ML18036B131
| ML18036B131 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 01/07/1993 |
| From: | Merschoff E NRC Office of Inspection & Enforcement (IE Region II) |
| To: | Medford M Tennessee Valley Authority |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9301200220 | |
| Download: ML18036B131 (9) | |
See also: IR 05000259/1992033
Text
0
JAN
7 lyg
Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260,'nd
50-296
License
Nos.
and
Valley Authority
ATTN:
Dr. Mar'k 0. Hedford, Vice President
Nuclear Assurance,
Licensing
5 Fuels
3B Lookout Place
1101 Market Street
Chattanooga,
TN
37402-2801
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
NRC
INSPECTION
REPORT
NOS.
50-259/92-33,
50-260/92-33,-
and 50-296/92-33
Thank you for your response
of December
2,
1992, to our Notice of Vi
ation
issued
on November 2,
1992,
concerning activities conducted
at your
~'owns
Ferry Nuclear Plant.
We have
examined your response
and found that -(t meets
the requirements
of 10 CFR 2.201.
In your response,
you denied violation A and indicated that you will respond
to violation
B in your response
to
NRC Inspection report 50-259,
260,
296/92-37.
After careful consideration of the bases for your denial of violation A, we
have concluded, for the reasons
presented
in the enclosure to the letter,'hat
the violation occurred
as stated
in the Notice of Violation.
Therefore,
in
accordance
with 10 CFR 2.201(a),
please
submit to this office within 30 days
of the date of this letter
a written statement
describing
steps
which have
been taken to correct violation A'nd the results. achieved,
corrective steps
which will be taken to avoid further violations,
and the date
when full
compliance will be achieved.
The response
directed
by this letter and its enclosure
are not subject to the
V301200220
930107
ADOCK 05000259
8
~
'
JAN
7 I993
Valley Authority
2
clearance
procedrues
of the Office of management
and Budget
as required
by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,
Pub.
L. No.96-511.
We app'reciate
your cooperation
in this matter.
Sincerely,
(Original signed by E. Merschoff)
Enclosure:
Evaluations
and Conclusions
Ellis W. Herschoff, Director
Division,of Reactor Projects
cc w/encl:
(See
page 3)
'
SAN'
~c@
'0
Valley Authority
cc w/encl:
Mr. John
B. Waters,
Chairman
Valley Authority
ET 12A
400 West Summit Hill Drive
Knoxville, TN
37902
TVA Representative
Valley Authority
Rockville Office
11921 Rockville Pike
Suite
402
Rockville,
20852
'General
Counsel
Tennessee-
Valley Authority
ET 11H
400 West Summit Hill Drive
Knoxville, TN
37902
Chairman,
Limestone
County
Commission
P. 0.
Box 188
Athens,
35611,
Mr. J., R.
Bynum, Vice President
Nuclear Operations
Valley Authority
3B Lookout Place
101 Market Street
Chattanooga,
TN
37402-2801
Site Licensing Manager
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant
Valley Authority
P. 0.
Box 2000
Decatur,
35602
Mr. 0. J. Zeringue,
Vice President
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant
Valley Authority
P. 0.
Box 2000
Decatur,
35602
3
Mr. M. J. -Burzynski, Manager
Nuclear Licensing
and
Regulato}y Affairs
Valley Authority
5B Lookout Place
Chattanooga,
TN
37402-2801
Stat'e Health Officer
State
Department of Public Health
State Office Building
Montgomery,
36130
Site guality Manager
,
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant
Valley Authority
P. 0.
Box 2000
Deactur,
35602
Mr. Kirksey E. Whatley, Director
Division of Radiation Control
Alabama Department of Public Health
Montgomery,
AL 36310
bcc w/encl:
(See
page
4)
JAN
7 @g
'0
Valley Authority
bcc w/encl:
J.
R. Johnson,
RII
G.
C. Lainas,
F. J.. Hebdon,
P. J. Kellogg, RII
J.
