ML20063J851
| ML20063J851 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 07/16/1982 |
| From: | Kammer D TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20063J762 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8209020545 | |
| Download: ML20063J851 (3) | |
Text
f,..'., '
e l
' ~
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY cH ATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE 37401 ypg pp
.Ni,400 Chestnut Street Tower II 12,nn 9a ^8 10 July 16, 1982 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II ATTN: James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
Enclosed is our response to R. C. Lewis' June 16, 1982 letter to H. G. Parris transmitting Inspection Report Nos. 50-259/82-11,
-260/82-11, -296/82-11 regarding activities at our Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant which appeared to have been in violation of NRC regulations. We have enclosed our response to Appendix A, Notice of Violation. If you have any questions, please call Jim Domer at FTS 858-2725.
To the best of my knowledge, I declare the statements contained herein are complete and true.
Very truly yours, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY pSb==
D. S. Kammer Nuclear Engineer Enclosure 8209020545 820816 An Equal Opportunity Employer PDR ADOCK 05000259 G
?
e a.
ENCLOSURE RESPONSE - NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS.
50-259/82-11, 50-260/82-11, AND 50-296/82-11 R. C. LEWIS' LETTER TO H. G. PARRIS DATED JUNE 16, 1982 APPENDIX A - (259/82-11-01) 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, as implemented by TVA Topical Report TR-75-1, paragraph 17.2.5, requires activities affecting quality to be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures or drawings of the type appropriate to the circumstances.
Contrary to the above, Drawing No. 47W406-1, a documented drawing prescribed for installation of the local leak rate test line on the Unit 1 Reactor Water Cleanup system, was inappropriate to operational circumstances in that it did not specify support for a two-foot horizontal segment of the test line on which there were mounted two 13 lb. valves. On March 20, 1982, the vent line fractured due to detrimental loading that occurred because of the lapk of a support.
This is a Severity Level V Violation (Supplement I).
Response
1.
Admission or Denial of the Alleged Violation TVA admits the violation occurred as stated.
2.
Reasons for the Violation if Admitted The test line and its associated manual isolation valves were inadequately supported which led to high-frequency fatigue and subsequent cracking of the line. During the inspection to locate the leak, it was noted that the vent connection had previously been provided with a vibrat.*.on support. Support requirements for this vent connection were not shown on TVA drawings. The support had apparently been removed at some time for maintenance or modification work.
Reinstallation had not been performed because vibration support requirements were not shown on design drawings.
3.
Corrective Steps Which Have Been Taken and Results Achieved Repairs were performed using a properly-approved and -administered design change request and engineering change notice.
An additional design change request has been initiated to provide detailed drawings and notes on mechanical vibration supports and vent, drain, and test connections for portions of main steam, reactor feedwater, reactor water cleanup, residual heat removal, high-p; tesure coolant injection, reactor core isolation cooling, core spray, rtactor drains, vents, and miscellaneous piping systems for units 1 and 2 similar to those provided for unit 3
v i
j
.l *,
e e.
r 4.
Corrective Steps Which Will Be Taken to Avoid Further Violations When drawings are issued, they will be'used in the performance of an3 future similar work.
5.
Date When Full Compliance Will Be Achieved The design change request will be factored into the overall integrated commitment schedule for implementation.
\\,
k e
i a
a i
}
n 9
s l.