ML20203K541
See also: IR 05000259/1973004
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:: } ' o, - . . . .,yg;lS?.. ~ .gy, acy . , yy .- f., g. . - - . - , . RO Inspection Report No. 50-259/73-4 Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority i 818 Power Building I l Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401 , i ! Facility Names Browns Ferry 1 l Docket No.: 50-259 .:,, l License No.: CPPR-29
- .
6 f Category: B1 A Location: Decatur, Alabama
! 4f, ,a. 1: l Type of License: 1098 Hve, BWR (G-E) . M
Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced . ~. - 3, ' Dates of Inspection: March 5-9, 1973 , , ,, Dates of Previous Inspection: February 20-22, 1973 ,y- ' i Principal Inspector: W. S. Little, Reactor Inspector f Facilities Test and Startup Branch %' , Accompanying Inspector: A. F. Gibson, Radiation Specialist Radiological and Environmental Protection Branch Other Accompanying Personnel: None OW 53s"d % l c5% APR 1 0 1973 - l Principal Inspector: , l W. S. Little, Reactor Inspector Date " l Facilities Test and Startup Branch APR 1 0 1973 l GsWI 5:sw by
- '
Reviewed By: c t moi,, - > ' C. E. Murphy, Acting Chief Date Facilities Test and Startup Branch , - , !
! , ! ' 8604300411 860317
PDR FOIA MORROW 85-780 PDR ,
- . . - . _ . - . ~ . - . . .-- - - - - -
- - _ - ' . , _ _ . _ _ _ _ -. . '. . ' i .s .. , .> + sm. s .x -.ws - n._s ,y y . 30 Ept. Es. 50-159/75-4 -2- ~ ';_.; l 1, - , ul'i. 'll i 6,Al - w . ,u% . . . N.5 M SIRGIMEMMINGS - v. . q ..; e q .e .- '& ~ n. ._ - , ;, . .x I. Enfereement Action .Wc , -:4 j A. Violations . n. v - 1 B. Safety Items [l ) None i e s t II. Licensee Action On Previously Idantified Fnforcement Items - E - ., ; .3 A. Violations - .Ok D,u . -j& 1. Debris Removal - Adequacy of Procedures and Record of Astian 3 W +Od*3 -Q (50-259/73-3)
- s%' ?Mr&W9)
i' - Awaiting TVA response to violation letter. (Details I, GM:. v, ;y"4 ' .- '.kM. , f.j[# paragraph 6) . . ~ ,Mg. 2. Failure to Report Design Deficiency (50-259/72-12) EC *g 2:2284 >- w
- Ls rgg g
' l Awaiting TVA response to violation letter. ~ .1 ' . . .y 4 . - 3. Main Steam Isolation Valves (Unit 1) _ ?? 5 . . %c m . - i t , s $ -(Nk Grinding and blending of the weld preparation area is complete. This item is resolved. (Detafle I, paragraph 2), 'T-' Q [j ! .-y, 4. Scope Of QA Program (AEC Letter to TVA dated May 4.1972 ' ( Enclosure Item 1) 2"~ .. . I Not inspected. .4* - %u III. New Unresolved Items ,J' ' ' ,g , 6 ' .% 73-4/1 Separation of Safety Chana=1s Q: , , / ., This item had previously been listed as a violation whieb " . 1,,- +Oc
g > was first identified in Esport No. 50-259/72-6. TVA ' ' l ' 'id made commitments to resolve this item in their letter $ dated February 13, 1973. Implementation of these ceumit- . ~ monts will be carried as an unres61ved item until verified ~ L; '.f..' .,vim ' .
- ' b/t
. .. . 6 .,i s*T f f 9, ( , s , . , . . -t. ?" > ,4 ' ' 5 5, I7 -Q .:,
i g. si n >,a.' ' ,NM. ,o _
- .3
, m , ,- . , ;.,% f
e
,. y .~ .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-____-. . . - - _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _-__ , _. . _ _ _ _ , J . ., , -3- j RO myt. No. 50-259/73-4 , . ,$ This area was not inspected during s 94 ure inspections. j . ~ J "2M. . inspection. '- . , 73-4/2 Walder Qualification This item was previously listed as a violation, first iden- tified in Report No. 50-259/72-9. TVA's coussitments in 23, 1973, appear to provide resolu- their letter of January Implementation will be verified in future inspections. tion. Provisions for Monitoring Turbine Building Roof Vents 73-4/3 f No provisions had been made for monitoring radioactive gases and particulates released from five of the nine , turbine building roof vents for each unit. (Details II, ' paragraph 3) 73-4/4 Maintainin Li uid Radweste Releases As Im As Pr Existing procedures do not require the evaluation practicability of reprocessing liquid westes befe (Details II, paragraph 14) e, m ,, . , , , 73-4/5 overloading Solid Radwaste Shipping Containers Existing procedures do not contain survey requirements or other provisions to preclude overloading. (Details II, , ' paragraph 19) f Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items IV. 73-3/1 Operational Quality Assurance Plan Tentative agreement on implementation of the Operational (Details I, Quality Assurance Manual (0QAM) was reached. paragraph 3) raency Operating Instruction (E01) - Relief and S,.[$#I)-3/2 -- I . M Ti
- Safety Valves
I ' , ' ' Resolved. (Details I, paragraph 5) - "" , 73-3/3 Potential C-E Pump Motor Problem i Resolved. No corrective actio'n required. (Details I, paragraph 4) 73-2/1 Bent Valve Seems ! l Not inspected. l !, , . _ . - - _ , . . . - - . J