L. Hathis, RII
T. Ross,
NRC Document Control-Desk
NRC Senior
Resident
Inspector
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission
Route
12 Box 637
Athens,
35611
E ICSC'PP
GJenk'
I/ $ /93
DRP/
I
CPa
en on
I/
/93
(t
DRP/ I
JH
a
1/
/93
DRP/
PK
gg
1/
/93
(gu-~
I
BW'on
I/
/9
g~ a
EVALUATIONS AND CONCLUSION
On November 2,
1992,
a Notice of Violation was issued for a violation
identified during
a routine
NRC inspection.
The Tennessee
Valley Authority
responded 'to. the Notice on December
2, 1992.'he
licensee
denied violation A
on the basis that plant personnel
took immediate action to confirm the drywell
continuous air. monitor alarm.
The NRC's evaluation
and conclusion regarding
the licensee's
arguments
are
as follows:
Restatement
of Violation A
A.
"Technical Specification Table 3.2.E,
Instrumentation
That
Monitors'eakage
Into Drywell, requires for drywell air sampling
under action
note three that
upon receipt of alarm,
immediate action will be taken. to
confirm the alarm and assess
.the possibility of increased
leakage.
Alarm response
procedure,
1-ARP-0-3, requires for annunciator- XA-55-30-
12,
RA-90-256A Drywell Leak Detection Radiation HI, that the operator
request
chemistry laboratory take
and analyze
a drywell atmosphere
sample.
Contrary to the above,
on September
25,
1992,
-immedi ate action
was not
taken to confirm an alarm at 2:55 a.m.,
on drywell detection radiation
monitor detector,
2-RM-90-256.
The sample
was requested
but not
performed.
At 7: 10 a.m
, the monitor 'was declared
and logged
as inoperable
because
the particulate
channel
was" erroneously
in alarm.
Work order 92-61547-00
was initiated to troubleshoot
and correct the
problem with the particulate
channel
in alarm;
Later the
4 to 8 a.m.
unidentified floor leakage
provided indication of increased
drywell
leakage
and Unit 2 was shutdown.
This is
a Seve}ity Level
IV Violation (Supplement I) applicable to Unit
2 only.
Summar
of Licensee's
Res
onse
The licensee
states
that. immediate action was taken to confirm and assess
the
alarm.
The actions
were to obtain corroborating
evidence
from other
indications.
Other indications did not initially confirm a drywell leak.
A
chemistry
sample
was not taken
because
of confusion regarding the procedure
and type of sample to be taken.
The licensee
acknowledges
the need for
additional
procedural
and training improvements.
The alarm response
procedure
has
been revised to ensure that the proper samples
are identified and obtained
for specific alarm conditions.
NRC Evaluation
The staff has carefully reviewed the licensee's
response
and
has
concluded
that the licensee
did not provide any information that was not already
,
considered.
The
ARP in efFect at the time required,
in part,
the following
for an alarm on 2-RA-90-256A { -Drywell"Leak Detection Radiation High):
Step 4.
Request
Radchem
Lab take
and analyze
Drywell atmospheric
sample.
Further,
the
ARP did not require that chemistry personnel
be requested
to change
the particulate filter.
'ontrary to the above,
a drywell atmospheric
sample
was requested,
but.
was subsequently
not taken
and analyzed., Also, Operations
requested
that the particulate filter be changed.
Chemistry
removed the old
filter but did not analyze it.
(.A second filter was subsequently
removed
and analyzed later that morning.)
Further evidence that plant personnel
apparently did not believe the alarm to
be -legitimate included:
a.'Statement.
in the
ASOS log that the
CAN was "erroneously in alarm",
b.
A work order,
WO-92-68547-00 that was initiated to troubleshoot
and
correct the problem with the particulate
channel,
and
c. Statement's
made to the resident
inspectors
by an operator that
indicated lack of confidence in the validity of the alarm.
The
NRC is particularly concerned
about the events that occurred
on the
morning of September
25,
1992,
discussed
in IR 92-33.
The harmonic noises
heard in the drywell and recirculation
pump motor generator control
problems
indicate'the
need for operations
to be keenly attuned to any plant
abnormalities.
These
problems
were not discussed= in your response.
Although
a direct correlation,may
not be determined,
these collective problems indicat'e
a need for more aggressive
following of plant abnormalities.
NRC Conclusio
For the above reason,
the
NRC staff concludes that the violation occurred
as
stated.