IR 05000327/1982012

IE Insp Repts 50-327/82-12 & 50-328/82-12 on 820506-0605.No Noncompliance Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Operational Safety Verification,Maint & Surveillance,Unit 2 Startup Testing & Independent Insp Effort

ML20055A030
Person / Time
Site:	Sequoyah
Issue date:	06/18/1982
From:	Butler S, Ford E, Quick D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20055A027	List: IR 05000327/1982012 ML20055A026
References
50-327-82-12, 50-328-82-12, NUDOCS 8207150406
Download: ML20055A030 (6)

Text

/

. .

8,f 'o,,

o UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

$ E REGION 11 o '# 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 k o ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303

.....

Report Nos. 50-327/82-12 and 50-328/82-12 Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority 500A Chestnut Street Chattanooga, TN 37401 Facility Name: Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328 License Nos. DPR-77 and DPR-79 Inspection at Sequ 3h site near Soddy Daisy, Tennessee Inspectors:

E. G. F

,

d"

// /& 0!/8 FD f(at( Signed

/' 7-

/ L /'.A L S. D. Butle~r /

Ma/Bu D6te ' Signed Aoproved by: W)

D. R. Quick' Section Chief, Division of dDate8'Signed 8k Project and Resident Programs SUMMARY Inspection on May 6 - June 5,1982 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 192 inspector-hours on site in the areas of Operational Safety Verification, Maintenance and Surveillance, Unit 2 Startup Testing and Independent Inspection Effor Results Of the four areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identifie $$k7kha O G

,

. .

DETAILS 1. Persons Contacted Licensee Employees C. C. Mason, Plant Superintendent J. E. Cross, Assistant Plant Superintendent P. R. Wallace, Assistant Plant Superintendent J. M. McGriff, Assistant Plant Superintendent J. W. Doty, Maintenance Supervisor (M)

B. M. Patterson, Maintenance Supervisor (I)

D. C. Craven, Maintenance Supervisor (E)

L. M. Nobles, Operations Supervisor R. W. Fortenberry, Results Supervisor R. J. Kitts, Health Physics Supervisor J. T. Crittenden, Public Safety Service Supervisor R. L. Hamilton, Quality Assurance Supervisor M. R. Harding, Compliance Supervisor W. M, Halley, Preoperational Test Supervisor J. Robinson, Outage Director Other licensee employees contacted included field services craftsmen, technicians, operators, shift engineers, security force members, engineers, maintenance personnel, contractor personnel and corporate office personne Other Organizations Paul Ambros, Brazilian National Commission for Nuclear Energy (CNEN)

2. Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized with the Plant Super-intendent and/or members of his staff on June 2, 198 During the reporting period, frequent discussions are held with the Plant Superintendent and his assistants concerning inspection finding . Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) 327, 328/82-04-01, 328/82-04-02. The inspector reviewed the licensee's response to the Notice of Violation dated May 5,1982 and the implementation of corrective action and found them acceptable. These items are close . Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspectio . .

5. Operational Safety Verification The inspectors toured various areas of the plant on a routine basis throughout the reporting period. The following activities were reviewed / verified: Adherence to limiting conditions for operation which were directly observable from the control room panel Control board instrumentation and recorder trace Proper control room and shift mannin The use of approved operating procedures, Unit operator and shif t engineer log General shift operating practice , Housekeeping practice Posting of hold tags, caution tags and temporary alteration tag Personnel, package, and vehicle access control for the plant protected a rea . General shift security practices on post manning, vital area access control and security force response to alarm Surveillance and start-up testing in progres . Maintenance activities in progres Health Physics Practices.

j On May 28, 1982 the inspector made a tour and inspection of Unit 2 lower i

'

containment prior to startup following a two week maintenance and surveil-lance outage. Status of work, system conditions and housekeeping appeared satisfactory. No other discrepancies were noted, i No violations or deviations were identified.

l 6. Maintenance and Surveillance On May 13, 1982 the inspector observed the replacement of the 1B-B Diesel Generator (DG) battery and battery rack. The work was performed in accordance with work plan WP-9119. The inspector reviewed the work plan to

verify that it was complete, that the work was properly authorized, that the correct material was being used and that the specified quality assurance requirements were being met. The inspector verified that the technical specification requirements were being met for both units while the DG was

. _ _ __ _ _ _ ._ _ . _ _ _ .