_ _ _ .- ___ ) , - . ! R0 Rpt. No. 50-259/73-4 -4- ! . . vW , ,n , '1&sitorque Valve Operator Cear Failure m. , . _ . - - l ~ Mot inspected. ! 73-2/3 Emergency Operating Instructions No significant change in status of rework. 73-2/6 Sample Delivery Lines 1 TVA has agreed to removing the sharp bends and corrugated hoses from sample delivery lines and to evaluate sample losses in the main stack sample delivery line. They have not agreed to evaluate sample losses in the sample lines from ventilation exhausts. (Details II, paragraph 4) i ' 73-2/7 Differences In Sample and Source Diameters . . "g 2 Resolved. (Details II, paragraph 5) .pn - & .: . Valve Wall Thickness (AEC letter to TVA dated June 30'.' ? ng~ Not inspected. { Startup Test Program (50-259/72-2) . , 1 No change. i i l Electrical Cable Pulling Force - Unit 1 (50-259/72-2)_ Resolved. (Details I., paragraph 7) Control Rod Driva Piping (50-259/72-6) Telecon from TVA-DED subsequent to this inspection indi- l I cates that the control rod drive piping supports are not l designed to meet Class I requirements. V. Desima channes i A tank has been installed in the liquid radwaste system to collect effluent from Units 1, 2 and 3 spent fuel cask cleanup drains. Ef- fluent from the tank is to be pumped to the discharge canal via laundry drain filters and the process radiation monitor. No pro- visions have been made for mixing tank' contents, collecting samples prior to discharge or isolating the task from inlet flow. The task l is identified :Aa " Cask Decontamination Collector Tank" on TVA drawings but is not included in Browns Ferry FSJR radweste system drawings or l specifications. (Details II, paragraphs 6 and 15) i 'E . - . . - - - - - . - . . - . - - .-- -
- - , - - I l ~ t t . ., i 4 , RO Rpt. No. 50-259/73-4 -5- { J . i ( -,s. . , .. 4433ft j 3 q,i's ! VI'.'i i tenurrences o m ,.
. ,, i VII. Other Significant Findings A. Project Statut 1. Construction approximately 99% complete. J
- 2.
Licensee's fuel loading date - Jwse 1,1973. . )
- 3.
Licensee's commercial date - December 1, 1973. ' , g i 'e < 4. Approximately 50% of the preoperational tests have been 1 i completed with exceptions. ! [" l S. Preoperational test results for five procedures have received the final TVA review and approval. >r y . )@i- 3 ., .1
if j; I 6. Preoperational test procedure preparation and rework Ti ' is approximately 98% complete. r
- .
7. Startup test procedures - Seven approved procedures have ,I ~'l I been issued. 'I
- Dates revised on March 26, 1973.
?' M B. Procedure Status
., F - Operational procedure status has not changed significantly from /- i the previous inspection. ,j 1 C. Personnel or Organization Changes p I ! None o VIII. Management Interview , A. Persona present at the February 22, 1973, Management Interview 1. Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) [ Division of Design , , L. D. Weber - QA Coordinator . 91 ' s ! I 1 - - - - ---_------ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ .y __- _ . _
.n ' fu % q . ? . ' RO Ept. No. 50-259/73-4 -6- '; )$ . . 'y% Y Y!Coastruction Division (DEC)_ , m, . R. T. Bathcote - Project Manager M. M. Price - Construction Engineer B. A. Gant - Assistant Construction Engineer J. E. W11Hn= - Startup and Test Section Supervisor C. Hol: ass - Supervisor, Construction Engineering Section M. N. Sawyer - Assistant Startup and Test Section Supervisor E. Hilgeman - Construction Administration Division of Power Production (DPP) ' H. J. Green - Plant Superintendent R. G. Hetka - Results Supervisor q % Division of Power Rasource Planning (DPRP) , .A A. W. Crevasse - Operations QA Coordinator --). R. G. Soit - Co-op ,[ 7 g.et: "4 2. General Electric Company (G-E) ";'f % '
- .R
- -
J. E. Stice - Site Manager jj' R. E. Spencer - Operations Manager "Jp R. G. Knirck - Site Construction % ,0 = B. Main Steam Isolation Valves (Unit 1) % ' . The inspector stated that except for one place on the inboard , j "C" valve, the grinding to contour the valve preparation area - to meet USAS B16.5 requirements appeared to be complete. TVA stated that the "C" valve repair would be completed. The i inspector stated that he had no further questions and the - item is considered resolved. (Details I, paragraph 2) C. Electrical Cable Pulling Force (Unit 1) . The inspector stated that he understood that all critical } l cable installed using mechanical means had been removed and .q now cable will be installed using written, approved procedures y which require documentation that pulling stresses do not exeeed -i acceptable limits. TVA confirmed the inspector's understanding and this item is considered closed. (Details I, paragraph 7) -, .M - , D. Welder Requalification ? ? TVA stated that construction procedure BP-60 had been revised . I, ~ to clarify the method for calculating weld rejection rates. 5 P w 's --
__ . _ _ _ _ _ _ ,_ _ _ __ _ _ , kl .t I -- t p . -
i. !' RO Esport No. 50-259/73-4 -7- .?dlYhklT2"; Nd .M ??#$ j uJ'CdSe fleepeetor will followup on this during the next inspection. ' E. Potential G-E Pump Motor Problems TVA and G-E verified that this is not a problem on Browns ) Ferry pump motors. The inspector had no further questions and the item is considered closed. (Details I, paragraph 4) F. Testing of Seismic Instrumentation The inspector stated that he understood that DPP will write a procedure requiring periodic functional testing of seismic instrumentation during plant operation, and he asked wMt testing was being done to demonstrate that the inst".monta- tion was operational before startup. TVA asked et.at this
