ML18283B532
| ML18283B532 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 07/11/1977 |
| From: | Gilleland J Tennessee Valley Authority |
| To: | Moseley N NRC/RGN-II |
| References | |
| IR 1977006 | |
| Download: ML18283B532 (13) | |
Text
830 Power Building TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY CHATTANOOGA. TENNESSEE 3740't July ll, 1977 Mr. Norman C. Moseley, Director OfHce of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II Suite 1217 230 Peachtree Street, NW.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Dear Mr. Moseley:
F This is in response to P. J. Long's June 17, 1977, letter, RII:RFS 50-259/77-6, 50-260/77-6, 50-296/77<<6, which transmitted for our review an IE Inspection Report (same number). We have reviewed that report,and do not consider any part of it to be g J tery Very truly y urs, J, E. Gilleland Assistant Manager of Power An Equal Opportunity Employer
t I
<P,S AEVI UNITED STATES Cq NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OO REGION II C
230 PEACHTREE STREET, N.W. SUITE 1217 ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303
.'+**+ 17 1977 JUN In Reply Refer To:
RII:RFS 50-259/77-6 50-260/77-6 50-296/77-6 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 May 10-13 and 18, 1977, of activities authorized by NRC Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52 and DPR-68 for the Browns Ferry facilities, and to the discussion of our findings held with Messrs. J. G. Dewease and F. A. Szczepanski at the conclusion of the inspection.
Areas examined during the inspection and our findings are discussed in the enclosed inspection report: Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examination 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 identified in the enclosed 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 enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room. If this report contains any information that you believe to be proprietary, it 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 submitted, it must fully identify the bases for which information is
Tennessee Valley Authority 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 enclosed 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
Enclosure:
1, as stated cc: H. J. Green, Plant Supt.
Box 2000 Decatur, Ala. 35602
~
',AS REQIy, UNITED STATES (4
0 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e>
REGION II 230 PEACHTREE STREET, N.W. SUITE 1217
- @ ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303
++*++
RePort Nose I 50-259/77-6, 50-260/77-6, 50-296/77-6 Docket Nos.: 50-259, 50-260, 50-296 License Nos.: DPR-33, DPR-52, DPR-68 Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority 830 Power Building Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401
~
Facility Name: Browns Ferry Units 1, 2 and 3 Inspection at: Browns Ferry Site (5/10-13), Chattanooga Office Building (5/18)
Inspection conducted: May 10-13 and 18, 1977 Inspector-In-Charge: R. F. Sullivan Accompanying Personnel: H. C. Dance (5/18)
Reviewed by: 8 ~ C4~
H. C. Dance, Chief 4/~ 77 Date Reactor Projects Section No. 1 Ins ection Summar Ins ection on Ma 10-13 and 18 1977 Re ort No. 50-259/77-6 50-260/77-6 and 50-296/77-6 Areas Ins ected: Routine unannounced inspection of general employee training, licensed operator requalification training, reportable occurrences, noncompliance followup, Nuclear Safety Review Board activities and recent organization changes. The inspection involved 37 NRC inspection man-hours.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were disclosed.
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-259/77-6,
.50-260/77-6 and 50-296/77-6 DETAILS Prepared by: ~J< 6/IL /~7 R. F. Sullivan Date Reactor Inspector dred Dates of Inspection: May 10-13 and 18, 1977 Reviewed by: C H. C. Dance, Chief ate Reactor Projects Section No. 1
- 1. Persons Contacted Browns Ferr Site 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. D. Glover, Shift Engineer, Training T. G. Campbell, DPP Outage Director E. Gibbs, Outage Electrical Engineer J. L. Harness, Health Physics Supervisor W. C. Thomison, Chemical Engineer R. S. Perry, QA Engineer
- R. Cole, QA Site Representative, Office of Power Chattanoo a Office
- F. A. Szczepanski, Chairman, Nuclear Safety Review Board
- H. S. Collins, Executive Secretary, NSRB
- B. F. Roberts, Staff Assistant, NSRB
- Denotes those present at the Exit Interview.
- 2. Licensee Action on Previous Ins ection Findin s a~ Noncom liance (Closed) Noncompliance (259/76-24; 260/76-24; 296/76-22):
Cable tray identification did not conform to requirements.
The inspector verified that items reported by RII were corrected.
