ML18283B531
| ML18283B531 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 07/13/1977 |
| From: | Gilleland J Tennessee Valley Authority |
| To: | Moseley N NRC/RGN-II |
| References | |
| IR 1977007 | |
| Download: ML18283B531 (20) | |
Text
830 Power Building TENNESSEE VALLEYAUTHORITY CHATTANOOGA. TENNESSEE 37401 July 13 1977 Mr. Norman C. Moseley, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement U,S.'uclear Regulatory Commission Region XX Suite 1217 230 Peachtree
- Street, Ntf.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Dear Mr. Moseley:
This is in response to F. J. Long's June 22, 1977, letter, RXX:RFS 50-259/77-7, 50-260/77-7, 50-296/77-7, which transmitted for our review an XE Inspection Report (same number).
He have reviewed that report and do not consider any part of it to be proprietary.
Very truly y rs, f
A~
J. E. Gilleland Assistant Manage of Power An Equal Opportunity Employer
~P,S REGS P
I w>~ ~ +
~
0 Cy 0
UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION II 230 PEACHTREE STREET, N.W. SUITE 1217 ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303 In Reply Refer To:
RII:RFS 50-259/77-7 50-260/77-7 50-296/77-7
,Tennessee Valley Authority Attn:
Mr. Godwin Williams, Jr.
Manager of Power 830 Power Building Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401 Gentlemen:
This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. R. F. Sullivan of this office on June 7-10, 1977, of activities authorized by NRC License Nos.
DPR-33, DPR-52 and DPR-68 for the Browns Ferry facilities, and to the discussion of our findings held with Mr. H. J.
Green at the con-clusion of the inspection.
Areas examined during the inspection and our findings are discussed in the attached inspection report.
Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative
- records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspector.
Within the scope of this inspection, no items of noncompliance were disclosed.
We have examined actions you have taken with regard to previously identified inspection findings.
These are discussed in the attached inspection report.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice,"
Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the attached inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room. If this report contains any information that you believe to be proprietary, i,t is necessary that you submit a written application to this office requesting that such information be withheld from public disclosure.
If no proprietary information is identified, a written statement to that effect should be submitted.
If an application is
I 1
Tennessee Valley Authority submitted, it must fully identify the bases for which information is claimed to be proprietary.
The application should be prepared so that information sought to be withheld is incorporated in a separate paper and referenced in the application since the application will be placed in the Public Document Room.
Your application, or written statement, should be submitted to us within 20 days. If we are not contacted as specified, the attached report and this letter may then be placed in the Public Document Room.
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, we will be glad to discuss them with you.
Very truly yours, F. J. Long, Chief Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch
Attachment:
RII Inspection Report Nos.
50-259/77-7, 50-260/77-7 and 50-296/77-7 cc w/
Attachment:
Mr. J.
G. Dewease Plant Superintendent P. 0. Box 2000
- Decatur, Alabama 35602
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION II 230 PEACHTREE STREET, N.W. SUITE 1217 ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303 Report Nos.:
50-259/77-7, 50-260/77-7, 50-296/77-7 Docket Nos.:
50-259, 50-260, 50-296 License Nos.:
DPR-33, DPR-52, DPR-68 Licence:
Tennessee Valley Authority 830 Power Building Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401 Facility Name:
Browns Ferry Units 1, 2 and 3
Inspection at:
Browns Ferry Site Inspection conducted:
June 7-10, 1977 Inspector-in-Charge:
R. F. Sullivan Inspectors:
R. H. Wessman Reviewed by:
g<H.
C. Dance, Chief Reactor Projects Section No.
1 D te Ins ection Summar Ins ection on June 7-10 1977:
Re ort No. 50-259/77-7 50-260/77-7 50-296/77-7)
Areas Ins ected:
Routine unannounced inspection of plant operations; in-plant quality assurance program; followup of previously identified
, noncompliance; ventilation of storage battery rooms; and tour of plant areas.
The inspection involved 66 total inspector-hours on site by two NRC inspectors.
Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were disclosed.
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-259/77-7, 50-260/77-7 and 50-296/77-7 DETAILS I Prepared by:
P4 P R. F. Sullivan, Reactor Inspector Reactor Projects Section No.