item rammin "open" to give them additional time to arrive { at a decision on this item. ,, j C. Operational Quality Assurance Plan . As. t + The inspector stated that he understood that the TVA Oposeg I
Quality Assurance Manual (0QAM) will be revised to specify .; ' those parts of the 0QAM which must be implemented at the , nuclear power plants. He also stated that he understood that , agreement had been reached with DPP to implement those sections
c,f Parts II and III of the OQAM for which implementing pro- cedures have not yet been writtes. TVA confirmed that the inspector's understandings are correct. (Details I, paragraph 3) H. Containment Isolation Valve 14ak Testing TVA stated that their position on valve leak rate testing methods and acceptance criteria will be discussed with ! Licensing in the next technical specification meeting. l f I. Sample Delivery Linna The inspector asked management if sharp bends and corrugated homes would be removed from main stack and ventilation d a=mt aseple delivery linee prior to Unit 1 core loading. In reply, management indicated that this would be done. The inspector pointed out that no cosumitment had been made to evolmate sample loses in ventilation exhaust sample delivery linaa. Management acknowledged this ites. (Details IP, ' paragraph 4) J. Difforences in Source and Sample Diameters g , The inspector stated that it was his understanding that the & TJ i --~,- .,- , , _ . , - - - - - - - . . . - - - . - - - _ . - - , , - - . , ---,---._--__n.-n._,. - - _ . ,,,
m _
' 1 . , ! l ! 10 Rpt. No. 50-259/73-4 -8- ! l Yhhb
- .
l had mathematically determined and ensfrically verified e),A
' of the difference in source and sample diameters on ' ~ ~ tha' Browns Ferry smear counter and that the licenses would ! actively pursue procurement of consnercially available sources I of the same diameter as the samples. Management stated that the inspector's understanding was correct. (Details II, para- ' graph 5) K. Cask Deconramination Collector Tank Management was informed that the cask decontamination collector tank which had been installed in the liquid radwasta system was not included in the Browns Ferry FSAR. Management agreed to look into this. Management was also informed tkat no means had been provided for = fring or sampling contents of t.his tank prior to discharge. Management st.ated that a DPP change request to pro- vide this capability had been submitted and approved and that , the modifications would be completed prior to use of thia (Details II, paragraph 6) 7,: - L. Health Physics Laboratory Hood I. [ ,, , Management was informed that flow rate requirements and instres- tions had been posted on counting room and radiochemistry lab hoods. Management acknowledged this information. (Details II, paragraph 7) M. Constant Air Monitors (CAM's) The inspector stated that he had been informed by a licensee representative that preoperational testing of CAM's was completed and that these instruments would be installed upon completion of sample line modifications. Management acknowledged this information. (Details II, paragraph 8) N. Drywell Radiation Monitor _ The inspector stated that he had been informed by a licensee _ representative that the drywell radiation monitor had been ,r "' gested and installed. Management acknowledged this item. (Details II, paragraph 8) O. Emergency Planning 1. The inspector stated that he had'been informed by licensee representatives that the Browns Ferry evacuation alarm had l n*O 2 s- )
N , _ y . ;. ., ., , s : , . , , m. y b l . . 7 , l
- n
R0 Ryt. No. 50-259/73-4 -9- m -4 - to , _ j '_ , - ' 'l A is * 7 9AN% , n. [ ' y tested and that the alaru would be used to $i %~ 'my ~the plant persanel during a drill to be conducted d i I ^" prior to Unit I core loading. Management acknowledged this id item. (Details II, paragraph 9.a)
- <
j & 2. The inspector stated that he had been informed by licensee i ! representatives that the nurses at Colonial Manor Bospital r i had been given additional training and a drill by TVA per- sonnel. Management acknowledged this item. (Details II, , paragraph 9.b) ' 3. The inspector stated that he had been informed by a licensee 4 ['$i. ' representative that placement of emergency equipment at T Colonial Manor Hospital was complete and that placement of emergency equipment at Browns Ferry would be complete in about 7M ,
