IR 05000259/1990002

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Insp Repts 50-259/90-02,50-260/90-02 & 50-296/90-02 on 900108-12.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Radiological Liquid & Gaseous Effluents,Water Chemistry & Confirmatory Measurements
ML18033B187
Person / Time
Site: Browns Ferry  Tennessee Valley Authority icon.png
Issue date: 02/12/1990
From: Decker T, Marston R
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML18033B185 List:
References
50-259-90-02, 50-259-90-2, 50-260-90-02, 50-260-90-2, 50-296-90-02, 50-296-90-2, NUDOCS 9003050048
Download: ML18033B187 (20)


Text

quest IsteO, e<

P0 o

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION II

101 MARIETTASTREET, N.W.

~

ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30323 Report Nose I 50-259/90-02, 50-260/90-02, and 50-296/90-02 Licensee:

Tennessee Valley Authority 6N 38A Lookout Place 1101 Harket Street Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 Docket Nose I 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296 License NossI DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68 Facility Name:

Browns Ferry 1, 2, and

Inspection Conducted:

January 8-12, 1990

/"

Inspector:

~r Aalu.W <-

R.

R. Narston Approved by: M/i Pi e:.

T.

R. Decker, C ref Radiological Effluents and Chemistry Section Emergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection Branch Divis,ion of Radiation Safety and Safeguards

//g y'i ate sane

/o

~

~1 W/

cr'te'Sianed SUY;llARY Scope:

This routine, unannounced inspection was conducted in the areas of radiological liauid and gaseous effluents, radioloaical environmental monitoring, water chemistry, confirmatory measurements, and post accident samplina.

\\

Results:

In the areas inspected, violations or deviations were not identified.

The licensee continued to progress toward startup.

The licensee decided to install the permanent Post Accident Sampling System on Unit 2 prior to startup rather than the interim system previously committed to.

Ventilation and Area Continuous Air Monitors were still to be replaced before startup.

9O(.)2RR Or ()O()25

~

v, ~ (r I c I..-

0'

REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

+S. Armstronq, Chemistry Control Supervisor J. Bratcher, Water Processinq Coordinator

  • G. Campbell, Plant Hanaqer
  • P. Carier, Manaqer, Site Licensinq
  • L. Claudy, equality Assurance Site Supervisor
  • J. Corey, RadCon Superirtendent J.

Fenton, Chemist S. Hilmes, Radiation Monitor System Enqineer J. Johnson, Instrument Enoineer P. Kirby, Chemistry P,. HcPherson, HYAC System Enqineer

  • N. Noon, Chemistry Technical Support Supervisor K. Nesmith, Chemist
  • P. Salas, Compliance Licensinq Supervisor
  • D. Smith, Chemistry and Environmental Superintendent
  • J. Swindell, Plant Support Superintendent
  • F. Tsakeres, Radiation Protection Supervisor (RadCon)
  • J. Wallace, Compliance Enqineer Other licensee employees contacted durinq this inspection included technicians, operators, security force members, and office personnel.

Nuclear Requlatory Commission

  • D. Carpenter, Site Manaqer E. Christnot, Resident Inspector
  • C. Pattersor Restart Coordinator
  • Attendee exit interview Audits (84750)

The inspector reviewed Nuclear guality Audit and Evaluation Audit Report No. BFA89006, Radioloqical Environmental and Effluent Nonitorinq, dated January 11, 1990.

The audit was conducted from November

to December 14, 1989.

The audit evaluated proqram implementation at Browns Ferry 'by the Chemistry Section, Corporate Chemistry, the Western Area Radioloqical Laboratory, and the Power Operations Traininq Center.

The audit identified seven Areas for Improvement (AFI), six of which were, administrative in nature.

One AFI identified an inordinately hiqh number of repairs on radiation monitorinq equipment.

This AFI was assiqned to

plant Instrumentation and Control Section for response.

No response to the audit findings were available since the audit was issued during the week of the inspection.

The inspector determined that the audit was thorough and comprehensive from a review of the audit and the checklist used to conduct the audit.

No violations or deviations were identified.

Changes to the Chemistry Program (84750)

The inspector discussed chanaes in the proaram with the Chemistry and Environmental Superintendent and with the Actinq Chemistry Control Supervisor.

The Chemistry and Environmental Superintendent reported to the Operations Nanaaer.

The Chemistry Technical Support Supervisor and the Environmental Supervisor positions were vacant, and were being,covered on an acting basis by shifting other Supervisors into the, positions.