1 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Date Dates of Inspection:
June 7-10, 1977 Reviewed by:
gp H. C. Dance, Chief Reactor Projects Section No.
1 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch
+/~da 7
Date 1.
Persons Contacted
- H. J.
Green, Plant Superintendent J.
G. Dewease, Assistant Plant Superintendent
- H. L. Abercrombie, Assistant Plant Superintendent
- T. P. Bragg, QA Staff Supervisor J.
B. Studdard, Operations Supervisor
- R. Hunkapiller, Assistant Operations Supervisor
- J. A. Teague, Assi.stant Maintenance Supervisor T.
G. Campbell, Outage Director A. L. Burnette, Shift Engineer T.
W. Jordan, Shift Engineer R.
S. Perry, QA Engineer
- R. Cole, QA Site Representative - Office of Power J.
R. Hilding, Outage QA Supervisor
- Denotes those present at the Exit Interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Ins ection Findin s (Closed)
Noncompliance (259/76-23, 260/76-23, 296/76-21):
Failure
~ to promptly identify a systematic problem with control rod scram times during restartup testing.
The inspector determined that corrective action had been taken which included a revision of Surveillance Instruction 4.3.c on January 18, 1977, which places a
definitive value on scram time measurements that are to be con-sidered significant variations from the average.
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-259/77-7, 50-260/77-7 aad 50-296/77-7 I-2 (Closed)
Noncompliance (259/77-5, 260/77-5, 296/77-5):
Failure to calibrate the oxygen sensor for the containment atmosphere with a nominal two percent oxygen gas mixture.
The inspector verified that corrective action had been taken including procedure revisions and that all sensors have been calibrated using the correct calibra-tion gas mixture.
3.
Unresolved Items No new unresolved items were identified by the inspector.
4.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with the TVA representatives denoted in para-graph 1 at the conclusion of the on-site inspection on June 10, 1977, to summarize the scope and findings of the inspection.
5.
Plant 0 erations A review was made of recent plant operations with emphasis on the period May 15-31, 1977, to ascertain that operations were being conducted in accordance with the Technical Specifications and other regulatory requirements.
The review included examination of the following records for the dates or periods indicated:
a.
Shift Engineers Journal; 5/15-31/77 b.
Assistant Shift Engineers
- Journals, Units 1, 2 and 3; 5/17-27/77 c.
Unit Operator Journals, Units 1, 2 and 3; 5/17-27/77 d.
Surveillance Instruction 2, Instrument
- Checks, Data Sheets, Unit 1; 5/8-21/77, e.
Surveillance Instruction 2, Instrument Checks Data Sheets, Units 2 and 3; 5/15-28/77 f.
Surveillance Instruction 2.1, Core Performance Data, Units 1, 2 and 3; 5/25-6/6/77 g.
Jumper, Inhibit and Wire Removal Log, Units 1, 2 and 3; nine items currently in effect.
h.
Trouble Reports; about 90 reports with action completed during April-June, 1977.
i RII Rat.
Nos. 50-259/77-7.
50-260/77-7 and 50-296/77-7 I-3 As a result of the review of the above records the inspector did not identify any deficiencies;
- however, he did pursue in more
'etail the program for control of temporary conditions and jumpers in safety-related systems.
The program was examined for conformance with 10 CFR 50.59, Technical Specification 6.2.B.4c.
and ANSI N18.7.
The licensee's implementing procedures DPM-N73011 and BFA 25 on control of Jumpers, Inhibits, and Wire Removal (JIWR) were also examined in conjunction with the review of the active JIWR control forms.
The inspector observed that the plant procedure BFA 25 did not clearly implement the instruction from the division procedure DPM-N73011 which states in part: ".... all jumpers in safety-related
- systems, which are operable, will be controlled by PORC reviewed and approved procedure...." The Plant Superintendent indicated that there was no intent to be inconsistent and that Standard Practice BFA 25 would be clarified.
The inspectors also made a tour of all three reactor buildings and control rooms as part of the plant operations review.
