IR 05000327/1978035
| ML19305A153 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 11/28/1978 |
| From: | Belisle G, Donat T, Wessman R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19305A151 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-327-78-35, NUDOCS 7901040266 | |
| Download: ML19305A153 (10) | |
Text
.
.
'%
\\,,)
g D E8CO UNITED sT ATEs
- p o,
NUCLEAR RL GULATORY COMMISSION l
E REGloN il
!
^o v.
O t
101 MARIETTA STREET. N.W.
'-*
[
ATL ANTA. GEORGI A 30303 p,
%, '
gt'
.....
Report No.:
50-327/78-35 Docket No.:
50-327 License No.:
CPPR-72 Licensee: Tenneesee Valley Authority
.
830 Power Building Chattar.c-Tennessee 37401 Facility Name: Sequoyah Unit 1 Inspection at:
Sequoyah Site, Daisy, Tennessee Inspection s ' ducted: October 22, 25-??. 1978 Inspectors:
R. H. Wessman (October 25-27, 1978)
G. A. Belisle (October 25-27, 1978)
T. J. Donat (October 22, 25-28, 1978)
---
Approved by:
6 5-< ' -
// 2 2I/ 7 d >
'
date H. C. Dance,' Chief Reactor Projects Section No. 1 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Inspection Summary Insoection on October 22, 25-28, 1978:
(Report No. 50-327/78-35)
Aress Inc.pected:
Routine, announced inspection of preoperational test program administrative controls, observation of ice loading activities; upper head injection test activities; and f acility tour. The inspection involved 60 inspector-heurs onsite by three NRC inspectors.
Results: Of the four at*as inspected, no items of noncompliance or 5eviations were identified.
Tio(cWoM G
.
.
.
RII Report No. 50-327/78-35 I-1 DETAILS I Prepared by:
_///Jt?]6
.
T.
Donat, Reactor Inspector Dat Nuclear Support Section No. 1 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Dates of Inspection-October 22 and 25-28,1978 Reviewed by:
N/t4~
/Da t'e -
///J /'/y[
R. D. Martin, Chief Nuclear Support Section No.1 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch 1.
Persons Contacted
- J. Ballentine, Plant Superintendent
- W. Andrews, Plant QA Staf f Supervisor
- E. Condon, Preoperational Test Section Supervisor W. M. Halley, Nuclear Engineer J. H. Hallard, Mechanical Engineer R. H. Smith, Electrical Engineer R. Simons, Maintenance Engineer (Ice Loading Operation)
J. Tyler, Assistant Shif t Engineer (Ice Generation Operation)
J. Pierce, Associate Chemistry Engineer
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not applicable.
3.
Unresolved Items None 4.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with Mr. J. Ballentine and his staff as identified above at the conclusion of the inspection on October 27, 1978.
The inspectors summarized, as reported in the following paragraphs the purpose and findings of the inspection. Within the four areas inspected no item of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
i
.
RII Report No. 50-327/78-35 I-2
Ice Loading Operations at Unit 1 Va rious operations associated with loading ice in the Unit 1 Ice Condenser were observed by the inspectors including (a) Ice Generation, (b) Ice Chemistry Analysis, (c) Weighing Ice Baskets, and (d) Loading Ice Baskets.
While observing these operations, the inspectorp became aware that of ficial copies of the epplicable System Operating Instructions (S01's)
were not being used a', the operating stations being observed. While at the Ice Generating area, the inspectors requested from the Assistant Shift Engineer official copies of the procedures being performed.
After thoroughly checking the area, he stated that be only had working copies of the two System Operating Instructions, SOI-61.1 and S01-61.2, applicable to the Ice Generating area Similarly,'when in the Unit 1 Ice Condenser, the inspectors asked to see the of ficial copj of the Special Maintenance Instruction, SMI-1-61-1, to be used for ice loading and weighing operations. The maintenance engineer in charge of the operations in progress stated that the procedure was not in the area; that it was being updated in the administrative building but that an official copy of the data sheet was being used to record data. A subsequent check by the inspectors of the site's file copy of SMI-1-61-1 showed it to be Revision 3 dated July 12, 1978. Further checks by the inspector with operation's personnel in the control room, in the shift
_ engineer's office, and in the site's records room failed to locate any completed official copies of either S01-61.1 or S31-61.2. The inspector discussed this with the Shif t Engineer and expressed his concern that initial valve lineups and initial breaker lineups, which are required by these procedures, may not have been performed. The shift engineer agreed that he could not locate any official copies of either procedure and that he did not know if an initial valve or breaker lineup had been made. Af ter being contacted by the Assistant Operations Supervisor, the Shift Engineer had of ficial copies of S01-61.1 and S01-61.2 sent to the Assistant Shift Engineer (ASE) at the Ice Generation area along with instructions to perform confirming breaker and valve lineups and that the of ficial copy of these instructions should be kept at the ASE's desk in the area. The failure to have official copies of proce-dures being performed in both the Ice Generation area and the Unit 1 Ice Condenser was brought to station management attention at the exit meeting.
