IR 05000327/1979058
| ML19260B065 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 10/23/1979 |
| From: | Gibson A, Jackson L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19260B057 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-327-79-58, 50-328-79-30, NUDOCS 7912060467 | |
| Download: ML19260B065 (4) | |
Text
o#
UNITED STATES
1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
g a
hEGION 11 o,
'f 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 o@
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 303o3 Report Nos.: 30-327/79-58 and 50-328/79-30 Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority 500A Chestnut Street Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401 Facility Name: Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328 License Nos. CPPR-72 and CPPR-73 Inspection at Sequoy ' Nuclear Plant near Chattanooga, Tennessee Inspec or:
7W
/k23[?'/
/
L. L. JaEkV Date Signed Approved by:
A
/d/21/ 7',
f A.'F. Gib'soM, Secticn Chief, FFMS Branch Date Signed SUMMARY Inspection on October 1-5, 1979 Areas Inspected This routine unannounced inspectioa involved 38 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of preoperational testing of radwaste systems, review of procedures for implementation of radiological Technical Specifications and plant tours to inspect the construction status and as built configuration of portions of the liquid and gaseous radwaste systems.
Results Of the three areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
1521 011
-
7912060
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- J. M. Ballentine, Plant Superintendent
- W. E. Andrews, Quality Assurance Supervisor
- W. H. Kinsey, Jr., Assistant Results Supervisor
- D. L. Cowart, SNP-QA Staff Member
- D. E. Crawley, SNP-Occupational Health and Safety Staff Member
- W. S. Wilburn, As,istant Supervisor, Preop Test Section
- A. W. Crevasse, Pcwer Managers Office, Staff Member
- W. J. Glasser, Power Managers Office, Staff Member J. T. Dills, Jr., Che.nical Engineer M. J. Burzynski, Office of Power, Regulatory Staff Member E. A. Condon, Supervisor, Preop Test Section NRC Resident Inspector
- W.
T. Cottle
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on October 5,1979 with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
3.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
.
4.
Review of Preoperational Test Results The inspector reviewed the results of two radwaste system preep tests and one radiation monitoring system preop test. Other tests which were sub-stantially complete were not reviewed because they generally contained several unresolved deficiencies. These tests will be reviewed after the deficiencies are corrected and the systems retested, as appropriate. Tests reviewed were:
W-5.4, Gaseous Waste Processing System a.
The test data were meaningful and understandable, the acceptance criteria were specified and deficiencies were identified.
Six deficiencies remained to be corrected in the waste gas system but only two of these are potentially significant. The waste gas compressors would not perform at the design capacity of 40 scfm at 110 psig and 140*F, and the calculated vert header flow from the waste gas decay 1521 Oli
-2-
,
tanks (WGDT) to the shield building vent did not agree with the average indicated (measured) flow.
Both of these deficiencies are being studied to determine the causes. The inspector asked the licensee to pay particular attention to the possibility that unidentified flow paths were causing the flow discrepancies docum.nted in these two deficiencies. The inspector will review the resolutions to these discrepancies. There were no further qu;stions at this time.
W-5.2, Liquid Waste Receipt and Storage u.
The test data were meaningful and understandable, the acceptance criteria were specified and deficiencies were identified. This test revealed that the Nitrogen Supply to the Reactor Coolant Drain Tank (RCDT) was not adequate to maintain a positive pressure of 0.810.1 psig in the tank with the RCDT pump pumping water out of the tank.
It appears that the nitrogen piping (and also the vent piping)was too small to accommodate the required nitrogen flow resulting in a partial vacuum in the RCDT. The undersized piping is being replaced.
The inspector will review the results of this modification during a subsequent inspection.
(NOTE-These items have been adequately identified and are being track.
by the licensec's test program. NRC inspection requirements are such that preop test procedures will not be classified as complete until all deficiencie a-e satisfactorily resolved. As a result, these items are not assig.ed unique open item numbers for the purpose of tracking.)
c.
TVA-31D, Off-Line Gaseous Monitors The inspector reviewed the completed test. The test data were meaningful and understandable, the acceptance criteria were specified, deficiencies had been identified and corrective actions nad been completed. Portions of the test had been rerun after the corrective actions and the completed test package had been reviewed and signed by the appropriate personnel. The inspector had no further questions regarding this test.
5.
Procedure Review The inspector reviewed several draft Surveillance Instructions (SI's) for implementing the proposed radiological Technical Specifications.
General comments and questions were given to licensee representatives for consideration prior to final approval of the procedures.
.
Some of the more technical procedures (Technical Instructions) vere not ready for review. Because of the complex nature of this program, the inspector requested that a complete package of the procedures necessary to implement the radiological technical specifications (Technical Instructions, Standard Operating Instructions, etc.) be assembled and providcJ to the inspector to facilitate a thorough, systematic review. Licensee management represcntatives agreed to provide the requested procedures. A complete review of this program will be perfonnd upon receipt of the procedures.
1521 013
V-3-
,
6.
Plant Tour The inspector toured portions of the radwaste system and observed that the liquid portion Z that system was being utilized to process construction water. The inspector discussed the source of this water wi' h licensee representatives and was informed that most of it was coming from Unit 2.
The inspector later discussed with a management representative how the Unit 2 inputs into the shared radwaste system will be controlled after receipt of an operating licen;e for Unit 1.
The inspector was shown a Unit Se* aration Proced tre which will be implemented upon completion of all the p>-)p tests involving the applicable drain systems. The procedure requires tl t Unit 2 drains be capped or plugged with specially marked caps (or plugs) which forbid removal without specific approval by appropriate members of management.
The inspector advised licer.see management that unit separation had been a problem at other facilities and asked that the licensee pay particular attention to the capping of drains and to ensuring that all flow paths between the two units are isolated and the valves appropriately controlled.
The inspector also observed th:.t auxiliary steam lines to the evaporators were leaking large amounts of water (Condensate) onto the floor. This apparent problem was discussed with the Preop Test Group Supervisor who ackncwledged that he was aware of the problem but stated that the cause had not been fully determined. This problem was also brought to the attention of the plant operating staff.
It appeared to the inspector that the additional load on the radwaste system could be significant if this problem is not corrected prior to initial criticality. The problem has been identified and a solution is being pursued.
fhe inspector has no further questions at this time.
.
1521 Oi4