IR 05000327/1978045
| ML19284A506 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 01/17/1979 |
| From: | Belisle G, Dance H, Donat T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19282A814 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-327-78-45, NUDOCS 7903070057 | |
| Download: ML19284A506 (8) | |
Text
.
Sa m:00 UNITED STATES
,#
'o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
g b
}
'
101 M ARIETTA STRE ET, N.W.
o REGION il
(I. $
f ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30303
,
g * *v y
Report No. 50-327/78-45 Docket No.:
50-327 License No.: CPPR-72 Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority 830 Power Building Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401 Facility Name:
Sequoyah Unit 1 Inspection at:
Sequoyah Site, Daisy, Tennessee Inspection conducted: Lecember 27-29, 1978 Inspectors:
T. J. Donat G. A. Belisle Approved by:
b d'? 7p thw v
H. C. Dance, Chief Date Reactor Projects Section No. 1 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Inspection Summary Inspection on December 27-29, 1978 (Report No. 50-327/78-45)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, announced inspection of ice loading activities, completed preoperational test procedures, resolution of previously identified inspection items, review of Plant Operations Review Committee actions, and facility tour. The inspection involved 38 inspector-hours on-site by two NRC inspectors.
Results: Of the five areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.
7903070067
.. _. _ _ - -
.
RII Report No. 50-327/78-45 I-1 DETAILS I Prepared by: Mb Y j/fy/#
T. /J. Donat, Reactor Inspector
'Date Nuclear Support Section No. 1 Reactor Operations and Nuclear S'ipport Branch Dates of Inspection:
December 27-29, 1978 Reviewed by:
[ N[
'///[77 R. D. Martin, Chief
' D(te'
Nuclear Support Section No. 1 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch 1.
Persons Contacted
- W. F. Popp, Assistant Plant Superintendent
- W. E. Andrews, Plant QA Staf f Supervisor
- E. A. Condon, Preoperational Test Supervisor
- W. H. Kinsey, Jr., Assistant Power Plant Results Supervisor B. Patterson, Instrumentation Engineer J. McGiff, Power Plant Results Supervisor W. Lagergren, Nuclear Engineer L. Alexander, Mechanical Engineer (Ice Loading Operation)
-.
- Denotes attendance at the Exit Interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings None.
3.
Unresolved Items See paragraph 6.
4.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee represt.statives (denoted in paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on December 29, 1978.
The inspector summarized, as reported in the following paragraphs, the purpose and findings of the inspection.
Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Ice Loading Operation The inspector observed Ice Loading operations on December 27 and
.
_ _ _.. _. _ _ _ _
.-
'
RII Report No. 50-327/78-45 I-2 28, 1978. Operations monitored in the Unit #1 Ice Condenser included filling ice baskets, weighing baskets located at the bay walls as well as those located in the center, and the performance of daily calibration weight measurements.
The official copy of the Ice Basket Weight Data Sheet (data sheet 1 of SI-106) was reviewed and it was noted that the readings recorded differed from those recorded on the worksheets in the Ice Condenser. The applicant stated that the value recorded on the official copy data sheets equalled the
"as read" value found on the worksheets minus three correction factors. These were for the weight of the baskets (250 lbs.), the weight of the rigging (9 lb.-center, 20 lb.-basket column under an I beam), and for errors in the measurement equipment. The measure-ment equipment correction factor was computed daily by weighing a known load at the beginning and end of the shift and subtracting the average of the instrument readings from the known weight of the load.
Because of the number ci corrections applied to the raw weight readings and because of the daily recalibration of the weight sensors, the inspector strongly recommended that all of the raw worksheets, including those on which the daily calibration check readings were recorded, be collected and included in the final data package of SI-106 (Ice Condenser-Ice Bed). The inspector had no other comments concerning the Ice Loading operations.
6.
Inspector-Identified Items from Previous Inspections a.
In IE Report 50-327/78-04, Detail I.7, the inspector noted that licensee supervisory personnel had committed to tcat the automatic switchover of the RHR pump suction from the RWST to the containment sump (injection mode to recirculation mode).