The inspectors stressed that even though the equipment involved was not considered safety-related, that it was important that the operators become familiar with the procedures and with the practice of always using an official copy of the procedure when operating equipment.
It was stressed that use of official copies of procedures was important when equipment is initially lined up and started and when the operation to be performed by the equipment is of singular nature such as ice loading the Unit 1 Ice Condenser. The applicant
.
.
RII Report No. 50-327/78-35 I-3
.
.
concurred that the inspector's concerns appeared to be well founded, and that they would work to insure that all operators are aware of the requirements to use an official copy of a procedure.
While observing the performance of analyses to determine the pH and boron concentration in the water to be used for ice generation, the inspectors were informed by the Associate Chemistry Engineer in charge of the radiochemistry laboratory that due to the laboratory not having up-to-date revisions of the Borated Ice Chemistyy Data sheets, the borated ice chemistry results from October 22-25, 1978 had been recorded only in the Radiochemistry Laboratory leg. He stated that they had received official copies of the correct revisions to the Borated Ice Chemistry Data sheets and were in the process of transcribing all of the results onto the official copies of the data sheets. He also stated that he was aware of a difference in the times recorded in the ice generation unit operator log and that recorded in the radiochemistry labora. ory log for the sample results. This difference he stated was due to the Ice Generation operators logging the time when the tank was ready to be sampled and the chemists logging when the sample was taken. He also stated that this difference should disappear with both logs now showing the time the tank was sampled.
6.
Preoperational Test Witnessing On October 20, 1978, the inspector was notified by Sequoyah Preopera-tional Test personnel that the Upper Head Injection (UHI) test, W-6.2, would be performed on October 21, 1978. After further contacting site personnel, the inspector arri.ed on site on October 22, 1978. The inspector reviewed signed pre equisites, and special test instrumenta-tion to insure all necessary calibrations had been performed. The inspector observed the conduct of U.H.I. accumulator isolation valve closure time testing. The valves were timed with 3000 psig hydraulic accumulator oil pressure and found to close in excess of the 3.5 + 0.05 see specification in the test procedure.
Because of the potential delay due to disassembly of the valves to adjust their timing and the need to perform an initial low pressure blowdown to determine final piping; resistance, the inspecter departed the site. During a telephone conve rsa'. i on with the Preoperational Test Section Supervisor on October 24, the inspector was infonaed that the Hydraulic accumulator oil pressure should have been 3 00 poi during the valve timing on October 22 and that the low pressure blowdown test would be performed later that day.
The inspector noted that in the of ficial copy of W-6.2, step 5.3 and data sheet 5.3 still listed the Hydraulic oil pressure as 3000 psig and also that in steps 5.8.37, 5.9.5 and 6.2 values for the normal gas accumulator pressure and the normal water volume transferred had not been entered. The test section supervisor said be would have a change notice issued to update the procedure in these areas before performing the low pressure blowdown.
I
-
-
.
.
RII Report No. 50-327/78-35 1-4 On October 28, 1978, the inspector returned to the site for the purpose of observing the no rmal operating pressure blowdown of the U.H.I.
accumulator. The Test Change Notices and deficiencies were reviewed to determine that those applicable to the testing in progress had been handled properly. The test drawing package was reviewed against the Appendix H list and that each drawing had been signed by representatives of Construction, Engineering Design, and Power Production sections of TVA indicating that the drawings did reflect the'"as is" configuration of the U.H.I. system.
The inspector witnessed the cycling of the Accumulator Isolation Valves, the filling and venting of the piping between isolation valves and the piping between the valves and the reactor vessel, and the normal operating pressure (1240 psig) blowdown of the accumulator. The test was conducted in accordance with the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.68, and section 4.1 of the Sequoyah OQAM manual. The inspector considers that the Sequoyah Preoperational Test personnel fot Cowed all administrativecontrols in preparing for and executing the normal pressure blowdown test of the U.H.I. accumulator.
7.
Review and Evaluation of Completed Preoperational Test Procedures The inspector reviewed the completed preoperational test package for TVA-16A, " Vital 125 VDC Power Supply System", for conformance to Regulatory Guide 1.68, FSAR section 8.3.2, FSAR table 14.1, and Technical Specification 3.8.2.3 and 4.8.2.3.2.d.