,

. .

unavailable for service. Following the battery replacement the inspecter witnessed portions of the post maintenance testing that was required by the work plan. The inspection and testing was performed in accordance with SI-238 " Diesel Generator Battery System Inspection". During the visual inspection maintenance personnel identified three cells that had some plate discoloration and flaking. The inspector observed replevement of the cells prior to placing the battery on equalizing charge. The cell replacement was performed in accordance with maintenance request MR A018560 and Modification and Additional Instruction M&AI-15 " Diesel Generator Battery Cell Removal or Replacement".

The work was completed and the DG returned to service within the time allowed by technical specification On May 18, 1982 the inspector observed a portion of the replacement of air solenoid valves for containment isolation valves 2-FCV-90-107 and 111. The replacement was performed in accordance with work plan WP950 The inspector verified that the work was authorized and proper documentation was available for use at the work site. The work was monitored by the cognizant engineer and a quality assurance inspecto On May 20, 1982 the inspector observed a portion of the replacement of Essential Ras Cooling Water (ERCW) piping to several Unit 2 safety-related pump room coolers. The carbon steel piping is being replaced with stainless steel to mitigate the corrosion blockage problem previously identified by the licensee. The work is being performed by work plan WP-9588. The inspector reviewed the work plan and verified that the work was properly authorized and that appropriate documentation was being recorded for the assembly and welding which was being performed. Following completion of the work, the inspector observed that the work was complete and the affected room coolers were restored to norma On May 21, 1982 the inspector observed preparation for the bench functional testing of hydraulic snubber 2-MSH-303. The snubber reservoir was discovered to be empty during visual inspections performed in accordance with Surveillance Instruction SI-162 " Hydraulic Snubber Inspection and Testing". The technical specifications allow the snubber to be considered operable for determining surveillance frequency if it can satisfy functional

, testing criteria in the as found condition. The functional testing was l performed in accordance with Maintenance Request MR A037852 and Maintenance Instruction MI 6.13B " Functional Testing and Adjusting Hydraulic Snubbers".

The testing documents were reviewed and the testing methods and criteria were discussed with the cognizant engineer. Calibration of measuring and test equipment was verified and the bench setup was compared to procedural requirements. Actual testing was delayed in order to bring ambient ( temperature into the range required by procedure. The cognizant engineer subsequently reported that the snubber met the functional criteria for operabilit On June 3, 1982 the inspector reviewed the work package for the change out of the rotating element of the 2B-B centrifugal charging pump. The element I ,. _m

-- . . - . .-- . - - - - --

.. .

j l 4 was exchanged with one for which the licensee had a manufacturer's developed performance curve (See IE reports 328/82-03,82-04). The inspector reviewed

'

Maintenance Request MR #168089, Maintenance Instruction MI-6.4, MI-6.10 and r MI-6.15. The post maintenance testing was performed in accordance with

.

Surveillance Instruction SI-40. The inspector did not identify any dis-

crepancie In addition the inspector compared performance curves for the replacement rotating element and the original pump rotating element and agreed that they compared adequately enough to provide assurance that the j pump could meet technical specification performance requirement . Unit 2 Startup Testing j On May 11, 1982 the inspector witnessed S/U 10.2 " Steam Generator Moisture Carryover Test" performed on Unit 2 at 100% power. The test was witnessed

'

to ensure that it was properly authorized and performed in accordance with the approved test procedure. The inspector verified that the proper radiological precautions were taken when receiving and handling the radio-active sodium isotope used for the test. The test results were discussed

with the test director and the preliminary calculations were reviewed which j indicated that the results met the acceptance criteria.

I On May 14, 1982 the inspector witnessed the performance of S/U 9.4A " Plant Trip from 100% Power". The inspector verified that the approved test

<

procedure was available and in use and members of the test and operations

'

staff were adequately briefed prior to performing the test. The inspector

verified that the test prerequisites were met prior to initiation of the plant trip and that the test acceptance criteria were met. