant, Decatur, AL J. Gomes, Director, AAA Southern Ambulance Service R. Huffman, Supervisor, Athens-Limestone County Ambulance Service
~"*
J. Foster, NASA, Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL C. Webb, Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office
'
W. Smalley, Department of Energy, Oak Ridge-Operations Ofiice i
i
_. _ _
,_
_
-
--
,
_
_____ __------
,
I
..
.
~
-2-d NRC Resident Inspector Office
- R. Sullivan, Senior Resident Inspector
- J. Chase, Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview
The inspection scope and findings were summarized on April 4, 1980, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above. The licensee acknowledged the' inspectors remarks regarding the items of noncompliance pertaining to emergency implementing procedures and emergency director training. The licensee stated that the procedures which would implement the emergency plan were in the process of being prepared and would be submitted to the NRC for review on May 19, 1980, and that the training of the two designated emergency directors would be completed within two weeks.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Infraction - Inventory and Calibration of Emergency Equipment a.
(50-259/78-32-01, 50-260/78-35-01; 50-296/78-33-01). Emergency equip-ment is now being inventoried and calibrated as required (paragraph 6.b).
b.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-259,260,296/78-23-10): Fire Protection and Prevention Training for General Employees. All previously identi-fied personnel have completed GET-1 (new designation for Course No. 36 - Fire Protection and Prevention).
Inspector concerns in the area of initial general employee training in fire protection and prevention are discussed in paragraph 11.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve noncomplaince or deviations. A new unresolved item identified during this inspection is discussed in paragraph 9.
5.
Coordination with Offsite Support Agencies This area was reviewed with respect to the licensee's commitments to a.
maintain contact and coordination with the offsite agencies.as.dgscribed in the approved Radiological Emergency Plan (REP).
'u
l
-.
. _ _
'
.
~
-3-
.
b.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's written letters of agreement with offsite agencies and the list of offsite support agencies speci-fied in the REP to verify that:
(1) Procedures have been established describing met' hods for notifying Local, State, Federal officials and other offsite support agencies in the event oi a radiation emergency.
(2) Arrangements for the services of a physician and other medical
'
personnel qualified to handle radiation emergencies have been established.
(3) Arrangements for the transportation and treatment of injured or
'
contaminated individuals at a treatment facility outside the site boundary have been established.
The inspector contacted ten offsite agencies and met with officials of c.
five of these agencies to verify that contact is being maintained by the licensee and that services, as described in the letter of agreement,
,
can be provided.
d.
The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the inspection and evaluation of the above areas.
(1)
10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Section IV.D (2) TVA - REP,Section XIII, Paragraph A.1 (3) Site - REP,Section XI, Paragraph B.5 and Appendices A & K Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Facilities, Equipment, and Procedures Changes to Facilities, Equipment and Procedures a.
(1) The inspector reviewed established management controls and inter-viewed licensee personnel to determine if changes had been made to the REP, emergency facilities, and equipment since the last inspection.
(2) The review of this area, with respect to changes, was conducted to verify that:
(a) Changes did not constitute an unreviewed safety question.
..,
- - ~
(b) Changes did not alter the requirements set forth in the REP.
(c) Changes were reviewed and approved in accordance with established plant procedures.
I
-_
- _ - _ _.
_
,.
-
-
4_
.
(d) Required plant committee review and QA audits of the REP were conducted.
(e) Revisions to the REP and implementing procedures were dis-tributed to the required locations at the facilicy.
(3) The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the inspection and evaluation of the above areas.
,
(a)
10 CFR 50.59 (b) Technical Specification 6.2.B.4.i
,
(c)
.
Site - REP,Section XII Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
b.
Emergency Kits (1) The inspector reviewed selected calibration, maintenance, and inventory records of emergency kits and equipment located in the main contro1 room, first aid room, communications room, gate house, health physics laboratory, and meteorological tower.
(2) The review and inspection of emergency kits and equipment was conducted to verify that:
(a) The required periodic inventory, maintenance and calibration of emergency equipment and emergency kits were being conducted.
(b) The energency kits, supplies, and portable instrumentation are at various locations as required by the REP and imple-
,
!
menting procedures.
)
(3) The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the inspection and evaluation of the above areas:
(a) Site - REP, Appendix C.
(b) Technical Specification 6.8.A.8 In the above areas, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified. A previous noncompliance in this area is discussed in paragraph 6.b.(4) below.
(4) During an inspection on December 4-8, and 18-22, 1978,.an inspector
' identified an apparent item of noncompliance concerning the'
inventory of emergency kits and calibration of emergency kit J
radiation survey instruments (50-259/78-32-01; 50-260/78-35-01; i
50-396/78-33-01). Corrective action included assigning an indi-vidual to check documentation of health physics routines and
,
_.
