IR 05000327/1981005
| ML20003E820 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 03/05/1981 |
| From: | Conlon T, Lenahan J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20003E816 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-327-81-05, 50-327-81-5, 50-328-81-04, 50-328-81-4, NUDOCS 8104100646 | |
| Download: ML20003E820 (5) | |
Text
.
/ e uruq%
UNITE ~ STATES
u 8'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
o
$
E REGION 11 d'['
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W.. SulTE 3100 e,
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
.....
MAR 0 61981
,
Report Nos. 50-327/81-05 and 50-328/81-04 Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority 500A Chestnut Street
.
Chattanooga, TN 37401 Facility Name:
Sequoyah Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328 License Nos. DPR-77 and CPPR-73 Inspection at Sequoyah site near Chattanooga, TN Inspecto N 8 -8-7 /
J. J. Lenahan Date Signed Approved W Y d 2PS-71 ce2 +
T. E. Conlon, Chief, Plant Systems Section Date Signed EI Branch SUMMARY Inspection on January 10-12, 1981 Areas Inspected
,
This routine, announced inspection involved 20 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of test surveillance and licensee identified items concerning non-reinforced masonry walls.
Resul ts Of the two areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
.
!
e v
8104100(O N
..
. -
.
.
. _.._
..
.
.
.-
DETAILS
' 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- J. M. Balletine, Plant Manager
,
- W. - T. Cottle, Assistant Plant Manager
- L. M. Mills,-Manager Nuclear Regulation and Safety.
- D. :L. McCloud, Site QA Supervisor
- J. McGriff, Assistant Plant Mancger M. Campbell, Mechanical Engineer, Outage Group J. Prevo, Supervisor, Outage Group H. D. Hutchinson, Civil Engineer, EN DES W. Leslie, Civil Engineer, EN DES M. Pate, Construction, Civil QC Supervisor
- D. W. Kelley, Construction, QCRU Supervisor T. Ketcham, Mechanical Enineer, EN-DES Site Office C. Richardson, Supervisor, EN DES Site Office M. Cutlip, Mechanical Engineer, Leakrate Testing Group NRC Resident Inspector
- S. Bulter
- Attended exit interview
.2.
. Exit Interview
'
The inspection. scope and findings.were summarized on February 13, 1981, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
3.,
Licensee Action in Previous Inspection. Findings Not inspected.
.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve noncompliance or deviations.
New unresolved items identified during this inspection are discussed in paragraph 6.
5.
Containment Structural Integrity Test (SIT) Unit 2 a.
Review of Quality Records Pertaining to Initial SIT
'
" ~
'
~
Trif co~ntainment' v'essel was' des'fgned'and' fabricated 'by' the.
~"'4 Chicago Bridge and Iron Company (CBI)'in accordance with the requirements of Section III of the 1968 Edition (including Winter of 1968 Addenda) ASME code and TVA specification 9803 i
,
>
e "
,
=
,
- - - -
,
-p
,
,
-
,
e
._
.
-:2c-
" Structural Steel Containment Vessels._for the. Reactor' Buildings at Sequoyah' Nuclear Plant; Units 1 and.2.".TVA specification 9803 required CBI to perform a structrual integrity and leak
.
rate : test' of the vessel after construction was completed.
but prior to installation. of the penetrations. _ The inspector
. reviewed CBI report entitled " Overload Pressure Test and'
Initial Leakage Rate. Test;for Sequoyh Nuclear-Plant Unit No. 2.
Containment -Vessel" which.sumarized the. results of the SIT
.
and leak rate test-performed by CBI-in 1976, prior to installation of.the penetrations. Acceptance criteria examined-by the; inspector in review of. this-report were CBI procedure VTL-69-.
5546, " Vessel Contract Instruction for Strength, Leak and Leakage Rate Testing," TVA specification _9803, and Section III of the 1968 ASME Code.
b.
Review of TVA Test Procedures The purpose 'of the current SIT was.to proof test the. penetrations-in the vessel as required by Appendix J of 10 CFR 50.- The'
inspector examined Appendix Q of. Preoperational Test Instruction-TVA-2A, titled " Containment Vessel Pressure and Leak Test Structural -Integrity Test" to determine if the. test activities-
~
were in accordance with the.FSAR Section 3.8.2,Section III (1968 Edition) of th'e ASME Code, and NRC requirements..The test procedure specified the prerequisites to be completed.
prior to the start of the' test, the special -test equipment:
required, the method and sequence for ~ application of the test loads, and acceptance criteria. The test pressure' was:specified to be 1.25 times the containment design pressure.
