ML20203J822
Text
qpr.
TENNETEE VALLEY AUTHORITY CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE 3 7 4 0'I February 25, 1974
$NSEeE Mr. Norman C. Moseley, Director pAATNensrup Directorate of Regulatory Operations U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Region II - Suite 618 230 Peachtree Street, NW.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Dear Mr. Moseley:
This is in response to your February 1, 1974, letter, RO:II:WSL 50-259/74-1, which stated that certain activities under AEC Operating License No. DPR-33 appear to have been in violation of AEC requirements.
Specific citations and our responses follow:
1.A.l.b.
Contrary to the requirements of the Techni-cal Specifications, Table 3.2.B, TVA operated the reactor with less than the required num-ber of operable core spray pipe break detec-tion systems.
On November 30, 1973, when it was first recognized that an alarm i
would not be received should a break or leak occur in a core spray line between the reactor vessel and core shroud, daily instrument checks and periodic pressure measurements were estab-lished to confirm the integrity of the core spray piping while a plant modification was processed. An abnormal occurrence report was filed with the AEC Directorate of Regulatory Operations.
The circumstances were reviewed by the Plant Operations Review Committee; and that committee's report was transmitted to AEC on December 10, 1973. The circumstances of the occurrence j
and the corrective action being implemented were also reviewed with the AEC inspector during his site inspection on January 8-11, 1974.
Subsequent actions were as described in RO:II:WSL 50-259/74-1.
The violation has been reviewed by the Plant Operations Review i
Committee, the Safety Review Board, and other members of the TVA management to ensure that all are aware of the requirements so that a future occurrence of this nature can be avoided.
On January 18, 1974, we requested, J. E. Gilleland to Voss A.
Moore, authorization to change instrumentation and technical j
specifications.
The proposed changes were found to be satis-factory and they were authorized on January 18, Voss A. Moore to J. E. Watson.
8604300257 860317 PDR FOIA MORROW 85-782 PDR pv
Y
,o Mr. Norman C. Mose)ey February 25, 1974 1.A.l.c.
Contrary to the requirements of Section 2.2.1 of the Environmental Technical Specifications the maximum total chlorine residual limit was exceeded in the sani-tary wastes.
l.A.1.d.
Contrary to the requirements of Section 5.4 of the Environmental Technical Spec-ifications the previous chlorine limit violation was not reported.
The existing chlorine feed system is an interim system which cannot be regulated for varying waste effluent flow. A new chlorine feed system based on flow control is expected to be operational by May 1.
This system should preclude overfeeding chlorine into the waste effluent.
Procedures and analyses for determining residual chlorine were re-viewed and found adequate. The log sheet used for recording chlorine residual is also used for recording other parameters pertinent to proper operation of the sewage treatment plant. During the review of the data, *he increase in chlorine residual to a value of one-tenth part per million above the license limit was overlooked. We have subsequently reviewed all data taken since last August and have found no other instance of exceeding a limit.
In December 1973, directions were added to the log form requiring notification of the Chemical Section if a limit is exceeded. The log sheet is now being reviewed again and a change will highlight the column for recording chlorine to emphasize its license significance. On January 22, 1974, AEC authorized a change in the environmental technical specification whereby the maximum limit on total chlorine residual was increased from 3 to 5 mg/1.
l.A.2.a.
Contrary to the requirements of Section 4.1.1 of the Environmental Technical Spec-ifications the required water quality data were not recorded at the Tennessee River Mile Station 293.70.
Tne requirement for recording water quality data in addition to dissolved oxygen and temperature at Tennessee River mile 293.7 was due to an error in Section 4.1.1 of the Environmental Technical Specifications.
This error was pointed out to AEC and on November 28, 1973, TVA formally requested a change to Section 4.1.1 of the Environmental Technical Specifications which was authorized by AEC on January.22, 1974.
~
. Mr. Norman C. Moseley February 25, 1974 1.A.2.b.
Contrary to Section 5.7 of the Environmen-tal Technical Specifications the records for the daily monitoring of chemical param-eters for October 1973 were not retrievable for review.
The October 1973 sewage treatment plant log sheet was misplaced during routing from the sewage treatment plant operators to the chemical employees. Since the January AEC-DRO inspection, the log sheet is not routed but picked up at the end of the month by chemical employees. A statement has been added to the log sheet noting that it is a permanent plant record.
We have reviewed RO Inspection Report Nos. 50-259/74-1 and 50-260/74-1 and find no proprietary material in these reports.
Very truly yours,
'c JLN b L, v J. E. Gilleland Assistant to the Manager of Power 1
4 o
~
Fora II-1 (11/72)
Inspection Report Dist r ibutie., riesnm.tieu NM, 19 7ts M N Peport :io.fA.269, /Y;/
I.icensee A
Dispatch of Report (S t a n da rr' Distribution gaj I;o) 1.
Enforce ent resnonce ca.se (Forn II-2) 2.
I:o enforeccent response case (rot.a II-3) 3.
RO:EQ for /.ction casa (Fore. 11-4)
Initial 1: ailing of Letter (Standard Dictribution Y 's tio) 1.
Enforcement response case 6
(Form II-2) 2.
h*o enforccaant response case (Fora II-3)
Licensac Response to *aforecacat (Standard Distribution Yes Mo,)
d 1.
..c c e p t ab.'. e (Forn IT-2 2.
I:o t,,cce; ti,hle
(
_ Fa rn II-2)
A Liccar.ca Re: pone to PNoricturf Info:22 tion i
p 1.
1:one dec:iganted (Forn 11-13) 2.
Desi ;n:t ed
( Fo rn II-12) t n.
Accepted by Rer; ion b.
Rej ected by Ret;1on (1) IIQ accepts Regional posit, ion (2) !!Q disagrec.: with Region.;positica Distribution other then standard distribution (state why)
Is this care in hearini; notice sta32'?" Yes
!!o 1
/
6