two weeks. Management acknowledged this item. (Details II, M paragraph 9.c) j; , .an.g - P. Liquid Radwaste Control Responsibility 1 . .? ...& Management was informed that the apparent conflict between M M; Z Browns Ferry procedures and the understanding expressed by ,f f QO6 licensee supervision concerning responsibilities for control -$ of liquid waste discharges had apparently been resolved. % Management acknowledged this item. (Details II, paragraph 10) , ' . .i," Q. Laundry Tank Top Survey J Management was informed that a licensee representative had committed to ensuring that routine airborne radioactivity y . surveys are conducted in the vicinity of open laundry tank "d tops. Management acknowledged this item. (Details II, g paragraph 11) E.; ' R. Monitoring Normally Nooradioactive Effluents {i i , 3, . ig],j ' Managsment was informed that a licensee representative had com- uitted to evaluating the potential for radioactive conta=4== tion of all Browns Ferry liquid offluent streams, and to establish a fi$7 ' program for periodically surveying those systems having sufficient 4
potential. Management confirmed this commitment. (Details II, W Tr paragraph 12) - j.} >q S. Radiochemistry Training jf;. , U5 Management was informed that records had been reviewed which /% indicated that training of radiochemistry personnel was complate -{, ,
i 1 .e
! J -
.( _ -. $ - 3 y - . . j . 'J 4 10 Rpt. No. 50-259/73-4 -10- 4 P k M },y .. ., . , p. A 4;2 Y+l6* Weed abat licenses supervision had stated that this training , e r -+ ,,,,g,g , T. Maintai=i== Liquid Badweste Releases As Low As Practicable An inspector stated that review of licensee procedures and discussions with licensea representatives revealed that the licensee intended to release batches of processed liquid i vaste which met fixed concentration limits without evaluating -l co determine if additional processing was practicable. Manage- ,i ment stated that it would consider requiring such an evaluation. J' (Details II, paragraph 14) ,
l U. Isolation of Tanks to be Discharmed 31 ' l di ' Management was informed that liquid radweste system operating [%j i j instructions did not require isolation of wasta sample tanks, 1. q floor drain sample tanks or the cask decontamination collesties I tank to preclude effluent from being added to the tanks de % h ./ ~ shift operator had acknowledged this procedural deficiammy .] ] sagling and discharge. Management was also informed that aQ
- i:
- agreed to add the needed isolation requirements to operatingif ~ - instructions prior to Unit 1 core loading. Management agreed f. to follow up on this item. (Details II, paragraph 15) j Ql , ! l V. Survey of Hood Exhausts h lh ~ l
Management was informed that a licensee representative had J committed to performing routine smear surveys near the exhaust iy outlets from counting room and radiochemistry lab hoods, sinca j these exhausts were not continuously monitored. Management ' acknowledged this item. (Details II, paragraph 16) l
W. Isokinetic Nossles
i Management was informed tha* r lie'.nsee supervisor stated that nossles installed on samt 2 f 417 ty lines were not isokinetia 1 l and that these nossles woa.i. k r,placed with isokinetic nossles , prior to Unit 1 core loading. Msuagement confirmed this commitasst. % (Details II, paragraph 17) [m I. Iodine Sample Collection Efficiency Management was informed that licensee, representatives had stated .k that the collection efficiency of CISCO chemical cartridges to be , used for iodine sampling. had been determined by experiment using .p e . > [ , ,
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. . r . . . . . l 10 Ept. No. 50 259/73-4 -11- ,gt w-- ,i6 g ! b odina. The 1.nspector pointed out that, since some i -g Yaf'ghi, iodine in gaseous effluents will probably be chemically ' ' -- combined with other elements, the collection efficiency for elemental iodine might not be applicable. Management agreed to consider determining collection efficiency of CESCO cartridges by experiment using actual plant gaseous affluent. (Details II, paragraph 18) l Y. Provisions to Preclude Overloading Shipping Containers 1 ! Management was informed that operating instructions for the ! solid radweste system did not contain provisions to preclude overloading shipping containers. Management agreed to consider adding these provisions. (Details II, paragraph 19) Z. Cosments on Health Physics Procedures ,j i
! Hanagement was informed that the comments on health physias y,3 . l procedures which were made during the January health phyistes .pl, y g, inspection had been resolved. Management acknowledged shim;' ,s." item. (Details II, paragraph 20) Q:n _i r "i 1 ! AA. Areas Inspected In Which No Health Physics Deficiencies Were 1 - Apparent , ! - Management was informed that the following areas were inspected 7 . l
7 and no deficiencies were apparant: 1. Startup Test Instruction No. 2 titled " Radiation measurements" l 2. Radiochemistry facilities ! ! 3. Ability to detect anticipated radioactivity concentrations l 4. Provisions to terminate radwaste discharge 5. Calibration of radiation monitors, tank volumes and flows - 6. Operability of liquid radwaste facilities ! 7. Sample probe locations l 8. Plans for calibrating and verifying proper calibration ' of noble gas monitors . 9. Methods to show compliance with gaseous radwaste discharge ]j limits f a , . - _ . -- .. - . - - . - - -
, - - _ _ _ _ . . - --- m_-..=--- _ _ - - - - , -.