,
.
c.
Observation of TVA Test Activities
!
Prior to the -start of the structural integrity test, the inspector tou' red the containmentJstructure and verified the'
currentness of calibration of Dewcel instrument numbers DPE-25 '
,
and'DPE-26 and RTD numbers RTD-27 and RTD-43. The inspector-l also verified the position of selected _ valves as. stated in
-
j-Preoperational Test Instruction TVA-2A. : Valves examined were as followst - 63-650,63-655, 70-736,77-519, 77-848,77-850, i.
"'77-867,'77-869,77-880, 87-7, 87-8 and 87-523.
Prior to the start of pressurization, the inspector discontinued his inspection effort in this area.to assist-Region II operations
[
personnel in response to the incident regarding the discharge i
of water through the RHR containment spray system into the Unit 1 containment building.
4._
.., p.
_...,
. c..ic ;
>
.-c
,
.g
.
-
..
.
.
,
!
. No deviations' or violations were identified.
!
!
.
-
..
l-
- , * j
~
<-
.
,
, <
,
,
. -*
. a.
,,
..
.
.
'
-
-3-6.
Licensee'Identifiec Items (10 CFR 50.55(e) and LER)
(0 pen):
50-55(e) Item (328/81-04-02) and LER (SQR0-50-327/80180):
Overstressed Nonreinforced Masonry Walls In response to an NRR letter dated April 21, 1980, the licensee performed a design reanalysis of all masonry walls in Units 1 and 2.
The licensee analyzed reinforced masonery walls and determined that the as-constructed reinforced walls conformed to design require-ments.
However, in performance of the design analysis for non-reinforced masonry walls, the licensee determined that some of the non-reinforced walls in the proximity of safety related equipment did not conform to seismic design requirements.
This was reported to NRC Region II on October 17, 1980, as a construction deficiency reportable under 10 CFR 50.55(e) for Unit 2.
On November 14, 1980, the licensee determined that this problem was also applicable to Unit 1 and reported it to Region II as a LER reportable under Technical Specification requirements.
The inspector discussed the program which was. implemented to perform the design re-evaluation of reinforced and non-reinforced masonry walls with Engiotering Design (EN DES) personnel.
The inspector reviewed noncom ormance report number NCR SQN CEB 8030 which was written to docWent and correct the problem.
Review of the NCR and discussion wit' EN DES personnel disclosed that work plans had been developed to install structural restraints on walls which the design analysis indicated would have been overstressed during a seismic event. The inspector reviewed Work Plan 8931, which was writtan to install the required structural restraints on Unit I walls, and Work Plan 8931R which was written to install-the required
. structural restaints on Unit.2. walls.
The work required by Work
,
Plan 8931 (for Unit I walls) had been completed and the work required by Work Plan 8931R (for Unit 2 walls) was in progress.
The inspector examined the restraints which had been installed on the non-reinforced.
walls in the. proximity of the Units 1 and 2 charging pumps to
verify that the' work was being completed in accordance with the l
requirements specified in the work plans.
,
j The discussions with EN DES personnel disclosed the following
'
unresolved item:
EN EDS personnel indicated that the program for the identification and the field survey of non-reinforced and reinforced masonry walls had been controlled by a series of memos prepared by various EN DES personnel.
The EN DES personnel also indicated that some of the
,
j field survey work was performed by one individual and may not have f
.
.
been. checked. in order;to verify its < accuracy prior to being incorporatede
'
.
into the design re-evaluation program.
However, there were no l
copies of the EN DES memos or the field survey data on site for review by the inspector to determine if the re-evaluation program i
l
.
L
__
O s
-4-had been_ controlled by adequate procedures and that the procedures'
~ The apparent lack of adequate procedures has been implemented.
to control ~ the masonry wall re-evaluation analysis program was
-
identified to the licensee as Unresolved Item 327/81-05-01 and
-
328/81-04-01 " Masonry Wall Re-evaluation Program Procedures" pending further review by NRC.
'
No deviations or violations were identified.
.
J
!
l
!
1
'
' *
'
,
,
,. ~
"
M n
s s
o e
y
,,
,
i l
-
,
I
-
.
'
-
c
,
c.
,,
-