IR 05000327/1979039
| ML19209A081 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 08/06/1979 |
| From: | Burnett P, Donat T, Moon B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19209A076 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-327-79-39, NUDOCS 7910020208 | |
| Download: ML19209A081 (4) | |
Text
'I UNITED STATES
[
'o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
! 3,. (f(' g REGION ll W/. r 101 MARIETT A ST., N.W., SulT E 3100
'
i-
!
o,% ' \\# [o8 ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30303
.....
Report No. 50-327/79-39 Tennessee Valley Authority Licensee:
500A Chestnut Street Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401 Facility Name: Sequoyah Unit 1 Docket No. 50-327 License No. CPPR-72 Inspection at: Sequoyah Site near Daisy Tennessee b629
)mwM
_
"T.~s. Donat
/ ~
Date Signed
_
Inspectors:
7 _
'
9Mhr did412 W Date Signed B. T. Moon /
S. P. Welch ' Intern)
Accompanying Personnel:
.
C. Lim (Korean Atomic Energy Bureau)
N-29
'
/ww/M Date Signed Approved by:P. T.' Burnett, Acting Section Chief, RONS Branch
'
.
SUMMARY Inspection on July 23-27, 1979 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 56 inspector-hours onsite in th areas of comparison of the plant's as built condition to the FSAR description, and a review of the licensee's security and health physics training program.
Results identi-inspected, no apparent items of noncerspliance were Of the two areas Uz3-o7y fied.
yw..
-. -
- M it 7 910020 [h
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- J. M. Ballentine, Plant Superintendent - SNP
- C. E. Cantrell, Assistant Plant Superintendent - SNP
- W. E. Andrews, QA Staff Supervisor - SNP
- D. O. McCloud, QA Engineer - SNP
- R. W. Farrell, Construction QCRU Supervisor - SNP
- M. A. McBurnett, Nuclear Engineer - TVA Staff
- D. L. Terrill, Nuclear Engineer - TVA Staff
- M. W. Alexander, QA Engineer, Power QA&AS
- G. W. Killian, QA Coordinator, Power QA&AS
- J. E. Law, Q. A. Coordinator, DPRODQA Staff Other licensee employees contacted included construction craftsmen, operators, and mechanic.
- W. A. Ruhlman, USNRC Region II NRC Resident Inspector
- W. T. Cottle
- Attended exit interview.
2.
Exit Interview 27,1979, with The inspection scope and findings were sum arized on JulyWithin the areas inspected those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings 3.
Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
Comparison of the as-built plant configuration to the FSAR description.
5.
A comparison was performed between the in plant-as-built configuration an The the FSAR description for various Engineered Safety Feature systems.
comparison was performed in two parts, the first was a comparison of FSA (P&ID's) to the licensee's as-built piping and instrumentation drawingssecond was a comparison of the FSAR drawi drawings, and the
-
installed systems.
mat]hj j
.
_....
t
,
-2-7.f
el to the comparison of FSAR piping and instfumentation drawings The licensee's as-built drawings was perforudd for the following systems:
a.
Containment Spray FSAR figuire 6.2-6.3 TVA Dwg No. 47W812-IR8 Safety Injection System TVA Dwg No. 47W811-1R16 FSAR figure 6.3-1 Residual Heat Removal FSAR figure 5.5-6 TVA Dwg No. 47W810-1R8 Upper Head Injection TVA Dwg No. 47W811-2R7 FSAR figure 6.3-14 drawings used were the construction quality control The as-built drawings which were all under Functional Configuration record unit Control and which reflected all current ECN's of FCN's installed in The following items were noted during this comparison:
the systems.
47W811-1, Revision 16, for the Safety Injection (1) TVA Drawing two pressure breakdown orifices in each of the system shows Safety Injection accumulator's discharge piping upstream of the The orifices, installed inside motor operated isolation valves.shown on the FSAR figure while the the accumulators, are not orifice installed in the piping is shown.
TVA Drawing 47W810-1, Revision 8,.for the Residual Heat Removal (2)
System shows valves74-539 and 74-540 as normally closed whereas There the FSAR figure shows these valves as normally open.
valves are vent and drain valves for the flood mode header pipe and terminate in flanged blanks.
TVA drawing 47W811-2, Revision 7,.for the Upper Head Injection (3)
This is system is completely different from FSAR figure 6.3-14.
because the FSAR figure does not reflect any of the piping and instrumentation changes necessitated as a result of completion of preoperational testing.
The issuance of revised figures to the FSAR to bring them into confor-mance with the licensee's functional configuration control drawings will be followed as Inspector Followup Item (79-39-01).
to the comparison of FSAR Piping and Instrumentation Drawings b.
The installed systems was performed for the following systems:
FSAR figure 6.2-63 Containment Spray FSAR figures 6.2-63 and 5.5-6 Residual Heat Removal Spray FSAR figures 6.3-1 and 5.5-6 Low Pressure (RHR) Injection FSAR figure 6.3-1 Safety Injection High Pressure (Centrifugal Charging)
FSAR figure 6.3-1 Injection FSAR figure 6.3-1 Safety Injection Accumulators II23-O~76
....
-.
r J g
_.
.
.
..
.
.
-3-
.
FSAR figure 6.3-14 Upper Head Injection FSAR figure 10.4-19 Auxiliary Feedwater The comparison consisted of a hand over hand walk down of the system from the system's water source to the point where the system piping System or the Steam Generator feed penetrated the Reactor CoolantThe location, identification and where appr of all valves, pumps, and instruments were compared with the information line.
Other than numerous valves lacking permanently on the FSAR drc :ngs.
the one installed label plates the only discrepancy noted was that inch chemical feed lines for Steam Generators 2 and 3 which are The resolution on FSAR figure 10.4-19 could not be located in the plant.o Review Licensee Health Physics and Security Training 6.
The inspector attended a security and health physics training class and The health physics presentation monitored the material being presented.
was made using video cassettes and covered the following topics:
Radiation Fundamentals a.
b.
Radiation Dose L1: nits SWP's (Special Work Permits)
c.
ALARA Programs d.
Dosimetry and Anti-Contamination Clothing
_
e.
f.
Federal Regulations Also, as part of the Health Physics program each attendee was required to don an MSA Full Face Respirator, and pass a written examination covering -
The security portion of the course was presented the six topics listed above.
by one of the site security officers. The pre,sentation covered:
Badge color codes, Search requirements on items entering the plant, a.
Random pat down procedures on personnel entering secured area, b.
c.
d.
Escorted and unescorted visitors, Emergency response assembly areas, Key card system - who will receive cards and when system will start e.
f.
operation.
The inspector had no connents on the content or presentation of either the security training or health physics training.
Uz3 - o77
'
~
f h fi %
.
e-