- *
l . RO Rpt. No. 50-239/73-4 -12- , Nf;.s - ltw ' e-im , y 7 , 3Sf Ideatiore of DOP injection and sampling points and system D ' testing requireaants 11. Specifications of moisture separators in standby gas treatment system 12. Provisions for draining HEPA filters in off-gas system 13. Charcoal and HEPA filter fire protection in off-gas and standby gas treatment systems 14. Method for determining snount of radioactivity in shipping containers 15. Emergency plans for civil disorders 16. Limits for release of waste . 17. CAM flow calibration , 18. Locations of HEPA filters and charcoal absorbers l 19. Method of estimating radioactivity concent of shippics containers. l l l l ) i
. I omec > .. .. R0 :II... .. . . RQ :.II... . . . . . . . . ..... -l $$/$' $$f > sumuc k ..WSLitt le4pv. .. .CEMurphyym........ .. . . . . . . . i ' ..l. . . . ..././.#/ 7 3 .. . . . . . .. . . . . . , , . . . .. 4 4//s /.73 mcw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . eso .43-to-sise-s us-a s Form AEC-St8 (Rev. 9 53) AECM 0240 . - - . - - . . .
. __ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ - , . _ _ _ - __ ', '. . f RO Rpt. No. 50-259/73-4 I-l
W %"ed kr gSy j ),o . c5 % APR 10 B73
Dh f$Y Prepared By: -~?f W 4 ' W. S. Little, Reactor Date Inspector, Facilities ' Test and Startup Branch Dates of Inspection: March 8-9, 1973 APR 10 873 % w o, Reviewed By: ct w C. E. Murphy, Acting Chief Date Facilities Test and Startup Branch j 1. Persons Contacted The following persons were contacted in addition to those present during the management interviews ' a. Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) ,19 5: - Construction Division (DEC) MM NV ' 'l J. T. Walker - Mechanical Engineering Supervisor W. Mayberry - Preoperational Test Engineer Division of Power Production (DPP) , T. Bragg - Nuclear Engineer ) i b. General Electric Company (G-E) W. Widner - Mechanical Engineer P. Zimmerman - Startup Test Design and Analyses Engineer 2. Main Stean Isolation Valves The inspector, accompanied by a G-E representative, looked at the Unit 1 MSIV's to observe the grinding which was being done to contour the weld preparation area to meet the requirements of USAS EM.5, paragraph 6.6. The upstream side of "A" and "C" imbeerd valvse and "D" outboard valve had been ground to remove sharp' corners and abrupt changes of slope. The inspector noted I that there was still a sharp corner in the area of concern on the inboard "C" valve which G-E and TVA agreed to remove by grinding. This item is now considered to be resolved., , . i 3. Operational Quality Assurance Plan In discussions between the inspector and a DPP representative, it was i k i l [ l , -. . .- _ _ - . . . ..
-- __ - / '
5 . , l Ro apt. No. 50-259/73-4 I-2 I .-d.kGIJN-.h.: $5 N kbk M ,M:G ef 1 W ylans to issue an Operational Quality Assurance Manual M isetsime which specifies which parts of the OQAM must be impismented at the plant site. The inspector aummined a draft of this revision and noted that it relieved the plant superintendent from having to implement Part I, " General," of the OQAM. The inspec- tor told the DPP representative that if Part I, Section 3, " Definitions," is not implemented. TVA must be certain that the necessary defini- tions are included in the individual implementing procedures. DPP made no commitment concerning how this area of definitions will be handled. Some of the OQAM sections have not yet been implemented at Browns Perry. Agreement was reached with DPP to issue implement- ing station procedures for the following OQAM sections , ! Part II, Section 3.2, " Plant Modifications: After Issuance of i the Operating License and before Commercial Operation" Part II, Section 3.3, " Plant Modifications: Commercial Operation" , t l Part II, Section 6.1, "Special Processes - Welding"
l Part II, Section 6.2, "Special Processes - Heat Treatuses",. . mg ~t Part II, Section 6.3, " Nondestructive Testing" 3p Part III, Section 2.3, " Issuing of Materials, Components h,:3 i J w _ M y Spare Parts" I Part III, Section 7.1, " Nonconforming Materials, Parts, or -
Components"
. Part III, Section 6.0 of the OQAM covering training is still pre- liminary and has not been implemented at the site. The inspector e ' told TVA that if this section, when finalized, includes information or requirements which require site implementation, then a site pro- cedure should be issued. DPP stated that the inspector's comment will be taken under consideration.
! The review of the OQAM and Browns Perry implementing procedures will continua relative to meeting the requirements 10 CPR 50, Appendix B. 4. Pctential G-E Pump Motor Problem , The final results of G-E's investigation indicate that the failure of lower air deflectors, which was a problem at another BWR, i is.ast a potential problem at Browns Perry. TVA and G-E representa- l , tives showed the inspector the results of an investigation which i concludes'that there is no apparent problem with the motors at Browns l
Perry because they are of a different design from those that failed at the other BWR. The inspector stated that he had no further questions and the matter is considered c1 sed. 9 5. Emergency Operating Instruction (EOI) - Relief And Safety Valve _ 3 Maifunction A DPP representative told the inspector that E01-37, "Ralief Valve .h 1 l ! _ _ - _ _ ____ . _ . . _ _ _ . , _ . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ . , _ _ . . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _
_ l _ ! ( - e . l i l .; /73-4 I-3 A & $ .- . q<J r c;;. . .. -
11 be issued. The inspector asked if this EOI will include malfunctions of both the safety and the relief valves, and DPP replied that it will. This commitment resolved this ites. 6. Debris Removal _ At the end of the inspection, a DEC representative gave the inspector a package of additional material describing actions taken by TYA to assure the removal of wood chips from the reactor vessel and connecting piping. 7. Electrical Cable Pullina Force A DEC representative showed the inspection results of their investi- gation on Unit 1 which listed the cable numbers (and corresponding conduit number) which were pulled using mechanical means. All of these cables had been installed in a single conduit duct subsequently relocated and in which tha cable has not been . ' The DEC representative stated that new cable will be inst the current procedures which require special inspection, d tion, and limitation of mechanical pulling stresses to a y than eight pounds per NCM. This item is consider closed. i 8. Core Icading Procedure 1 The inspector told DPP and G-E that it was not possible to review 1 ' their core loading procedure (STI-3) without the fuel loading sheet. Preliminary cotsaants were given to TVA, and detailed comments will j i await the receipt and review of the core loading sheet.
