IR 05000327/1981002
| ML20004D347 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 02/13/1981 |
| From: | Fiedler R, Quick D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20004D334 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-327-81-02, 50-327-81-2, NUDOCS 8106090252 | |
| Download: ML20004D347 (3) | |
Text
f~
__
,
.-
'
rerug)
,
UNITED STATES d,g
'n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$
,E REqlON11 g
'[
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W.. SUIT E 3100 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
%
p'
.....
O Report No. 50-327/81-2
,
i Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority 500A Chestnut Street Chattanooga, TN 37401 Facility Name: Sequoyah Docket No. 50-327 License No. DPR-77 Inspection at Sequoyah Nu: lear Plant near Chattanooga, Tennessee Inspector:
D_i m hgj-8/
R. L. Fiedler Date Signed Approved by:
2 - /.3 - 8/
D. R. Quick, S6ction Chief, RONS Branch Date Signed SUMMARY Inspection on J3nuary 19 through January 23, 1981 Areat Inspected This routine inspection involved 34 inspector-hours on site in the area of review of power ascension test results.
Results Of the area inspected, one apparent violation was found. (Failure of the PORC to render determinations in writing with.egard to whether or not each item considered under Technical Specificatior. 6.5.1.6(a) through (e) constitutes an unreviewed safety question. Technical Speci ?ication 6.5.1.7(b)).
310609O W
--
-
,
r
.
-
!
,
,
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
"J. M. Ballentine, Plant Superintendent
- W. T. Cottle, Assistant Plant Superintendent
!
- J. M. McGriff, Assistant to Plant Superintendent j
t
- W. H. Kinsey, Results Supervisor
- E. A. Condon, Pre-Op Test Supervisor
.
D. O. McCloud, Quality Assurance Supervisor i
- M. A. Skarginski, Pre-Op Engineer l
R. Fortenberry, Nuclear Engineer
i
- Attended Exit Interview i
2.
Exit Interview
}
The inspection scope and findings were summarized on January 23, 1981 with l
those persons indicated in Paragraph I above. The inspector discussed the
'
one apparent violation and two additional potential problem areas described
.
in paragraph 5.
The licensee representatives acknowledged their under-
,
standing of the findings.
t 3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings i
'
Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items
!
Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
- 5.
Power Ascension Tests Results Review The inspector examined the procedures used and the results obtained from the
!
following Power Ascension Tests.
l W-10.1 Automatic Reactor Control i
W-10.2 Automatic Steam Generator Level Control i
i 5U-1.1 Loss of Offsite Power 50-8,5.4 Delta T and Intermediate Range Instrumentation
[
Extrapolation to 100% Power
'
SU-9.5 Rod Drop t
F
~
..
.
s
..
The results appeared satisfactory with the following exceptions.
A potential problem exists in that the equipment identification number and/or the calibration dates were not recorded for all of the test equipment used in the performance of W-10.2.
The Pre-op Test Supervisor committed to reiterate the ranuirement with test supervisors, to record test equipment identification aid calibration dates.
This item will be inspected during future inspections (IFI 327/81-02-03).
A potential problem exists in that during a review of the results of pro-cedures SU-8.5.4 by plant personnel, the data of Data Sheet One was revised.
The evised data did not meet the required acceptance cri eria, which, in t
turn, required a Deviation to be noted in Appendix B of SU-8.5.4.
No deviation was written.. This item will be inspecte! during future inspections (IFI 327/81-02-02).
During the review of test results which required changes to be made to
'
existing plant procedures, it was discovered that there were no written determinations being made by the PORC with regard to whether or not these required procedure revisions constitute an unreviewed safety question. This failure to make written determinations is an apparent violation of Technical Specification 6.5.1.7(b).
This specification states that the PORC shall render determinations in writing with regard to whether or not each item considered under 6.5.1.6(a) through (e) constitutes an unreviewed safety question.
This item will be inspected during future inspections (VIO 327/81-02-01).
!
,
h h
,
&
i t
b
,
- - -.
- - - -,. -, - - -, - -
r
-, -
- - - -,, _ _ - -
- -. - - -
- - - - - - - _.-