There were no discrepancies noted during the review which included: (1) verification that all data had been recorded and was either within specification or had been already identified by the licensee and resolved, (2) verification that all prerequisites had been signed of f as having been satisfied or a Test Change Notice written against the prerequisite, (3) verification that all change notices to the procedure had been reviewed and approved by the Test Program Coordinator and the Plant Superintende t, (4) veri-fication that all procedural steps requiring a signoff had been signed and dated, and (5) verification that the final data package included:
(a) the signed-off procedure, (b) a copy of all test change notices and test deficiencies together with their resolations; (c) a copy of the chronological test log; and (d) a copy of eacb of the completed document review sheets indicating that reviews had been completed by tLe Test Director and the Chief of the Mechanical Engineering Branch of the Design Engineering Department.
.
8.
Inspector Identified Items from Previous Inspections a.
In IE Report 50-327/78-26, item 1.6, it was identified that preoperational test TVA-14D, which tested the 125V DC Diesel Generator Battery system, did not require that the battery be at 80% of its initial capacity as well as at the lowest expected operating temperature prior to the 30 minute load test as required by FSAR section 8.3.1.1, " Diesel Generator Control Power." The
.
RII Report No. 50"327/78-35 I-5 applicant stated that a subsequent test was to be performed on the diesel generator 125VDC battery and that this capacity test would be included.
Subsequent to that report, the applicant representative contacted the inspector on October 26, 1978 and indicated that they had subsequently decided not to reperform the battery load test.
The applicant representative stated that since the batteries were sized to 25% beyond the load requirements to be supplied, that 80% of initial capacity would correspond to the load requirements and that they considered that no test was necessary and that FSAR section 8.3.1.1 " Diesel Generator Control Power" would be amended to delete the sentence concerning the battery having 30 minute full load capability when at 80% of its initial capacity and at its lowest operating temperature. This item is still considered an open item (78-26-01) until receipt of an approved amendment to the FSAR section.
b.
In IE Report 50-327/78-21, item I.7 the requirement for the preoperational test to verify proper applicant to perform a operation of the diesel generator system in the event of a Loss of Offsite Power or a Safety Injection when the diesel generator is para'
led with the normal power source as stated in FSAR Sectice h 3.1.1 is discussed. The applicant agreed to incorporate this test into his program. On October 18, 1978, an applicant representative contacted the inspector concerning the nature of the test he intended to conduct to verify this aspect of diesel generator operation.
The test to be performed would load a single bus including a Startup Board and a Shutdown Board, with Component Cooling Water Pumps, Circulation Water Pumps, Essential Raw Cooling Water Pumps and other loads as necessary. After the diesel generator had been paralle M and loaded onto the bus, the offsite power to the bus would be secured. According to the applicant, the diesel will initially try to carry all of the bus loads but due to insufficient capacity the voltage will drop and an "I over V" relay will sense the mismatch between voltage and current and de-energize. The relay's deenergizing closes special contacts in the diesel generator control logic in parallel with its loss of offsite power relay crntacts. The breakers between the shutdown board being supplied by the diesel generator and its associated startup board are opened and the diesel generator blackout logic is energized through the "I over V" relay contacts to perform the normal or accident condition blackout loading sequence. Accord 6g to the applicant this test would be performed on a single diesel generator and bus since the logic being used is identical with that used under a nonsal blackout except that the "I over V" relay is supplying continuity when de-energized.
Documented testing shall have been performed confirming that all
"I over V" relays have identical characteristic during a loss of voltage on a loaded bus and a functional test of the diesel
...
.
.
RII Report No. 50-327/78-35 I-6 generator startup and loading logic by manually deenergizing the
"I over V" relay will be performed on the remaining diesel generators to confirm that the logic functions correctly. The applicant also indicated that an amendment wili be sought to the FSAR section 8.3.1.1, " Standby Diesel Generator Operation" to delete the reference to a safety injection signal overriding the manual controls and establishing the appropriate alignment since this will not occur. If a Safety Injection signil is present without a Loss of Offsite power signal and the diesel generator is already running and loaded onto the bus, then the diesel generator will remain in this condition.
The inspector had no comments on either the proposed test or FSAR change but will continue to leave this item open pending completion of the test and the FSAR amendment submittal (78-21-03).
.
i
.