i
- N, _ - -
, ' _ 5 lb - ,- , ?q_ . > - . , emer > _RO,;,I. I,.. . . , , ,,,RO,. II.. , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,, , ,, ,, .. Slit. le.:p.v.. .. .. .. emu phy. p:t...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W su m ur> 4//c/73 1 4//d/73 our> , _t . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . Forra AEC-318 (Rev. 9-53} AECM 0140 .ro ea a--is-s t ens-t 44s47s J
.. . __ - _ _ _ l - ' '
- ._
\\ . , \\ l m mapset us. 50-259/73-4 II-1 1'Q Tc-
, 3;,;g sign d is o e- A E. MAR 2 9IN3 4cy g D 7 'N 0 Prepared By: A. P. Gibson, Radiation Date Specialist, Radiological and Enviroceental Protection ' l Branch ! Dates of Inspection: March 5-9 1973 pfwa MAR 2 91973 9 Reviewed By:
a. T. Suth.rland, Aeting cat.s Date Radiological and Environmental Protectica Branch 1. Individuals Contacted 1 i 4 H. H. Green - TVA-DPP - Plant Superintendent ' '4 *p ,,g ' "s , 'M. R. G. Matke - TVA-DPP - Supervisor, Results Section M. Lyon - TVA-DEP - Health Physics Supervisor, Radiatica M (- [ ) ,, Section ' y;,;g f
, W. C. Thomisen - TVA-DPP - Chemical Engineer, Results Secties 3 ' l R. Coulter Jr. - TVA-DPP - Shift Operator, Operations Sectica } ' ! 3 l 2. Organisatirem1 Changes 5 ~4 j \\j ' mone . 3. Provisions for Monitoring Turbine Building Roof Vents ? A licensee representative stated that no provisions had been made for ' continuously monitoring radioactivity released from five of the nine , turbine building roof vents installed for each unit. The licensee , i representative stated that radioactivity released from the five un- I anmitored vents would be calculated based on the measured release ! from the $sur monitored vents. The inspector stated that failure to I monster eene vente during plant operation would be in violation of ! 14 D Su n 50, Appendia A, Criterion 64 and aPNP Teobalmal Specifi- s h < AhS,ABspector further stated that this iten W0514 be discussed ' at h M Weehnical Specification meeting to be held on March 22 and 23 . in Semeses, Maryland. , 4. Semele Delivery Lin 3 A licensee representative stated that design work was in progress for l removal of sharp bonds and corrugated hoses from ventilation eshaust and main stack sample delivery lines. Management stated that the . > l i , < l . . ___ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . .-- . . - . . - . . - .
- 7 f yn , i ( - v , . . RO Report No. 50-259/73-4 IIS l ^ 1 f*fQ4. ~ .w ' M fications are expected to be completed prior to f ( leading. Se inspector discussed the significance of 'the amount of sample loss in delivery lines with a DPP i , l manaT""*"t F#presentative. Se management representative agreed to discuss this item with DEP management in the interest of achieving prompt resolution. 5. Differences in Sample and source Diameters A licensee representative showed the inspector a graph of counting efficiency versus distance from detector for sources of various diameters which was based on calculatione made by TVA for the BNFP ! smear counting system. He licensee representative stated that these calculations had been empirically verified and that an ap- propriate correction factor to compensate for differences in source and sample di~ameter differences was in use. He further stated that he had epirically determined that sample and source diameter dif- forences had no significant effect on the counting efficiency of the 2r proportional counter. A management representative stated h N ' .; ) TVA would actively pursue procurement of commerically availabl4@ .
, sources of the same diameter as samples. Se inspector stated' - . l it appeared that the above action would be adequate to resolveM _ , f f item.
