ML18283B613

Responding to Letter of 8/2 & 8/3/1976, Referring to IE Inspection Reports for 50-259/76-15 & 76-16, 50-260/76-15 & 76-16, 50-296/76-12, Letter Advising No Proprietary Information Is Contained

ML18283B613
Person / Time
Site:	Browns Ferry
Issue date:	08/05/1976
From:	Gilleland J Tennessee Valley Authority
To:	Moseley N NRC/RGN-II
References
IR 1976012, IR 1976015, IR 1976016
Download: ML18283B613 (13)

Text

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY CtfhTTI 400~iA 'tE4'iEssEC 374Cl

~If ~ !4I>(ty~ f>r..t ~...~>>

August 5, 1976

.'".r, !'orman C. ?Ioseley, f)irector Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. lluclear Ret;ulatory Commission Rct.ion II Suite 818 230 Peacbtree Street, R'.

Atlanta Geor ia 30303 gear Hr. Moseley:

this is in response to your August 3, 1976, letter, I),:Il:BJC 50-759/76-16, 50>>260/76-16,Irt5%I-296/76-12, Inspection Report which transmitted for our rcvieii an (same nurnbcrj; and to F. J. i.on('s August 2, 197I'i, letter,

'l:-::II:RPS 50-259/76-15, 50-250/76-15, vhicn"transmitted (same nur,".ber).

for our reviev an IE Inspection Rcport not consider any Ne have revieved !.hose reports and do part of them to be proprietary.

Very truly ygo ~s, p~

I

. Z, Gilleland Assistant Manager of j Power

~

L'g8 IIE00 c< Cg UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Ck ~$ 4<gg... ": REGION II 230 PEACHTREE STREET, N. W. SUITE SI 8 ATLANTA,GEORGIA '0303

+ 4*4'+ AUG 3 3976 In Reply Refer To:

IE:II:BJC 50-259/76-16 50-260/76-16 50-296/76-12 Tennessee Valley Authoxity ATTN:. Mr. Godwin Williams, Jr.

Manager of Power 830 Power Building Chattanooga, .Tennessee .37401 Gentlemen:

This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. B. J. 'Cochran of this office on June 19, 1976, of activities authorized by NRC Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52 and Construction Permit No. CPPR-48 for the Browns Fexry Units 1, 2 and '3 facilities, and to the discussion of our findings held with Mr. J. G.. Dewease at, the conclusion of the inspection.

Areas examined during this inspection and our findings are discussed .in the enclosed inspection report. Within these axeas, the insepction consisted of interviews with personnel and. observations by the inspector.

During the inspection, it was found that certain activities under your licenses were found to deviate from, commitments made to the NRC. These items and references to pertinent, commitments are listed in Section I of the Summary o'f the enclosed report. You are .requested to reply within 20 days of your receipt of this notice with a wxitten statement describ-ing your actions to avoid these deviations from NRC requirements.

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 Docu-ment 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'dentified, a written statement to that effect should be 'submitted. Xf an application is 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 wi'thheld is incorporated in. a separate paper

Qi AUG 3 1976 Tennessee Valley Authority and referenced in the application since the application will be placed'n 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, MCCc.'~

Norman C. Moseley Director

Enclosure:

IE Inspection Report,Nos.

50-259/76-16, 50-260/76-16 and 50-296/76-12

i

~ )

ii

AE00 (4gP,8 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

': 8Q REGION II 230 PEAGHTRED STREET, N. W. SUITE 818 ATLANTA,GEORGIA "30303

~O

+W*k+

IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-259/76-16, 50-260/76-16 and 50-296/76-12 Licensee: Tennessee -Valley Authority 830 Power Building Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401 Facility Name: Browns Ferry Units 1, 2, and 3 Docket Nos.: 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296 License Nos.: DPR-33, DPR-52, and CPPR-48 Categories: C, C, and A3 Location: Limestone County, Alabama Type of License: GE, 1098 Mwe, BWR Type of Inspection: Announced, Installation of Electrical Cables Dates of Inspection: June 19, 1976 Dates of Previous Inspection: June 16-25, 1976 (Units 1 and 2)

June 2-3, 1976. (Unit 3)

Inspector-in-Charge: B. J. Cochran, Reactor Inspector Projects, Section

~

..'eactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch Accompanying Inspector: None Other Accompanying Personnel: None Principal Insp'ector: ./

B. Coch n, Reac r I spector P sects Section Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch Reviewed By:

J. C. a t, Ch f Date Proje s Section Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch

IE Rp t. Nos. 50-259/76-16, 50-260/76-16 and 50-296/76-12

SUMMARY

OF FINDINGS I. Enforcement Items Deviations In its acknowledgement of Notice of Violation, dated September 2, 1975, J. E. Gilleland to,N. C. Noseley, Appendix B, "Areas of

~

Concern," Item No. 8, TVA stated, in part, ". . ., in answering this question (Question 7.5 of Hay 22, 1971), we included a statement that cable trays carrying control and signal cables are loaded to a maximum of 60 percent of the cross-sectional area of the. tray. This answer applied to the safety related cables referenced in the question.

percent guideline figure, which is the ratio of the cross-

'The 60 sectional area of the cable to the cross-sectional area of the tray, was obtained from past experience wherein it had been determined, that a cable tray should be approximately level full at this point.

Physical space fox cables was the primary consideration because the weight limitation and electrical current considerations contained ample margin for filling to the worse case. If the cable tray became full before the 60 percent guideline was reached because of cable configuration in the tray, no additional cables were xouted in that tray".