Observations included instrument readings, valve positions, snubber positions, panel annunciators, housekeeping, condition of temporary radiation
- zones, refueling floor activities, tag status and operating equip-ment.
Control room operations were observed and informal discus-sions were held with operators and supervisors on plant systems status.
Questions developed by the inspectors were satisfactorily answered.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Re ortable Occurrence Review I
The inspector reviewed at the site licensee action with respect to Reportable Occurrence BFRO-259/7712 concerning the calibration of oxygen sensors using the improper gas mixture.
This same matter was the sub)ect of the noncompliance identified in IE Report Nos.
259/77-5, 260/77-5, 296/77-5, for which corrective action was verified during this current inspection.
The Reportable Occurrence report was consistent with the licensees response to the noncom-pliance.
The inspector had no further questions.
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-259/77-7, 50-260/77-7 and 50-296/77-7 DETAILS II Prepared by: ~<
R. H. Wessman, Reactor Inspector Reactor Prospects Section No.
1 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Date Dates of Inspection:
June 7-10, 1977 Reviewed by:
/v~
P~ H. C. Dance, Chief Reactor Projects Section No.
1 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Date 1.
Persons Contacted Tennessee Valle Authorit W. Roberts, Maintenance Supervisor
- J. Teague, Assistant Maintenance Supervisor D. Thompson, Electrical Engineer J. Butler, QA Engineer R. Metke, Results Supervisor
- T. Bragg, QA Supervisor G. Campbell, Outage Director
- Denotes those present at Exit Interview 2.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable
- items, items of noncompliance, or deviations.
One unresolved
- item, concerning welds on the fire protection system, has been identified on this inspection and is numbered Unresolved Item 77-7/II-1.
The inspector reviewed selected corrective action reports prepared between January and May 1977 for consistency with the administra-tive requirements of BFA-29, Corrective Action.
The inspector identified six corrective action reports which had been issued to
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-259/77-7, 50-260/77-7 and 50-296/77-7 II-2 identify discrepancies in fire protection system welding activities.
The following open corrective action reports were reviewed:
Re ort No.
Date 77-3 77-4 77-5 77-6 77-10 77-12 1/21/77 1/21/77 2/4/77 3/2/77 4/5/77 4/22/77 Identified discrepancies included items such as welder qualifications, rejected welds, improper purge, and cleanliness requirements not met.
The inspector discussed the identified welding discrepancies with the licensee.
TVA stated that the fire protective system welding has had extensive QA coverage.
The inspector noted that the corrective action reports have not been closed and that the NRC desired to review the licensee's resolution to these reports.
Since the NRC will conduct further inspection of the licensee's welding and QA program concerning the fire protection system, the fire protection system welds is designated as an unresolved item.
3.
Exit Interview See Details I of this report.
4.
Main Batter Installation The Browns Ferry main battery installation was inspected (in response to an Inspection and Enforcement Headquarters request) to obtain data necessary to support the developement of Regulatory Guide 1.128, Installation Design and Installation of Large Lead Storage Batteries for Nuclear Power Plants.
The inspector obtained information concerning the battery statistics, ventilation of the battery room area, battery room sizing, and reviewed the licensee's procedures for battery surveillance activities.
The following items are noted:
No method exists for the monitoring of hydrogen generation that may occur during battery operations.
(Note, no regula-tory requirement or licensee commitment exists concerning hydrogen monitoring).
\\
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-259/77-7, 50-260/77-7 and 50-296/77-7 II-3 As part of the Browns Ferry Fire Restoration
- program, smoke detectors are to be installed in the battery rooms.
Within the areas inspected no discrepancies were identified.
5.
Review of erational A Pro ram The inspector reviewed the Browns Ferry Operational QA program to determine that the on-going program was current and consistent with the Technical Specifications, regulatory requirements, and Section D.4 of the FSAR.
The inspector reviewed selected Operational Quality Assurance Manual (OQAM) changes, examined implementing procedures, and inspected records (such as corrective action reports, surveillance
- records, and section instruction letters) to verify implementation of the QA program.
(1)
OQAM Part II, Section 7.1, Special Nuclear Material (SNM)
Safeguards and Accountability, was revised 4/22/77; and OQAM Part II Section
- 7. 2, Onsite Fuel Handling, Inspection, Storage and Shipment, was revised 4/29/77.