.
,7
-
,., _.
. - -
, -
.- ---
- _...
,-,
.
.-.
,.
.
~
-5-
.
instructing personnel in REP procedures to insure compliance.
These corrective actions appear to have satisfied the require-ments in this area and the inspector had no further questions.
c.
Main Control Room Habitability
.
(1) This area was reviewed with respect to maintaining the main control room habitable. The Site-REP defines this area as the
'
center for controlling activities during emergency conditions.
(2) The inspector reviewed surveillance test records, calibration data, and channel checks to verify that:
,
(a) The control room emergency ventilation system is properly aligned.
(b) The required operability tests are being performed on the control room emergency ventilation system at the required frequency, including system automatic start upon receiving a safety injection signal, (c) The control room pressurization test and radiation monitor channel checks and calibration had been performed at required intervals and surveillance data was satisfactory.
(3) The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the inspection and evaluation of the above areas:
Technical Specifications 4.7.E.2.d and Table 4.2.G Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
d.
Remote Shutdown Panel (1) This area was reviewed with respect to insuring that the required plant parameters and controls as described in the Final Safety Analysis Report can be used to perform an emergency shutdown of the plant in the event the main control room cannot be manned.
(2) The inspector reviewed surveillance test records, channel checks, and performed physical inspections to verify that:
(a) The specified Emergency Operating Procedure was at the,
'
remote shutdown room.
(b) The calibration or channel checks for drywell pressure,
.
RHRSW HDRC pressure, RCIC system flow and RW level had been
,
done at the required frequency.
l i
- -
f
'
.
-
'
-6-
.
(3) The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the inspection and evaluation of the above areas:
Technical Specifications 4.2.F - 3B and 4.2.B - 1A Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
e.'
Emergency Communications (1) This area was reviewed with respect to licensees commitment to maintain and have available various types of communication systems
'
within the plant for both normal and emergency use as described in the REP.
(2) The inspector observed the physical location of communications in the main control room, and remote shutdown room to verify the availability of the communication systems are as required by the REP.
(3) The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the inspection and evaluation of the above areas:
Site - REP,Section V.I Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
f.
Meteorological Instrumentation (1) This area was reviewed with respect to licensee requirement to have meteorological instrumentation on site and readout in the control room as specified in the Final Safety Analysis Report.
(2) The inspector reviewed channel checks, meteorological readout and
'
instrumentation in the control room to verify that the system has been maintained in a state of operability (3) The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the
,
inspection and evaluation of the LLbve areas:
-
(a) Technical Specification 3.2.I (b) Site - REP,Section V.C Withfatheareasinspected,noitemsofnoncomplianceordehiations
'
were identified.
.
"
g.
' Muscle Shoals' Facility
'
e (1) This area was reviewed with respect to the licensee's commitments-as described in the REP to conduct emergency training for outside
_ _
,
_.
__ - -
r
!
,.
.
-
_7_
.
agencies, maintain emergency supplies and equipment for environ-mental monitoring, update letters of agreement and to prepare and distribute revisions to the REP.
(2) The inspector reviewed training and inventory r'ecords and letters of agreement, interviewed licensee representatives from the TVA Radiological Hygiene Branch, and made a physical inspection of equipment and supplies at Colonial Manor Hospital to verify that:
,
(a) Training for outside medical, rescue and fire support agencies was conducted annually.
(b) Emergency supplies and equipment were being maintained and
'
inventoried.
(c) Letters of agreement were updated at two year intervals.
(d) Individuals and groups are informed of changes in the REP through distribution of revisions.
(3) The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the inspection and evaluation of the above area:
(a) TVA - REP,Section XIII, Paragraph A.1 (b) EEP - REP, Exhibit B (c) Site - REP,Section XI and XII (d) Technical Specification 6.3.A.8 Within the areas inspected, the inspector identified one example of noncompliance regarding the preparation of written procedures for implementation of the emergency plan. This matter is discussed in paragraph 6.i below.
h.
Edney Building Central Emergency Control Center (CECC)
(1) This area was reviewed with respect to the licensee's commitments as described in the NUC PR-REP to provide training for emergency personnel, maintain emergency references and supplies, and perform radio tests with the Erowns Ferry main control room.
(2) The inspector reviewed training rosters and radio test log books at the CECC and the site, examined the emergency reference and supply cabinet and interviewed licensee representatives to verify that:
.
.. r
~~
(a) Refresher training for Emergency Team Leaders was conducted annually.
_
,
e
-
-.._ - -
- -
.
-
,.
.
~
-8-
.
(b) Emergency supplies and references were inventoried quarterly.
(c) Radio tests were performed and recorded daily.