A new Technical Support Supervisor had been selected.

The current authorization for the Chemistry and Environmental Section was 50 personnel.

There were currently

people in the Section, including three trainees.

The Superintendent also stated that the Section was one engineer short each in Process Control, Radiochemistry, and Environmental.'The Superintendent stated that durinq the past summer, the plant pulled a

vacuum on the Unit 2 condensers.

The resultinq inleakage was around 30 to

standard cubic feet per minute (scfm),

which was a considerable improvement over the 150 to 160 scfm which occurred durinq previous operation periods.

Since the condenser retubinq, it was determined that there were no other significant sources of copper in the Unit 2 coolinq system.

The Superintendent also stated that Hydrogen Water Chemistry (HWC) was to be tested in Unit 2 during Cycle 6 of operation.

Another change in the program involved the trackinq of Technical Specifications (TSs) Limiting Conditions of Operation (LCO) items.

This tracking was actually done by the Shift Technical Advisor (STA) staff.

The Chemistry Section tracked those LCOs that applied to them.

No violations or deviations were identified.

Air Cleaning Systems (84750)

C The inspector discussed the Primary Containment Purge (PCP)

System and the Control Room Emerqency. Ventilation System (CREVS) with cognizant System Enqineers.

The CREVS had a problem with supply duct leakage; however, a

temporary Technical Specification chanae had been submitted which did not require operability of the CREVS during shutdown.

The coanizant System Enaineer stated that the Unit 2 PCP was operabl The inspector discussed charcoal tray sampling and testing with the cognizant Chemist and reviewed the applicable sampling and testing records.

The records showed that new trays of charcoal had been installed in the Unit 2 PCP in January 1989, therefore testing was not yet required.

The CREVS Train A had been tested on March 21, 1989.

The Standby Gas Treatment System (SBGT) Train A was tested on December 21, 1989.

SBGT Train B

was tested on April 19, 1989, and had been sampled again in October 1989, but the test results has not yet been received from, the vendor.

SBGT Train C had been tested on December 7, 1989.

All the tests reviewed showed removal efficiencies withi'n TS limits.

No violations or deviations were identified.

Post Accident Sampling System (84750, 92701)

The inspector discussed the system with cognizant licensee Chemists and reviewed applicable licensee documentation.

A letter from TVA to NRC,'ated December 28, 1989, SUBJ:

Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) - Browns Ferry Nuclear Performance Plan, Attachment IV-4, Response to Request for Additional Information, included a

Summary-of Coranitments to NUREG-0737 Action Items including Item II.B.3.4, Post Accident Sampling System (PASS).

Enclosure 1 of the letter specified in part:

"TVA will install the final PASS sample panel prior to restart.

All required procedures will be in place, all necessary training will be completed and provisions made for maintenance of sampling and analysis equipment.

The PASS will be tested during the power ascension test program."

This represented a

change from the previous licensee commitment.

Previously, the licensee intended to install an interim PASS.

Use of the interim system would have required entry into the Reactor Building for some reactor coolant samples.

Licensee analyses had determine that a

potential for a

dose equivalent of 100 Rem per hour could exist under certain conditions when using the interim system.

The permanent system was planned to have better shielding and provisions for flushing and puraing of the sample lines to minimize exposure, and Reactor Building entry would not be required.

The sample panel would be installed on the wall of the Turbine Building outside the Reactor Building.

Atmosphere samples would be taken from the drywell atmosphere, the suppression pool atmosphere, and the secondary containment and would be returned to secondary containment or the suppression pool air space.

Coolant samples would be taken from the Jet Pumps or the Residual Heat Removal (RHR)

system and returned to the suppression pool.

Inline pressure and conductivity measurements could be made.

The balance of the analyses would be done on grab samples taken to the existing count room or analytical laborator The commitment to conduct the operating test on the PASS during power ascension will be tracked as Inspector Fol1owup Item (IFI) 260/90-02-01:

Evaluate the PASS under operating conditions against NUREG-0737 criteria.

A licensee representative stated that this test would likely be conducted during the fourth quarter of 1990 or the first quarter of 1991, dependino on startup and equipment installation.

The previous open item (IFI 50-260/86-18-04)

is closed since the interim PASS is not to be installed.

P No violations or deviations were identified.

Radiological Effluent Monitoring Instrumentation (84750, 92701)

The inspector discussed these instruments with the coanizant System and Instrument Engineers, examined a selection of the instrument installations durino a

walkdown of the plant, and reviewed applicable documentation pertaining to the system.

