IR 05000327/1981034
| ML20032B429 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 09/22/1981 |
| From: | Burnett P, Matt Thomas NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20032B424 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-327-81-34, 50-328-81-39, NUDOCS 8111050539 | |
| Download: ML20032B429 (4) | |
Text
_
_
~
'
.
.
Cttug#'o UNITED STATE 3
~,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e.
$
E REGION 11 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 o,
-
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 s
Report Nos. 50-327/81-34 and 50-328/81-39 Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority 500A Chestnut Street Chattanooga, TN 27401 Facility Name:
Sequcyah Nuclear Plant Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328 License flos. DPR-77 and DPR-79 Inspection at Sequoyah Nuclear Plant near Chattanooga, TN Inspector: '//; $ //llu ~u,a /{
9-22-2/
M.'Thomts
~~ /
Date Signed
,
Y flL]kc/
J,Ib r-9-2 2 -ls'l Aoproved by:
a4 P. T.~ Burnett, Acting S ction Chief Date Signed Engineering Inspection Branch Engineering and Technica' Inspection Division SUMMARY Inspection on August 28. September 2,1981 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 60 inspector-hours on site in the areas of pre-critical test procedure review; test witnessing and test results
,
l review; preoperational test procedure and test results review; and review of i
license DPR-77 conditions.
l l
Results Of the three areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
!
!
i
hh O
O
.
!
,
.
r REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- J. M. McGriff, Assistant Plant Superintendent
- M. R. Harding, Compliance Supervisor
- W. M. Halley, Preoperational Test Supervisor
- T. L. Howard, Quality Engineering Supervisor Other licensee employees contacted included seven technicians, two opera-tors, three security force members, and eight preoperational test personnel.
,.
NRC Resident Inspector
- E. H. Ford, Senior Resident Inspector S. D. Butler, Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview
_ _ __._
2.
Exit Interview
The inspection scope and findings were summarized on September 2, 1981 with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
3.
Licensee Action on Previo Js Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Pre-critical Test Procedure Review Pre-critical test procedures were reviewed for conformance with Regulatory Guide 1.68, FSAR sections 4.2.3, 14.1 and table 14.1-1, Technicai Specifica-tions, and Operational Quality Assurance Manual, Part II, Section 4.
The inspector verified that munagement review and approval were indicated, test objectives were clearly stated, and acceptance criteria were specified. The following procedures were reviewed.
a.
W-1.5 Pressurizer Spray and Heater Capability and Setting of Continuous Spray Flow b.
W-1.6 Reactor Coolant System Flow Measurement
.
.
c.
W-9.1 Control Rod Drive Mechanism (Timing)
,
d.
W-9.3 Rod Drop Time Measurement e.
W-9.5 Rod Position Indication System There were no violatior;s or deviations identified in the areas inspected.
6.
Pre-critical Test Witnessing Portions of each of the tests listed in paragraph 5 were witnessed. The inspector observed overall test personnel performance in order to verify:
a.
Conformance to administrative and procedure requirements.
b.
Appropriate procedure revision was available and in use by test person-nel.
c.
All test prerequisites, initial conditio.ns, and precautions were met; and those which were waived had been reviewed and/or approved in accordance with procedure requirements.
d.
Test equipmen+ required by the procedure was calibrated and in service.
e.
Data was collected for final analysis by the proper personnel.
No violations or deviations were identified in the areas inspected.
7.
Test Results Review The inspector reviewed results of the tests listed in paragraph 5 to verify the following.
a.
Individual test steps and data sheets were properly initialed and dated, b.
Data sheets were completed.
c.
Changes to the procedure were made in accordance with pertinent procedure requirements.
d.
Test changes did not change the basic objective of the test.
e.
Deficiencies identified during testing and resolution of the deficien-cies were properly documcnted for review and evaluation by Engineering Design (ENDES).
i
,
..
.
Review of the completed test results had not been performed by ENDES at the time of this inspection. There were no violations or deviations identified in the areas inspected.
8.
Preoperation Test Procedure and Results Review Test procedures TVA-9A, Auxiliary Building Gas Treatment System (ABGTS) and Access Control System, was reviewed in conjunction with the test results because the test had been performed earlier. The inspector reviewed the procedure to veri fy that NRC requirements, licensee commitments and important system performance functions were adequatley reflected in the test procedure.
Review of the Sequoyah Safety Evaluation Report (SER), Supple-ment No. 2, Section 6.2.3, showed that once the final auxiliary building secondary containment enclosure (ABSCE) has been established, TVA is required to demonstrate that a negative pressure (0.25-inch water gauge)
level can be maintained in the < pent fuel storage area and the engineered safety features (ESF) pump root., by testing in the manner described in the Technical Specifications. This will demonstrate that the ABGTS and final ABSCE are acceptable for two unit operation of the Sequoyah Plant. One of the objectives of test TVA-9A is to show this requirement can be met.
Review of the results of test TVA-9A showed that the test objective and the SER requirement were met. Review of the completed test results had not been completed by ENDES at the time of this inspection.
No violations or deviations were identified in the areas inspected.
9.
License DPR-77 Conditions (Closed) Item 11 of Attachment 1, Negative Pressure in the Auxiliary Building Secondary Containment Enclosure.
TVA submitted a letter to the NRC, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Licensing on August 5, 1981, stating that the preoperational test which covered this requirement had been completed, and the ability to attain the necessary negative pressure had been demonstrated. As discusssed in paragraph 8, the inspector reviewed the test results and verified that this license condition has been met.
,
,
r
__
-.
,
m..
--1
-
._
..,
__.
- _.,.. -.
.-