In addition, Outage QA personnel made a complete survey of the facility and located other identification errors which were corrected. Work Plan 5798 and Corrective Action Report 76-46
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-259/77-6, 50-260/77-6 and 50-296/77-6 showed that all work was verified completed by gA on March 8, 1977. The inspector also selectively verified that certain changes and additions were made while on a tour of all three reactor buildings.
(Closed) Noncompliance (259/77-1; 260/77-1; 296/77-1): Personnel did not respond to radiation alarm, nor follow procedure, nor properly log information when a RHR heat exchanger leak resulted in an unplanned release of radioactive water. The inspector verified by review of completed work plans that lock nuts had been installed on the inner-head stud-bolts of all RHR heat exchanger in all three units. The process radiation monitor annunciator panel in the control rooms had been modified to display a magenta color when in alarmed conditions. An Engineering Change Notice has been issued to install additional radiation monitors in the heat exchanger discharge lines in locations out of high radiation background areas. Licensed personnel have all receiv'ed additional training on response to alarms and logging of information. The inspector also verified that certain procedure changes had been effected.
- b. Unresolved Items (Closed) Unresolved Item (259/76-24; 260/76-24): Travelling Incore Probe (TIP) modifications not complete. The inspector verified through discussion and records examination that work had been completed and that test, measurements were in conformance with test criteria as modified. Also the error in the master drawing had been corrected on January 3, 1977.
- 3. 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 disclosed during the inspection is discussed in paragraph 7 of this report.
- 4. Exit Interview The inspector met with TVA representatives denoted in Paragraph 1 at the conclusion of the on-site inspection on May 13, 1977, to summarize the scope and findings of the inspection.
The inspector and his supervisor met with members of the NSRB staff at Chattanooga on May 18, 1977, to summarize our inspection findings of the NSRB's activities. Considerable discussions relative to
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-259/77-6, 50-260/77-6 and 50-296/77-6 individual review vs group or collective review on non-controversial items took place in an attempt to define acceptability of this practice. The Chairman was informed by the inspectors that this matter would be considered an unresolved item at this time.
- 5. ~Tzain1n A review of the training program for all plant personnel including both permanent and temporary employees was made to ascertain con-formance to Technical Specifications and other regulatory requirements.
The general employee training program is described in Standard Practice BFA-17 and the training program for operators is covered in BFA-75.
- a. General Em lo ee Trainin The training program as outlined in BFA-17 was restructured in September 1976 which coincided with restart of Units 1 and 2 following completion of fire recovery activities and the initial startup of Unit 3. There is a total of 31 separate courses in the program and required attendance is specified depending on an individual job assignment and the content of each course. Twenty six of the courses are designed to be presented on a repetitive basis to provide required retraining at a frequency no greater than 2 years.
Responsibility for scheduling courses and maintaining records of attendance is assigned to the plant Quality Assurance Section. The restructured program has been implemented and was progressing according to the master schedule as shown through examination of training records. The schedule indicates that by the end of calendar year 1977 each of the listed courses will have been presented at least once.
The inspector reviewed the individual training records of about 30 employees selected from various gob categories. The training requirements for each was specified and dates of courses attended had been entered on the individual's records.
In addition QA maintained a master attendance list for each course offered in order to schedule make-up classes as required.
The inspector also had informal discussions with four different employees concerning the nature and extent of their participation in the training program.
The inspector did not identify any deficiencies in the general employee training program.
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-259/77-6, 50-260/77-6 and 50-296/77-6
- b. erator Trainin Pro ram The operator training program including the requalification training for licensed operators 'is described in Standard Practice BFA 75 with assigned responsibility for general program supervision under the Plant Operations Section. The established program has undergone no significant changes in the past year.
A special retraining program was developed and participated in by all licensed operators in mid 1976 prior to restart of Units 1 and 2 from the extended fire recovery shutdown. This special program which was in addition to the regular scheduled retraining program, had been reviewed and approved by NRC.
For the year 1977, two-thirds of the 96 hour0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> scheduled classroom retraining had been completed. The inspector reviewed training recoids which included attendance, evaluations of job performance, written examinations and results, lesson plans and documentation of control manipulations required for license renewals. The inspector also had informal discussions with 3 licensed personnel relative to their participation in the retraining effort.