An Instrument Engineer stated that many of the instruments were old and considered high maintenance items, and that the old analog Continuous Air Monitorina Systems (CAYiS) used for area and ventilation monitorina were to be replaced with new digital systems prior to startup of Unit 2.

In addition, the Main Steam Line Monitors were scheduled to be replaced with new digital units prior to startup.

'I The inspector and a licensee engineer toured the Unit 1 and Unit 2 Control Rooms.

The inspector examined the annunciator displays, the indicators, and the recorders for the existing radiological effluent radiation monitors and the printout of 15 minute averaaes of meteorological data.

Proposed changes to the instrumentation and displays were discussed with the Control Room Shift Supervisor.

The inspector reviewed records for required calibration and functional check for the 'following monitors:

Offgas Post Treatment Yionitor Isolation Channel Functional Test, conducted December 5, 1989.

Main Stack Monitoring System Calibration, conducted September 30, 1988.

Radwaste Building Vent Exhaust Monitor Calibration, conducted August 9, 1989.

Instrument Calibration and Functional Test of Offgas Post Treatment Noble Gas Activity Monitors, conducted July 20, 1989.

The inspector discussed progress on testing the Wide Range Gaseous Effluent Radiation Yonitor (WRGERM) in the Main Stack with licensee engineers.

An engineer stated that the acceptance test was still

r

underaoina revision and was expected to be approved by March 1990.

The inspector had previously reviewed the contractor's calibration procedure and the accompanyina discussion of the calibration method and results (Inspection Report Nos. 50-259, 260, 296/88-34).

IFI 50-259, 260, 296/87-06-01:

Review operation and calibration of wide-ranae aaseous effluent radiation monitor for plant stack.

This item is closed.

The licensee's commitment,to evaluate the WRGERM operational performance with an approved procedure will be tracked as IFI 50-259, 260, 296/90-02-02:

Evaluate wide-range gaseous effluent radiation monitor operational performance usinq approved procedure.

A licensee representative stated that this test procedure would probably be revised and approved by the end of March 1990.

No violations or deviations were identified.

Chemistry and Radiochemistrv Instrumentation (84750)

The inspector toured the Analytical Chemistry Laboratory and Count Room accompanied by a Chemistry Supervisor.

The Count Boom was equipped with four aamma spectrosco'pic svstems.

One had been removed from service and sent to the vendor for repair.

The Count Room was also equipped with a Packard Tri Garb Liquid Scintillation system for beta countina and a Tennelec LB 5100 aas proportional counter.

The Analytical Lab was equipped with two uparaded Dionex ion chromatoaraph units and one older model, two model 700 Total Oraanic Carbon Analyzers, a

PE 5000 Atomic Absorption (AA) Spectrophotometer, a

PE 4000 AA Spectrophotometer, and a

PE Lambda 2 UV/VIS Spectrophotometer, which was in the process of beina set up.

The Lab appeared to be well-eauipped, even thouah crowded.

The inspector reviewed calibration and quality control records for the aamma spectroscopic systems.

Calibrations and quality control checks appeared to have been performed at the required frequencies and trend charts were beina maintained.

No violations or deviatiors were identified.

Water and Waste Processina (84750)

The inspector discussed the water treatment and liquid radwaste processina systems with the Water Processina Coordinator.

The Coordinator reported to the Operations Manager, and had 18 personnel reportina to him.

Since the last inspection of this proaram (Inspection Report Nos. 50-259, 260, 296/89-22),

the floor drain filters had been converted to the body feed type.

A decision had been subsequently made to continue with this type of filter permanently, The Coordinator also stated that the plant had started steam cleanina the radwaste filters, which resulted in considerable sevinas in reaeneration cost r

The Radwaste Control Room Operator made recommendations for release and made the actual liquid releases.

Chemistry sampled the appropriate Sample Tank after a predetermined recirculation period, and the Shift Operations Supervisor aave final approval for a release.

The Coordinator stated that the potable water for the plant was purchased from the city of Athens, and that the demineralized water was produced by vendor-supplied demineralizers located in a trailer on site.

The inspector and a licensee enaineer toured the Radwaste Control Room.

The operatina panel was arranaed to provide a functional schematic of the system.

An Operator stated that the system operated as desiqned and that there had been no problems with the system.

The inspector observed that Chemistry's" Radwaste sample sink 'was located adjacent to the Radwaste

.

Control Room.

9.

No violations or deviations were identified.

