ML18036B148
| ML18036B148 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 01/29/1993 |
| From: | Zeringue O TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9302100359 | |
| Download: ML18036B148 (9) | |
Text
ACCELERATED DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTIONSYSTEM REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS)
ACCESSION NBR:9302100359 DOC.DATE: 93/01/29
- NOTARIZED:
NO C~L:50-259 Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, Tennessee 50-260 Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2, Tennessee 50-296 Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3, Tennessee AUTH.NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION ZERINGUE,O.J.
Tennessee Valley Authority RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION Document Control Branch (Document Control Desk)
SUBJECT:
Provides TVA's reply to Nov'ransmitted by ltr from E.W. Merschoff to Medford,M.O. dtd 930107.
DISTRIBUTION CODE:
IE01D COPIES RECEIVED:LTR -(
ENCL i SIZE:
TITLE: General (50 Dkt)-Insp Rept/Notice of Violation Response NOTES:
DOCKET ¹ 05000259 05000260 05000296 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME HEBDON,F WILLIAMSgJ.
INTERNAL: ACRS AEOD/DEIB AEOD/TTC NRR MORISSEAU,D NRR/DLPQ/LPEB10 NRR/DREP/PEPB9H NRR/PMAS/ILPB 2
NUDOCS-ABSTRACT OGC/HDS3 RGN2 'ILE 01 EXTERNAL EG&G/BRYCEiJ
~ H ~
- COPIES LTTR ENCL 1
1 1
2 2
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME ROSS,T.
AEOD AEOD/DSP/TPAB DEDRO NRR/DLPQ/LHFBPT NRR/DOEA/OEAB NRR/PMAS/ILPB 1 NRR/PMAS/ILRB12 OE DIR
'EG F
02 NRC PDR COPIES LTTR ENCL 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1,
1 1
1
,1 1
NOTE TO ALL"RIDS" RECIPIENTS:
PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE WASTE! CONTACT THE DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK, ROOM Pl-37 (EXT. 504-2065) TO ELIMINATEYOUR NAME FROM DISTRIBUTION LISTS FOR DOCUMENTS YOU DON'. NEED!
TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:
LTTR 26 ENCL 26
Te~r essee Valley Au'.eotity post 0',fice Box 20"O, Oecaio A'aoama S56t8.2ÃQ O. J, "Ike" Zeringue V:ce presicieo:Broisas Feiry Noclea pla~t JSN 29 i~93 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:
Document Control Desk Washington, D.C.
20555 Gentlemen:
In the Matter of Tennessee Valley Authority Docket Nos.
50-259 50-260 50-296 BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT (BFN) NRC INSPECTION REPORT 50-259, 50-260, 296/92-33, REVISION 1 REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NOV) r This letter provides TVA's reply to the NOV transmitted by letter frorrr E.
W. Merschoff to M. 0. Medford dated January 7,
1993.
In this letter, NRC stated that TVA's reply to the initial NOV was reviewed and after careful consideration of the basis of the denial of Violation A, NRC concluded that the violation occurred as stated'n the NOV.
As described in the enclosure to this letter, TVA addresses the steps that TVA considers adequate to prevent a recurrence of this type of violation.
The enclosure to this letter is TVA's "Reply to the Notice of Violation" (10 CFR 2.201).
If you have any questions regarding this reply, please telephone G.
D. Pierce at (205) 729-7566.
Sincerely, Enclosure cc:
See page 2
9302100359 930129
- PDR, ADOCK 05000259 8
PDR Cr 5OOD
l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Enclosure cc (Enclosure):
NRC Resident Inspector Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Route 12, Box 637
- Athens, Alabama 35611 Mr. Thierry M. Ross, Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'ission One White Flint, North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 Mr. B. A. Wilson, Project Chief U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia
-30323
ENCLOSURE Tennessee Valley Authority Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) t Reply to Notice of Violation (NOV)
Inspection Report Number 50-259 260 296/92-3 Revision 1
RESTATEMENT OF VIOLATION A.
"Technical Specification Table 3.2.E, Instrumentation That Monitors-Leakage 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 1(I, that the operat'or request chemistry laboratory take and analyze a
drywell atmosphere sample.
Contrary to the above, on September 25,
- 1992, immediate action was not taken to confirm an alarm at 2:55 a.m.,
on drywell detection irradiation monitor detector, 2-RM-90-256.
'The sample was requested but not performed.
At 7:10 a.m.,
the monitor wasdeclared inoperable and logged as inoperable because the particulate channel was erroneously in alarm.'ork order 92-61547-00 was initiated to troubleshoot and correct the problem with the particulat'e 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 Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement I) applicable to Unit 2 only,"
TVA RESPONSE TO THE VIOLATION 1.
Reason For Violation A Technical Specifications (TS) Table 3.2.E, Limiting Condition for Operation, requires that immediate action be taken, following a drywell continuous air monitor (CAM) alarm, to confirm the alarm and assess the possibility of increased leakage in the drywell.
As
'required by TS, plant personnel took immediate action to confirm the alarm.
As discussed. below, the followup actions taken by plant personnel demonstrated an aggressive approach to assess the'ource of the alarm.
At 0250 hours0.00289 days <br />0.0694 hours <br />4.133598e-4 weeks <br />9.5125e-5 months <br /> on September 25,
- 1992, the channel associated with the particulate filter on the drywell CAN alarmed.
The channel on the drywell CAI'I to monitor for noble gasses was not alarming.
During this event, plant personnel took,-immediate actions to confirm the alarm and to obtain corroborating evidence of increased leakage in the drywell.
These actions were completed by 0300 hours0.00347 days <br />0.0833 hours <br />4.960317e-4 weeks <br />1.1415e-4 months <br /> and included monitoring drywell pressure and temperature, drywell
'adiation recorders, a review of the, floor drain sump pump actuations, and a request for chemistry personnel to change the particulate filter in the CAM and to take a drywell atmospheric sample.
The requirement for these actions is provided in Alarm
Response
Procedure (ARP) 2-ARP-9-3.
However, plant personnel failed to analyze the drywell atmospheric sample due to some confusion as to what sample should be taken.
TVA believes that an inadequate Abnormal Response Procedure (ARP) contributed to this confusion.
Specifically, at 0250 hours0.00289 days <br />0.0694 hours <br />4.133598e-4 weeks <br />9.5125e-5 months <br /> control room personnel'eceived the intermittent Drywell CAII alarm and called the Chemistry Laboratory for a CAM particulate filter change and a drywell atmospheric sample.
The Chemistry Shift Supervisor-contacted the unit operator to receive clarification on the type of drywell atmospheric sample the ARP required.
The Chemistry Laboratory Personnel presumed that the ARP required a
'ydrogen/Oxygen
- sample, Chemistry personnel discussed with the Unit Operator the need to obtain a drywell atmospheric sample for radioactivity and subsequently concurred that the ARP needed to be revised to clarify the type of sample that would provide the best information for assessing the drywell condition.
2.
Corrective Ste s Taken and Results Achieved As noted
- above, Chemistry personnel revised the ARP to ensure that regardless of which channel of the drywell CAII alarmed the control room and chemistry personnel will have a clear direction for taking and analyzing gaseous and particulate samples.
3.
Corrective Ste s That have been or Will Be Taken To Prevent Recurrence No further corrective actions are required to preclude a recurrence of this type of violation.
4 ~
Date When Full Com liance Will Be Achieved TVA considers that full compliance occurred upon the approval of the revised ARP on October 16, 1992.'
)
C I