Implementing procedures (including TI-14, SNM Control and Accountability; GOI 100-2, New Fuel Handling; and GOI 100-3, Fuel Handling) have not been revised since the issue of the applicable OQAM revisions.
The licensee stated that the review of implementing procedures was in progress and revisions would be made as necessary.
(2)
OQAM Part II, Section 4.6, Special Tests and Experiments, was revised on 8/3/76.
BFS-22, Special Tests and Experiments, was revised 11/19/76 and implements the OQAM requirements with two exceptions:
BFS-22 is silent concerning submission of proposed tests and experiments that meet 10 CFR 50.59 criteria to the NRC.
BFS-22 is silent concerning reporting tests and experiments accomplished without prior Commission
- approval, as required by 10 CFR 50.59.
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-259/77-7, 50-260/77-7 and 50-296/77-7 The licensee stated that DPM procedures provided adequate assurance that OQAM and 10 CFR 50.59 requirement in this area would be met.
Browns Ferry does not intend to revise BFS-22.
(3)
OQAM Part III, Section 3.1, Measuring and Test Equipment, was revised 6/21/76.
BFS-17, Control of Measuring and Test Equipment, was revised 12/16/76 and implements the OQAM requirements.
(4)
OQAM Part II, Section 3.2, Plant Modifications After Licensing, was revised on 8/13/76 and again on 10/21/76.
BFA-28, Plant Modifications and Work Plans, was revised 10/5/76 and is consistent with both revisions to the OQAM.
(5)
OQAM Part II, Section 2.1, Plant Maintenance and Repair was revised 1/21/77.
BFM-1, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Maintenance Program is currently undergoing review and revision to incorporate OQAM requirements.
(6)
OQAM Part II, Section 1.4, Evaluation of Changes in Core Components was issued 8/16/76 and OQAM Part II, Section 3.2A, Core Component Design Change After Licensing was revised 4/20/77.
Browns Ferry has not issued implement-ing procedures.
(No core component changes have been effected since the issue of. these OQAM Sections.)
(7)
OQAM Part III, Section 7.2, Corrective Action, was revised 1/21/77.
BFA-29, Corrective Action, was revised 5/24/77 and implements OQAM requirements.
(b)
Review of Corrective Action Re orts The inspector reviewed portions of the corrective action report file to determine the implementation of BFA-29 require-ments during the period between December 1976 and May 1977.
The use of the corrective action report system is consistent with BFA-29; however, the following comments were made by the inspector to the licensee:
(1)
Several corrective action reports (Nos. 76-50, 77-14, and 77-15) have been issued due to lost or missing executed surveillance instruction data sheets.
~
~
RIE Rpt. Nos. 50-259/77-7, 50-260/77-7 and 50-296/77-7 II-5 (2)
Inspector comments concerning fire protection system welding corrective action reports have been addressed in paragraph 2 of these Details.
(c)
Review of A Section Instruction Letters (SIL's The inspector reviewed three QA Section SIL's and the imple-mentation thereof.
SIL's reviewed were:
QA SIL 7.2, Internal Corrective Action Report QA SIL 3.2, Report to lfanagement QA SIL 5.1, Surveys Implementation was verified by review of various survey
- reports, reports to management, and internal corrective action reports (ICAR's) generated between December 1976 and hiay 1977.
Although no discrepancies were identified, the following inspector comments were discussed with the licensee:
(1)
Some items have remained open for several months, such as ICAR-25 issued 12/7/76 or CAR 77-1 issued 1/5/77.
(2)
Some surveys have required multiple followups prior to effecting resolution, such as QT-3-QAS-7?-22, issued 2/14/77 and MA-1A-QAS-77-13, issued 2/2/77.
At the time of this inspection, resolution of these surveys was not complete.
(3)
ICAR's are issued by the QA section and are governed by a QA section SIL.
Requirements for these other site organizations con-cerning processing or response to an ICAR are not specified.
The licensee acknowledged the inspector's comments without commitment.
The inspector stated that additional inspection of these items would be conducted.
t