Liquid Effluent Releases (84750)

The inspector evaluated this part of the licensee's proaram throuah discussion with a licensee Chemist, review of selected Liquid Release Permits, and monthly dose projection calculations for October and

.

November 1989.

Releases appeared to be within TS limits and the limits of

CFR 50, Appendix I.

No violations or deviations were identified.

10 'aseous Effluent Releases (84750)

t The inspector evaluated this part of the licensee's program throuah discussion with a licensee Chemist and review of monthly isotopic analyses for elevated aaseous releases and for around level releases for 1989 and for the monthly, dose calculations for December 1989.

The releases appeared to be within TS limits and the limits of 10 CFR 50, Appendix I.

No violations or deviations were identified.

Water Chemistry (84750)

The inspector discussed the water chemistry proaram with Chemistry Section Supervisors and reviewed analytical results, trend charts, and Daily Chemistry Reports.

The parameters aenerally remained within the administrativ'e limits for Unit 2, with the exception of some conductivity values.

This would appear to be due to the work takinq place on the system in preparation for startup.

No violations or deviations were identifie.

Confirmatory Vieasurements (84750)

As part of the NRC Confirmatory Measurements Program, spiked liquid samples were sent to the plant on July 13, 1989 for selected radiochemical analysis.

The inspector was provided with the results by letter, dated October 6, 1989, and discussed the results with Chemistry manaaement during the inspection.

The comparison is presented in Attachment 1 and the acceptance criteria for the comparisons are listed in Attachment 2.

The inspector's review of this data indicated that the results were in aqreement for all four nuclides.

No violations or deviations were identified.

13.

Exit Interview (30703)

The inspection scope and results were summarized on January 12, 199G, with those persons indicated in Paraqraph 1.

The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail. the inspection findings.

No dissentinq comments were received from the licersee.

Two IFIs were closed in the areas of PASS (Paragraph 5)

and Ride Range Stack Nonitor Operational Testing (Paragraph 6) due to changes in commitments and partial completion of remaininq commitments.

New IFIs were opened in these areas to reflect the new commitments and the remainder of the previous commitments.

The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the material provided to or reviewed by the inspector durinq this inspectio l

AT1ACHHFNT I CONF IRHATORY HEASUREHENT COHPAR I SONS Of Il-3, Sr-89, Sr-90, AND Fe-55 ANALYSES f'R BROWNS FERRY NUCI.FAR PLAN1 ON OCTOBI R 6, 1989 I sotope Licensee

. { <LC~im I IJ NRC

~uCi le iJ Reso Iution Rat.io gl~iceeeee NRCJ C~om a r i son II-3 Fe 55 Sr-89 Sr-90 3. 120 E-05 3.<<07 E-05 1.351 F.-O<<

7.<<26 E-06 (3.33

.10) I:-05 (3.60

. 11)

E-05 (1.42

.04)

E-04 (7.70

.31)

E-06

33

25 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.96 Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement

ATTACHMENT 2 CRITERIA FOR COMPARISONS OF ANALYTICALMEASUREMENTS This attachment provides criteria for the comparison of results of analytical.

radioactivity measurements.

These criteria are based on empirical relationships which combine prior experience in comparing radioactivity analyses, the measurement of the statistically random process of radioactive emission, and the accuracy needs of this program.

In these criteria, the

"Comparison Ratio Limits"'enoting agreement or disagreement between licensee and NRC results are variable.

This variability is a function of the ratio of the NRC s analytical value relative to its associated statistical and analytical uncer tainty, referre'd to in this program as "Resolution"~.

For comparison purposes, a ratio between the licensee's analytical value and the NRC's analytical value is computed for each radionuclide present in a given sample.

The computed ratios are then evaluated for agreement or disagreement-based on "Resolution."

The corresponding values for "Resolution" and the

"Comparison Ratio Limits" are listed in the Table below.

Ratio values which are either above or below the "Comparison Ratio Limits" are considered to be in disagreement, while ratio values within or encompassed by the "Comparison Ratio Limits" are considered to be in agreement.

TABLE NRC Confirmatory Measurements Acceptance Criteria Resolution vs.

Comparison Ratio Limits Resolution Comparison Ratio Limits for A reement

<44-7 8-15 16 - 50 51 - 200

>200 0.4 - 2.5 0.5 - 2.0 0.6 - 1.66 0.75 - 1.33 0.80 - 1.25 0.85 - 1.18

'Comparison Ratio = Licensee Value NRC Reference Value

~Resolution

=

NRC Reference Value Associated Uncertainty

0