After reviewing section 5.1.4 and 5.1.5 of Preoperational Test W-6.1E (RHR Pump Performance Test) and section 5.14 of Pre-operational Test W-8.3 (ESF Actuation System Operational Test), the inspector considers that this test commitment has been satisfied.
In W-6.lE, each ESF train's set of RWST and Containment Sump valves is operated using a valve actuation signal generated by shorting across a set of relay contacts in the ESF relay cabinet. Test W-6.1E checks that the containment sump valve starts to open first, that the RWST valve then starts to close, and that the sump valve is fully open before the RWST valve is closed.
Section 5.14 of test W-8.3B verifies that the contacts jumpered in W-6.lE actually close when the following three conditions are all satisfied:
(1) at least two of the four RWST low level bistables are tripped; (2) at least two of the four High Containment Sump level bistables are tripped; and, (3) a Safety Injection signal exists.
Based on this review, item 78-04-07 is considered closed.
.
.
.
RII Report No. 50-327/78-45 I-3 b.
In IE Report 50-327/78-04, Detail I.5.b.2.a, the inspector noted a discrepancy between FSAR section 6.5.1.3 and SNP-SI-107 concerning the opening force for the Ice Condenser floor drain check valves. The inspector reviewed Revision 3 to SNP-SI-107, dated April 28, 1978, and noted that acceptance criteria 6.3 and data sheet I had been changed to require an opening force of 31 lbs, which is consistent with the FSAR requirement that the valves open before the water head reaches 18 inches. This closes open item 78-04-03.
c.
In IE Report 50-327/78-04, Detail I 5.b.2.b, the inspector noted that the maximum initial ice load weight specified in FSAR Section 6.5.6.1 (Ice Condgnser P.efrigeration System Design Basis) of 2.98 times 10 lbm was less than that which would be achieved based on the ice weights required in pre-operational test W-12.1 (Ice Condenser Reactor Containment)
step 5.3.1 and SNP-SMI-1-61-1.
The inspector noted that this discrepancy concerning the maximum ice load weight to be used as the refrigeration system design basis still existed.
Considering the progress being made in completing the loading of the Unit #1 ice condenser by January 15, 1979, the inspector stated that it would appear appropriate for the applicant to resolve this discrepancy as soon as possible.
d.
In IE Report 50-327/78-17, Detail I.5, the inspector noted that the draft of the pre-operation;i test procedure V-1.3 (RCS At Temperature) did not contain any requirement to observe relief line piping restraints, snubbers, hangers, and/or supports during pressurizer blowdown testing.
These observa-tions were contained in FSAR Section 3.9.1.1 and the licensee response to question 3.35.
In a discussion between the appli-cant and the inspector concerning what progress had been made in resolving this item, the applicant stated that due to safety considerations, they did not intend to have an observer present inside the pressurizer cubicle during the hot functional pressurizer blowdown and that lacking specific performance criteria (maximum acceptable acceleration and frequencies) he could not justify instrumentation of the piping using accelero-neters or strain gauges.
Because of this, the applicant stated he was submitting a revised response to FSAR question 3.35 to delete the observations during the pressurizer blowdown test.
The inspector stated that he concurred in the applicant's position on an observer in the pressurizer cubicl. The problems associated with the use of various instrumentation schemes is also ree,gnized. However, the inspector also noted that a pressurizer blowdown was a transient which could occur during the life of the plant.
Therefore, the pre-operational test program should verify that its occurrence would not
.
.
RII Report No. 50-327/78-45 I-4 result in damage to the piping, its restraints or adjacent systems. The inspector will leave this item open (78-17-02)
pending further review by the applicant.
7.
Review of Complete Pre-Operational Test Procedure Data Packages The completed tre-operational test procedure, W-6.1A1 (SIS-Integrated Flow Testing) was reviewed for conformance to Regulatory Guide 1.68, FSAR Section 6.3, and FSAR Table 14.1.
The review included verification that all pre-requisites had been signed off as having been satisfied or a Test Change Notice was written against the pre-requisite; verification that all change notices to the procedure had been reviewed and approved by at least a DPP repres n-tative, the Test Program Coordinator, and the Plant Superintender..;
verification that all procedural steps requiring a sign-off had been signed and dated; verification that the final data package included the signed off procedure; a copy of all test change notices, and test deficiencies together with their resolution, and a copy of the chronological test log; and verificction that all data bad been recorded, was within specification, or that discrepancies had been identified by the licensee and resolved.