- g
a. 6. Cask Decontamination Collector Tank '+ During inspection of the liquid radwaste system, a licensee represen- tative pointed out to the inspector a tank and associated piping that had been installed to collect effluent from Unit 1, 2 and 3 spent - fuel cask cleanup drains. Se inspector noted that this collection i system was not described by the BMIP FSAR. A licensee representative stated that no provisions for mixing or sampling tank contents had been provided and that DPP Change Request No.165 had been submitted requesting addition of these provisions. Further examination by the inspector revealed that no isolation valves were provided and no procedural requirements existed for isolation of this tank from inlet flow during sampling and discharge operations. A licensee representative aakasvledged this deficiency and agreed to add administrative requirements to gperpting procedures to ensure that the cask cleanup drains are not use$'hg suspling and discharge of tank contents. l y 7. HealE Physics Laboratory Hood < > Previous inspection reports doctamented licensee comunitments to post flow requirements on the health physics labciratory hood. A licensee representative stated that hood window positions necessary for achieving mir flow rates had been posted on hoods in health physics and radio- i , chemistry laboratories. He inspector visually verified that the hoods ' were posted as reported. ,l )' M
5 ' 5 . . - .-- - -. . . . . - . - -
_ _ _ _ . . _ . _ . , m . . , , l l R0 Report No. 50-259/73-4 II-3 l t l l _s .. ! , i t i 8. ~ ' Wesilities -' ' i A liconeee representative stated that CAM's (instrisment numbers RE-90- , i 240 and RE-90-251) had been preoperationally tested and would be in- l stalled upon completion of sample piping modifications. The licensee representative stated that the drywell radiation monitor (instrument No. RE-90-256) had been installed and preoperationally tested. The j ' licensee representative stated that records of these tests were t I available for review. The inspector observed that calibration stickers l l had been installed on the instrianents, indicating that they had been f turned over to DPP by DEC. 9. Emergency Planning
J. U, a. A management representative stated that the BFNP evacuation alarm had been operationally tested and that a drill, including plant } l evacuation, would be conducted prior to Unit lp in.M"T. P' '5 ? He described the drill plan and informed the inspector of GS' $' ,I schedule for implementation. . , . b. The report of the June 1972 inspection (50-259/72-5) doeusserted .;! that training and drills for nurses at Colonial Manor Hospital ti ,
was incomplete. A licensee representative stated that TVA has 'l provided additional training for these nurses since June 1972 O and that training was complete. A licensee representative further fl stated that a drill was conducted at the Hospital on February 22, 5! 1972, which involved the nurses. ! , c. Licensee representatives stated that placement of emergency equip- i ment at designated onsite locations in accordance with the TVA Radiological Emergency Plan was in progress and expected to be ' completed in about two weeks. Licensee representatives stated that placement of emergency equisanent at the Colonial Manor Hospital , was complete.
10. Liquid Radwaste Control Responsibility Se atute 1972 inspection (Report No. 50-259/72-5) revealed an apparent l M eat betateen BFNP written procedures and the understanding expressed i by li'eensee supervision concerning assigranent of responsibilities for i vaste sample analysis and maintenance of analysis records. A licensee l l representative stated that a procedure that was causing the conflict had been cancelled. . i j , im
I
- !
- - . . . . ._ - - - - - . - .. .-
54 e , , [.' q, _ _ .y . 4i N ;.% 9 .e . . -. a % ) -( , . ;Y mopost No. - . 50-259/73-4 II-4 "; m -w . W' Cw~ .,,.2 11. sg Inspectima Report No. 50-259/72-5, pointed out the need for a study of miwherne radioactivity in the vicinity of open laundry tank tops.
A licammaa representative stated that, based on expected concentra- tion of radioactivity in laundry liquid effluent, the potential for airborne radioactivity from this source was low. The licensee rep- resentative agreed to routinely monitor airborn radioactivity in the vicinity of open laundry tank tops and to document the requirammat for this survey on " Shift Routine Check Lists" prior to Unit 1 core loading. 12. Monitoring Normally Nonradioactive Efiluents M i The inspector discussed the need for monitoring BFNP effluents that 6 have a potential for radioactive contamination even thoegh they are e g. normally expected to ancontaminated. A licensee supervisor stated . . ;j 4 that the BFNP sanitary sewer system had been evaluated and the pe ,h %{ j [;:,2 . , tantial for contamination had been determined to be toe lent toi,,6) ~ g warrent routine surveys. The supervisor acknowledged the nose der 4;, if 7-]y Q j evaluating other systems for potential. He agreed to evaluate all a 6f7 - BFNP effluents for potential, and that effluents determined to have S % sufficient potential would be periodically monitored. He stated that i requirements for this monitoring would be added to the EFNF Radio- O , chemistry Manual. g 13. Radiochemistry Training "
A licensee supervisor stated that training of shift chemists had been completed. He provided records to the inspector to verify completian- '
of this training. The licensee supervisor stated that advance copies of radiochemistry procedures had been provided to the trainees so that the training could be completed prior to issue of the BFNP Radiochemistry
Manual. - ! - 14. Maintaining Liquid Radwaste Releases as Lou as Practicable 2 1 i
Reviser of licensee liquid radwaste system procedures for proosesing . j and disoberge (oI-77 and SI-4.8.C.2) and discussions with licensee ' l supeevision indicated that liquid waste would be released to the diosha Te canal routinely after one pass thoughtprocessing equip- - ment if its gross radioactivity concentration was below 2x10-4ue/kl. ., Licensee management stated that the 2x10-4us/m1 limit was designed to maintain the radioactivity concentration in the canal well below gl Tecnnical specification limits and was concidered "as low as practi- - cable" for all releases. The inspector stated that practicability of a .{ Y - .--- _ - _ - - _ _ - _ _ - . _ ____. - . - -