Another important addition to the operator training program is the newly constructed TVA training center near Chattanooga which houses a BWR simulator patterned after the Browns Ferry reactors. All licensed personnel are scheduled for one week instruction at the simulator before year end.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
- 6. Review of Re ortable Occurrences The inspector reviewed at the site licensee action with respect to the below listed reportable occurrence reports to verify that Technical Specifications requirements were met and that corrective action was taken. The review included examination of records relating to the internal reporting, reviewing and the corrective action determinations. The inspector also had discussions with selected personnel including the QA engineer assigned followup responsibility.
BFRO-259/773, Liquid release from RHR heat exchanger BFRO-259/775, Condenser vacuum switches trip point drift
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-259/77-6, 50-260/77-6 and 50-296/77-6 BFRO-259/779, Shutdown board normal feeder breaker trip failure BFRO-259/7712, Oxygen sensor calibrated with improper gas mixture BFRO-260/776, Recirculation MG set fluid coupling failure BFRO-260/778, TIP tube connector failure BFRO-296/772, Two HPCI restraints inoperative The inspector also reviewed in-office the below listed reports to determine if reporting requirements were being met and if appropriate corrective action was taken.
BFRO-259/774, False alarm from smoke detector BFRO-259/776, Two heat detectors found inoperative BFRO-259/777, Core spray-RHR interlock switch exceeded setpoint BFRO-259/778, CPR exceeded limit for less than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> BFRO-259/7710, Smoke detector false alarm BFRO-259/7711, FCV 75-52 would not close completely BFRO-260/772, CPR exceeded limit for less than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> BFRO-260/773, CPR exceeded limit for less than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> BFRO-260/774, Two heat detectors were found inoperative BFRO-260/775, Drywell oxygen sensor became incperative BFRO-260/777, CPR exceeded limit for le'ss than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> BFR-296/771, SLC system pump relief valve opened at low pressure BFRo-296/773, Reactor low level switch inoperative BFRO-296/774, CMFLPD exceeded limit for less than 2 hours BFRO-296/775, RPS MG sets failed to trip on test BFRO-296/776, Drywell high pressure switch set point error.
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-259/77-6, 50-260/77-6 and 50-296/77-6 The inspector had no further questions upon completion of his review of the above reports. The inspector noted that the licensee had identified and taken corrective action for two items which were in variance with Technical Specifications.
- 7. Nuclear Safet Review Board Activities The inspectors met with the Chairman of the Nuclear Safety Review Board (NSRB) and members of his staff at their offices in Chattanooga on May 18, 1977, to review the past years activities of the Board.
A portion of this review had been performed in a recent inspection (IE Report 50-259/77-5) at the Browns Ferry site. In addition to discussions with the above personnel, the minutes of meetings and internal records of the NSRB were examined.
Since January 1976 there have been regular meetings conducted on the dates March 18-19, 1976, December 7-8, 1976 and February 1-2, 1977, with a quorum in attendance. During the same period there was a total of 19 special meetings. All special meetings were by telephone conference calls with a quorum recorded in each instance.
For special meetings the practice has been to limit the agenda to a few items of a nature that requires rather prompt action by the Board. In most cases material on the agenda items was mailed to the members prior to the telephone conference.
Most significant matters which came before the Board were handled with a quorum in attendance; however, there were some items reviewed by the Board which were reviewed individually but did not reach the agenda for group or collective discussion. For example some Reportable Occurrences, proposed Technical Specification changes and noncompliance items identified by RII received this type of review. According to the Chairman, some items may not reach the agenda for group discussion, if no individual member raised a question or requested group dis-cussion. The inspectors did not identify any examples which con-tradicted this position. The inspectors did question whether separate individual member review without subsequent collective discussion satisfied the review requirement of the NSRB and informed the Chairman that this would be considered an unresolved item at this time.
- 8. Or anization Chan es TVA announced that Mr. J. R. Calhoun was being promoted to a new position, Assistant Director Power Production and that his replacement as Chief, Nuclear Generation Branch would be Mr. H. J. Green.
Mr. Green's appointment was effective May 8, 1977, although he will
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-259/77-6, 50-260/77-6 and 50-296/77-6 continue as the Browns Ferry Plant Superintendent until the selection of his replacement is completed.
Mr. H. L. Abercrombie was assigned to Browns Ferry effective April 4, 1977, as an Assistant Plant Superintendent. Mr. Abercrombie's previous assignment had been Operations Supervisor at the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant.