Text
TENNESSEE VALLEYAUTHORITY CHATTANOOGA. TENNESSEE 37401 830 Power Building NOV 8~1978 Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II Suite 3100 101 Marietta Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Dear Mr. O'Re'illy:
Enclosed is our response to J. T. Sutherland's October 27,
- 1978, letter, RII:GLT 50-259/78-22, 50-260/78-25, 50-296/78-21 concerning activities at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant units 1, 2, and 3 which appeared to be in noncompliance with NRC requirements.
We have reviewed the above inspection report and find no proprietary information in it.
Very truly yours, 3.
E. Gilleland Assistant Manager of Power Enclosure (I
P t $,A v8xsoeoo>(
0 i
ENCI.OSU RE
. Rl'.SPONSE 7'0 NltC-OIE I.ET7'I'.R OF OCTOBEIt 27 1978
.CONCERNING Rll:GLT 50-259/78-22 50-260/78-25 50-296/78-21
~Yim1in Tecli>>ical Spccificatioiis 4.7.E specifies t lie survei 1 laoce requircmc>>ts for tlie Coiitroi Room I:.meri;cncy Ventilatio>>, i>>clii
>g Llic LcstS for IIL'I'A filters aiiil rli:ircoal adsorbei's.
Tecli>>ical Specific'il ioiis 4.7.F speci Iles Llic siir-veilla>>cc require>>ic>>Ls for Llic Pi im;iry Co>>t;ii>>mc>>t Piirl;e Systems, i>>cloudling tlie t.ent:s for III',I'A f i I ters a>>d cliarcoal ad. orbers.
'I')ie Lest iiiterv;il specified l>y Tecli>>ical Specific itin>>s 4.7.I; a>>d 4.7.F is at: least once-per-operatiog-cycle or 18 months, wliichever occurs first.
CoiiLrary t.o tlie abi>vc, tlie IJ>> I t 2 I'r imary Co>>ta i>>me>>t lb>it 3 I'rimary Coi>La iiimcnL'et c 1;ist per forme<l i>> II;iy surveillaiice records by a>>
interval. between t.lie most receiit tcsLs of Llic I'urge System was 24 moiit.lls
'Iod t:csLS of Llic I'iirge System a>>d Ci>>>trol Itoom I;meri;cony Ve>>ti lation 197(>.
Tliis was dct.crmiiied l>y;i review of plant inspector on September 12, 1978.
'1'liis is an infractio>>.
~RUB )OllbQ CorrccLivc SLc >s Wliicli Ilavc Bee>> Takeo aod Result.s Acliicved
~
~
~
~
All testing required by Technical Specifications 4.7.E and 4.7.F has bean satisfactorily completed.
Corrective Ste s Iihicli h'ill Be Taken To Avoid I:urt.lier Noncom liancc The noncompliance was due to the sclieduling system requiring testing once per operating cycle rather than accurately reflecting the requirements of Technical Specifications 4.7.E and 4.7.F which state that testing shall be performed at least once per operating cycle, but not to exceed 18 months.
Since cycle 1 of unit 3 was approximately 22 months in duration our scheduling metliod did not require the testing to be conducted at the end of 18 months.
A review of all the once-per-operating-cycle, each refueling outage, 18-month,
\\
I and greater-than-one-year requirements in the teclinical specifications has been conducted to ensure that these items are properly included in the rveillance instruction schedule.
ur review indicated that the only deficiencies in this area were the surveillance instruction schedule requirements related to Technical Specifi-cations 4.7.E and 4.7.F.
These requirements of the instruction schedule have been changed to reflect the 18-month requirement.
Date Full Com liance Achieved Full compliance was achieved on October 4, 1978.