(3) The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the inspection and evaluation of the above area:
'
NUC PR-REP, Sections III, IV,and VIII Within the areas inspected, the inspector identified one example of noncompliance regarding the preparation of and adherence to
'
written procedures for implementation of the NUC PR-REP. This matter is discussed in paragraph 6.i below.
i.
Emergency Implementing Procedures (1) Technical Specification 6.3.A.8 states that detailed written procedures, inicuding applicable checkoff lists covering radio-logical emergency plan implementation, shall be prepa d, approved and adhered to.
(2) Browns Ferry Site l
(a)
'
_ An inspector determined, through procedure review and dis-cussions with licensee representative that no procedure has
,
- been established for emergency training of designated emer-l gency directors.
(b) From record review an inspector determined that Form BF-45,
Training Attendance Record, for course GET-1 held six times
'
during January 8-15, 1980, did not contain the minimum i
information required by Browns Ferry Standard Practice 4.4.
(c) During a review of the QA drill critique for the annual emergency drill held July 19, 1979, an inspector noted that the critique wss not submitted to the plant superintendent within the five week period following the drill as required by Browns Ferry Standard Practice 22.1.
,
.
(3) Muscle Shoals Facility - Through discussions with licenser repre-
'
sentatives and review of facility records, an inspector determined t
that no procedures have been prepared for inventory of equipment i
(a check off sheet is currently being used), training of ou,tside (
~ ~ ' support groups and updating and distribution of the REP revisions as committed to by the EEP-REP.
,
I
.
%
,
-
,
t
- -
,
--
.-.,.w a.
.
.-,-,yv
,
,--my-.
.,
-,.,o y
,, - - --
,.9
-~y.,-e,
-,
.y
- -, -,,.=
,
_ _ _.
- - - -,
-.
,.
.
~
-9
.
(4) CECC Facility (a) From discussions with licensee representative and review of the emergency organization at the CECC, an inspector deter-mined that no procedures have been established for emergency training and retraining of Emergency Team Leaders and for inventory of CECC emergency references and supplies as committed to by the NUC PR-REP.
(b) From a review of CECC radio test records for the period January 1 - June 30, 1979, an inspector identified 38 instan-ces when a radio test between the CECC and Browns Ferry main
'
control room was not performed as required by Section IV of the NUC PR-REP. A further review of radio test records at the site indicated that radio checks were made on 11 of the 38 dates noted above. The inspector stated that Section IV of the NUC PR-REP requires a radio test to be condi.ted daily and recorded at the CECC.
(5) The above matter regarding failure to prepare od adhere to emergency implementing procedures was discussed w2 th licensee representatives from the site, Muscle Shoals Faci?.ity and CECC at the exit meeting. The inspector was furn.shed a copy of a more detailed, written procedure dated March 28, 1980, for testing of the radio link between the CECC and the site.
Licensee representatives stated that Emergency Imple-menting Procedures, as recommended by Reg.
Guide 1.101, were either drafted or being worked on and would be submitted to the NRC on May 19, 1980, for review and approval. The, plant superintendent stated that a program for training of emergency directors would be developed. The inspector acknowledged the licensee's remarks and stated that the
examples described in paragraphs 6.i(2), (3) and (4) above constituted noncompliance with Technical Specification 6.3. A.8 (50-259/80-16-01, 50-260/80-13-01, 50-296/80-14-01).
7.
Emergency Training for Licensee Employees and Offsite Groups This area was reviewed with respect to the licensee's commitments as a.
described in the REP to conduct emergency training for licensee employ-ees on site, offsite TVA employees who are assigned specific authority and responsibility in the event of an emergency, and non-TVA offsite groups whose assistance may be needed in the event of a radiological emergency.
.
,,
b.
The inspector reviewed personnel training records along with training schedules and training course content jo ve.ify that:
(1) Emergency training had been given to the following categories of personnel:
emergency director, emergency teams, general employees,
'
l
r
,.
.
-
-10-.
i
.
,
l contractor personnel, licensee offsite employees, and non-licensee offsite groups.
(2) Personnel are informed of changes in the REP an_d implementing procedures.
(3) Refresher training had been given as specified in the REP.
(4) The training courses covered the material specified by the REP or
'
procedures.
c.
The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the inspec-
' tion and evaluation of the above areas:
(1)
10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Section IV.H.
(2) Site-REP Section II.A and Section XI.A.
(3) Technical Specification 6.1.F In the above areas the inspector identified one apparent item of noncompliance as discussed in paragraph 7.d below.
d.
In addition to general training in the emergency plan provided to all licensee personnel,Section XI.A of the Site REP requires that personnel having specific duties and responsibilities in the plan shall receive instruction in the performance of those duties and responsibilities.