RII Rpt. No. 50-327/78-35 11-1
.- -- k 9 /ty /W il DETAILS II Prepared by:
,,_
R. H. Wessman, Reactor Inspector Date Reactor Projects Section No. 1 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support hanch Dates of Inspection: October 25-27, 1978
- [2 7!7/
b h
Reviewed by:
H. C. Dance, Chief Ta t e'
Reactor Projects Section No. 1 Reactor Operatior.s and Nuclear Support Branch 1.
Persons Contacted Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
- J. Ballentine, Plant Superintendent
- E. Condon, Preoperational Test Section Supervisor
- W. Andrews, Plant QA Staff Supervisor
- C. Cantrell, Assistant Plant Superintendent R. Smith, Electrical Engineer The inspector also interviewed five other licensee employees during the course of the inspection. They included operations, results, and QA section personnel.
- Denotes those present at the Exit Interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Accumulator Modification (78-31-02)
The inspector reviewed the applicant's modification planned for the Safety Injection System Accumulators. This modification is to be made as a result of a deficiency identified to the NRC on September 18, 1978, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55(e) and initially reviewed by the inspector in IE Inspection 50-327/78-31.
This modification is governed by Power Production Work Plan 1308, dated October 25, 1978.
It provides for the' installation of a flow orifice inside the accumulator tank discharge nozzle and will be done on all accumulators in both Units 1 and 2.
The inspector reviewed the work plan and supporting documentation and found it consistent with the provisions of the OQAM Part II, Section 3.1 (Plant Modifications:
Before Issuance of the Operating License).
One discrepancy was identified by the inspector, relating to tack welding of the orifice plate nold-down nuts.
Steps were taken by the applicant to correct this discrepancy prior to the inspector's departure from the sit.
'
RII Rpt. No. 50-327/78-35 II-2 Although the inspector had no additional questions, this item (78-31-02) will remain open pending final review of the completed modification.
3.
Unresolved Items None 4.
Exit Interview The inspector met with Mr. J. Ballentine and members of the plant staff on October 27, 1978. The inspector summarized, as reported in these details, the findings of the inspection.
The inspector discussed maintenance philosophy relating to records of maintenance and related activities.
He stressed the value of cross-reference between the maintenance request (MR) and auxilliary documents, such as the hold order, special work permit, maintenance instruction (if applicable), surveillance instruction (if applicable),
and "575" parts requisition. The applicant acknowledged the inspector's comments and said they would be considered.
The inspector discussed'10 CFR 50.55(e) requirements concerning deficiency reporting.
Of particular interest was the regulatory position relating to " minor" discrepancies identified during the conduct of a preoperational test.
The inspector stated that one function of the preoperational test program is to verify equipment performance and plant design.
Many minor test discrepancies, such as a broken transmitter, a wiring error on a single component, or a QA record error identified as part of the QA program,are not likely candidates for 50.55(e) reporting.
Many such discrepancies can be corrected by minor maintenance, minor design changes or other minor corrective actions.
10 CFR 55(e) stresses as reportable items such as those that represent a "significant breakdown," or "significant deficiency," or requiring " extensive repair" or " extensive redesign."
The applicant acknowledged the inspector comments and stated that their intent has been and will be to meet the guidance provided by the inspector.
5.
Diesel Generator IB-B Load Sensor Card Failure The inspector reviewed the applicant's maintenance actions taken as a result of the Diesel Generator IB-B load sensor card failure that occurred on Oc uber 7, 1978-The inspector's review was made to
.
ascertain conforuance with the administrative controls established by the OQAM Part II, Section 2.1 (Plant Maintenance and Repair), OQAM Part II, Section 4.1 (Preoperational Test Program), and by SQM2 (Maintenance Management System).
f
.
.
.
.
RIl Rpt. No. 50-327/78-35 11-3 The inspector reviewed MR-02660, dated October 17, 1978, which controlled the work on the diesel. Also reviewed were copies of SI-7 (Electrical Power System Diesel Generator) dated October 17 and 20,1978.
The inspector noted one weakness in documentation relating to this activity.
The copy of SI-7 executed to support post-maintenance testing was not identified as related to MR-02660, preventing definitive correlation between the two documents.
- The applicant acknowledged the inspectors remarks without comment.
6.
Test and Measurement Equipment The inspector reviewed the applicant's program for control of measurement and test equipment used in conjunction with preoperational testing. This review was made for conformance to the requirements of the 0QAM Part III, Section 3.1 (Control of Measuring and Test Equipment).
Calibration records for 12 pieces of test equipment used in conjunction with three preoperational tests (W6.1.B-Accumulator Blowdown Test, W6.2-Upper Head Injection, and W12.1-Ice Condenser Reactor Containment)
were reviewed. Within the areas inspected no discrepancies were identified.
-
l l