The inspector noted that the suction pressures for RHR pumps A and B were out-of-specification on data sheet 5.1.2 and that this had not been annotated in the completed test procedure, on a deficiency notice, or in the chronological test log. The applicant acknowledged that this item had not been identified by the site personnel, but stated that Engineering Design personnel, during their review of the test package, had noted this discrepancy and had requested that this portion of the test be repeated. The applicant showed the inspector a copy of the Test Change Notice to W-6.1A1 repeating the steps necessary to re-obtain the information on data sheet 5.1.2.
During a subsequent inspection, the completed test data package for those portions of pre-operational test W-6.1A1 which have been repeated will be reviewed.
8.
Startup Test Procedures The inspector met with personnel cognizant of the Initial Fuel Loading and Plant Startup Test procedures and discussed the status of their preparation. The applicant indicated that all of the procedures had been issued and that a final review of them by site as well as corporate engineers was in progress, but should not result in any major changes. He also stated that the final version of all procedures would be issued by February 16, 1979. The inspec-tor obtained review copies of some of the startup test procedures and requested to be supplied copies of the final versions once they became available.
>
e -
- RII Report No. 50-327/78-45 I-5 9.
Plant Tour The inspectors toured the control bay, the turbine building, the auxiliary building and Unit #1 reactor containment. Housekeeping and general plant cleanliness were observed. No discrepancies were identified.
.
.
RII Report No. 50-327/78-45 II-1
/
DETAILS II Prepared by:
!EZ v y
,.a.fp ffJ G. A. Belisle '
/Date v
-
Reactor Projects Section No. 1 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Dates of Inspecti n: December 27-29, 1978 C
/im c_
/ 7 7-Reviewed by:
H. C. Dance, Chief Date Reactor Projects Section No. 1 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch 1.
Persons Contacted Tennessee Valley Authority, Sequoyah, Unit 1
- W. F. Popp, Assistant Plant Superintendent
- W. E. Andrews, Quality Assurance Staff Supervisor
- W. H. Kinsey, Jr., Assistant Power Plant Results Supervisor
- E. Condon, Pre Operation Test Supervisor
- Indicates those present at the Exit Interview.
2.
Licearee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
3.
Unresolved Items None identified during this inspection.
4.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on December 29, 1978.
The scope and findings of the inspection were summarized.
5.
Plant Operations Review Committee Activities The inspector reviewed the Plant Operations Review Committee (PORC)
activities for the period of time from September 1, 1978 through December 16, 1978, with regard to membership, material reviewed, meeting frequency, and if the activities are being carried out in accordance with written procedures as stated in the PORC charter.
.
.
RII Report No. 50-327/78-45 II-2 No items of noncompliance or deviation were identified.
The inspector, while reviewing the PORC charter and comparing its contents to the proposed technical specifications, did note several areas of inconsistency:
a.
Section 6.5.1.3 of the proposed technical specifications states that all alternates shall be appointed in writing by the PORC Chairman to serve on a temporary basis; however, no more than two alternates shall participate as voting members in PORC activities at any one time.
The PORC charter allows for the assistant plant supervisor or a representative designated by the supervisor to serve as an alternate committee member when his supervisor is absent.
b.
Section 6.5.1.5 of the proposed technical specifications states in part that the minimum quorum of the PORC necessary for performance of PORC responsibility shall consist of the hairman or his alternate and four members, including alternates.
The PORC charter states in part that a quorum shall exist when the plant superintendent or alternate is present and at least three (3) of five (5) supervisors or alternates present.
Section 6.5.1.7.C of the proposed techtical specifications c.
states that the Chief, Nuclear Generation Branch and the Nuclear Safety Review Board shall be provided written notifica-tion within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of disagreement between the PORC and the plant superintendent; however, the plant superintendent shall have responsibility for resolution of such disagreements.
The PORC charter has no provisions for notification or resolu-tion of such disagreements.
These three areas of inconsistency will remain an open item and will be reviewed at later inspections (78-45-01).
6.
Plant Tour The inspector walked through various areas of the plant to observe ope ations and activities in progress.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.