__ _ _ _ __ _ .
e.'. 20 moport No. 50-259/73-4 II-5 - e ! sing should be determined on a case basis for each , , to be released, even if the concentration to be ! . '~
in discharge canal was below the Technical Specification ! l { limit. The inspector stated that factors such as other demands on the i
! processing system and the offectiveness of the last processing cycle . , ~ j should be ocasidered in evaluating practicability of additional l processing. 15. Isolation of Tanks to be Discharged _ i
i ' ! Based on review of Operating Instruction No. 77, Surveillance Instruc-
I tion No. 4.8.C.2 and liquid radwaste system drawings the inspector j determined that no provisions had been nada for isolating weste sample i tanks, floor drain sample tanks or the cask decontamination collection ' tank from inlet flow during the time period frost the beginning of j omeple collection to the end of discharge. I.icensee representatives
acknowledged this deficiency and agreed to change procedures to provide ! this isolation prior to Unit 1 core loading. l ? t 16. Survey of Hood Exhaust During review of licensee plans for survey of potentially con , j gaseous effluents which were not to be continously monitored, it was i determined that plans had not been made for survey of filtered en- . hausts from laboratory hoods. A licensee representative agreed to i ! perform periodic anear surveys in the vicinity of hood exhaust outlets and to include the requirement for this survey on " Shift Routine Cheek- i Lists" prior to Unit 1 core loading. 17. Isokinetic Nossles- - A licensee representative stated that installed sample nossles in ventilation eshaust systems were not isokinetic but that they would be replaced with isokinetic nossles prior to Unit 1 core loading. , He provided drawings of the new nossles and photographs of the installed ' nossles to the inspector for review. 18.q _ ^ ^v:.g~ ~. 3 "_- Os11ection Efficiency _ p
m , , ! + 'sepresentative stated that TVA had determined iodine col- b N' of the CESCO cartridges to be used for iodine sempling by esperiment using elssental iodine. The inspector reviewed a licensee letter documenting results of this test. The , ' inspector stated that, since some of the iodine in gaseous effluents will probably be combined with other elements, the collection ef- ficiency for elemental iodine might not be applicable. The licensee representative agreed to consider experimentally determing collection
efficiency for actual BFNP gaseous effluent. I ! ! , t - . - . - - . _ , .- - , , , . - - - - - . - - - - . - - - - , - -. , , . - , . - - , _ , . , -,.,n_ ., - - - n----, - ,
e--
, , - - - - ,- - , , . , - .- ~ -
. - - _ _- __. _ _ _ _ _-_-. .. . . _ . _ ____ f .;, ' , . - . t i* t g E Beport No. 50-259/73-4 II-6 .. -- . .~ %, . y 73 . ,- ' .Q ; ~ _ . , V 19. Provisions to Proclude Overloading Shipping Containers , ' A licensee representative stated that solid waste system operators would rely on radiation surveys during loading of shipping con- tainers to preclude loading too match radioactivity into these con- tainers; however, written procedures for loading these containers , did not contain survey requirements or other provisions to preclude ! overloading. 'Ihe licensee representative agreed to consider mMing such provisions to operating procedures. 20. c - rtts on Health Physics Procedures A licensee representative described in detail the changes made to resolve comuments on RFMP health physics procedures that were made by the inspector during the January 16-19, 1973, inspection. r . n
- '; ~' b
I*[ $ ' i s - vi .
- ...w ,
- q
. -? !
l
t ! L ,
I , i 1 . ' . , > k l cmcr > 30.!.U.. . .BO.:. U.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . suRNAMt> ..M.G.ib S.QA j.1&Q ...M$4thQX14&L_ ,,,, ! , , , , , , , , , , , , , 3/29/73 3/29/73 our> . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . Form AEC.)le (Rev.9-51) AECM 0240 see ees-is-eiess- 44swita g: -~ - - . - - - . - w .- - - - . - --,._,,----,w a-- ++_g - - - - ~ ~
m, . .. q - _ - - - _ TEED SPECTION REPORT IDENTIFICATI HEET j , ;ag
s REPORT NO. 'q !' . ' .x , N' TO: J. T. therland. Actiner chief. Padiningi m1 and Fnvi rnennt-a 1 Protection Branch - . V, - . _ Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Inspection Dates 3/5-9/73 ' Browns Ferry Unit 1
~ . Docket No. 50-259, License No. CPPR-29 W. s. Little } Other Inspectors jl c 17 3 A. F. Gibson Feeder Report Prepared By: t Date
, 1 . j Inspector's Evaluation (continue on attached sheet, if necessary) ~ j During-this inspection the st'atus of outstanding health physics items ., i li'ted in RO Inspection Report No. 50-259/72-5 and the status of unresolved s 'i ~and incomplete health g sics items listed in RO Inspection Report No. I 50-259/73-2f W h'is" Espection essentially completes PI 3300/1 preopera-
tional radwaste system inspection requirements. . ' Ne de w of d er ed %(dy tem.< r w sc ec<. id e d C td . ' It is requested that the evaluation memorandum inform Headquarters that
RO:II considers continuous monitoring of all turbine building vents to be the only satisfactory means of determining the amount of radioactivity q released from these. vents. .. , i ' s one more healtn, physics inspection may be requirec prior to Unit 1 core loading to verify that licensee commitments documented in thiAs report have beer. ret. i - p . 4 / ~ i - - ~, . I I d [ 4&+/I/ ' '
TO: . / f . The attacheli Feeder Inspection Documentation is transmitted in reviewed and approved form. - . . Con:nents:
, l - l b . / h 14 / .SignacGre Date 1. _ , . .. . - - . - . - - _. . _ }}