Section II.A.2 of the plan lists those individuals who are designated to succeed to the position of emergency director in the aF:.cace of the Plant Superintendent. Upon review of the plant training records and discussions with the Plant Training Coordinator, it was established that two of the designated alternate emergency directors had not received training in the specific duties and responsibilities of that
-
position as required. Licensee management acknowledged that the training had not been accomplished and agreed to complete such training within two weeks. The inspector cited noncompliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix E (50-259/80-16-02;50-260/ 80-13-02; 50-296/80-14-02).
8.
Emergency Drills a.
This area was reviewed with respect to licensee's commitments as described in the REP for the planning, execution and evaluation of emergency drills.
b.
The inspector reviewed records, reports, and discussed with a licensee representative the most recently conducted full-scale radiation emer-gency drill to verify that:
" " ~
(1) The required drill was performed,at the prescribed frequency.
~
(2) Appropriate corrective actions are being initiated to correct identified deficiencies.
. _ - - - _
r
- .
.
~
.
11-
-
(3) Changes to the REP or procedures, as a result of deficiencies identified during the drill, have been reviewed and approved by licensee management.
(4) Changes were issued to persons, organizations,'and support organi-zations.
The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the inspection c.
'
and evaluation of the above area:
(1)
10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Section IV.I (2) Site-REP,Section XI.B
' (3) Standard Practice BF 14.22 Within the area inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
9.
Audits The inspector examined the licensee's Quality Assurance Audit No. OP a.
QAA-BF-79-03, dated May 14-18, 1979, which was a general review of emergency equipment, drills and offsite personnel. Five discrepancies were identified during the audit. Through record review and discussions with licensee representative, the inspector determined that corrective action had been completed for the five items. The inspector also discussed with representatives from the Office of Power Quality Assurance a recent emergency plan audit and received a draft copy of the audit findings. This detailed audit, conducted March 18-20, 1980, disclosed a significant number of discrepancies. The inspector informed the licensee that until the audit has been formally issued (Audit number assigned is OPQAA-CH-80-SP-02) and corrective 1ction taken for the identified discrepancies, this matter is an unresolved item, to be inspected at a future date (50-259/80-16-03, 50-260/80-13-03, 50-296/80-14-03).
10.
Follow-up on IE Bulletin The inspector reviewed the licensee's responses to Bulletin 79-18 (Audiability of Evacuation Alarm in High Noise Areas) and corrective actions taken and planned were discussed with licensee representatives.
It was found that the site evacuation siren can be heard in all areas but local area alarms could not be heard in 13 areas and the plant public address system could not be heard in 4 high noise areas. Other areas were identified in which the PA system volume could be turned down by. individuals working *id the area making the system inaudible in these areas also'.
Corrective actions planned include a complete modification of the local alarm and public address systems. This modification is expected to require approximately 30 months for completion.
In'the interim period administra-tive actions have been taken to insure prompt notification of those indi-viduals who may be present in an area where the local alarm or PA system
.
, - -
y y
-,-,3y-
-
,..,y,---
r
,.
....
-- --
.. -.
.
,.
.
.
-
-12-
.
was found to be inaudible. As indicated in the licensee's supplemental response dated March 25, 1980, and a change to Section IV.C.3 of the site REP (3/19/80), Health Physics personnel have been assigned to proceed to areas of local emergencies and visually verify that all personnel have evacuated. This item shall remain open until modification of local alarms and the PA system is completed (79-BU-18).
11.
Follow-up on Unresolved Item: General Employee Training on Fire Protection and Prevention Systems (GET-1) 50-259,260,296/78-23-11)
The inspector reviewed class attendance records and discussed general employee training with a training representative.
It was verified that individuals identified during a previous inspection as being delinquent in initial fire protection and prevention training have attended training sessions and that initial training and retraining is being conducted in accordance with Brown's Ferry Standard Practice BF4.5.
This unresolved item was closed. Approximately 50 new employees were identified who had not yet received initial training, GET-1.
Following the inspection it was verified by the Rerident Inspector that 37 of these individuals had been trained by April 21, 1980 and the remainder were scheduled to complete the training by April 25, 1980.
Licensee management stated that due to GET-1 scheduling and personnel turnover, there would always bt some individuals on site who had not received initial fire training. The inspector noted that although the requirements of BF4.5 are currently being met, initial fire prevention and protection training should be scheduled along with the other initial training classes required for the issuance of a security badge for unescorted access to the site. Licensee menagement agreed to look into this matter and the subject of initial fire training shall remain open to be reviewed during a future inspection (50-259/80-16-04; 50-260/80-13-02; 50-296/80-14-04).
,
.
-
.. r
. - -
".-
,