The inspector found that contrary to the above comment, there are trays filled above level full in Units 1 and. 2 at elevations 565 and 593. (Details I, paragraph 3)

II. Licensee Action on Previousl Identified Enforcement Matters 76-ll-Al Im ro er Neldin Procedures (Unit 1)

Contrary to procedural requirements to prevent use of the wrong welding procedure, records indicate that welding of aluminum piping was done using a procedure for welding stainless steel piping rather than aluminum. This item remains open.

III'. New Unresolved Items None IV. Status of Previousl Re orted Unresolved Items None

IE'pt. Nos. 50-259/76-16, 50-260/76-16 and 50-296/76-12 None VI. Unusual Occurrence None VII. Ot'her Si nificant Findin s None VIII., Mana ement Interview At the, conclusion of this inspection, the inspector met with Mr. J. G. Dewease and advised him that there were several areas in each unit found to be in violation to the commitment made in licensee's letter of September 2, 1975, regarding the limiting of cable tray fill to the top of the tray rail.

IE Rpt. Nos. 50-259/76-16, 50-260/76-16 and 50-296/76-12 I-1 DETAILS I Prepared by: ~ ~P/--k-~~~ ) J~il Cochran, Reactor Inspector Date

..r'~J.

/Proj ects Section

'Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch Dates of Inspection: June 19, 1976 Reviewed by: '~i. +i'Lic~~;~.

J.yC; Bry'ant,'hief Date Projects Section Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch All information in Details I applies equally to Units 1, 2 and 3 except where identified with a specific reactor.,

'l. Individuals Contacted Tennessee Valle Authorit (TVA)

H. J. Green Browns Ferry Plant Superintendent J. G. Dewease Browns Ferry Plant Assistant Superintendent C. Sudduth - Supervisor, Electrical Design Engineering D. Boone Electrical Design Engineer D. Deford Supervisor Design QA B. Bradley Design QA Engineer

2. General This inspection was performed to inspect against commitments made by the licensee regarding cable tray fill limitations. These commitments are contained in the licensee's response to Question 7.5 dated May 22, 1971, as modified in the licensee's letter dated September 2, 1975, responding to a letter dated July 28, 1975, from N. C. Moseley, Director, Region II to Mr. J. E. Watson, Manager of Power, TVA. The original commitment limited the tray to a maximum of 60% fill as determined by the cross sectional area of the cables installed in the trays. In the letter dated September 2, 1975, the licensee modified the trays axe level full.

fill criter'ia to be the point at which the Each unit was inspected by elevation from elevation 565 to 639.

The inspector confirmed that there were no cable trays located below elevation 565 by inspection of design drawings plus visual inspection of the pump room at elevation 540.

t ~

Ol il

<0

IE Rpt. Nos. 50-259/76-16, 50-260/76-16 and 50-296/76-12 I-2 The inspection revealed several areas where cable was installed to a height above the side rails of the cable tray. The majority of cases where the tray was filled above the tray rail was at transi-tion areas where the tray. changed horizontal or vertical direction or where cables entered or left. the tray to,go to cabinets or penetrations.

An accurate determination of cable tray flamemastic. In, some areas it fillwas restricted by the was not possible to differentiate

.the cable from flamemastic.

In some cases, particularly in the cable tray elbows or Tee sections, cable was found to .be heaped above the edge of the rails on the inside diameter of the curve while the back side of the tray remained relatively empty.

In some areas the trays were covered with stalactite type formations of flamemastic making it difficult,to tell the flamemastic from cables running from tray to tray.

3. Tra Identification Representative areas where the cables were stacked above the level of the tray rails and where it was'uestionable whether the tray fill criteria of 60 percent cross sectional area was exceeded are identified accordingly in the following li'sting:

a~ Unit 1 At Elevation 565 Tray KOESI, located, along the north wall of the reactor building.

Tray MAZESI, located along the west wall of the reactor building near a horizontal penetration and'ive 2-inch conduits emptying into the tray.

Tray KEESI, in same area as above.

Along the east wall of the reactor building above the control rod drive hydraulic modules, sections of trays are fitted with side covers covering the vertical area between two trays making it impossible to determine the extent of-fill in the lower tray.

Tray MESII above the RHR Heat Exchanger.

Tray, FOESII, MEESII, and TLII near column R5.

~ ~

~ ~I IE Rp t. Nos. 50-259/76-16, 50-260/76-16 and 50-296/76-12 I-3 At Elevation 593 In the fire area,, cables are run over the side rails to splice boxes and transfer from one tray to another at the penetxations. Cables in trays, IKESII, KT, FX and HEESII were found to be above the tray railing.

No areas of concern were identified at elevations 621 and 639.

b. Unit 2 At Elevation.565 Cable, buildup was identified in trays LGESI and 'KIQfESI at elbows and where the trays changed elevations.

At Elevation 593 Cable tray KJC along the north wall.

The penetxations and related cable trays were not accessible for inspection;, therefoxe, no findings were made in this area.

No areas of concern were identified at elevations 621 and 639.

"C ~ Unit 3 Elevations 565, 593, 621 and 639 were inspected but no areas of concern were identified. The penetxations and related trays were not accessible for inspection.

d. Cable S readin Rooms

.Units 1 and 2 cable spreading rooms were inspected.

Trays were fitted with metal .covers at the .penetration areas. Overfill was readily apparent because the covers were bent to cover the mounded cables.

As a general rule all the txays at the penetrations were filled above the level of the side rails.

Cable tray SD running, parallel to,'the south wall of the cable spreading room was the only tray that was filled above the side rails for the length of the cable spreading room.

IE Rpt. Nos. 50-259/76-16,

.50-260/76-16 and 50-296/76-12, 1-4 Unit 3 cable spreading room was not inspected because craftsmen were in the room spraying the trays with flamemastic.

The deviations from the licensee's "acceptance criteria were identi-fied 'to the licensee's management.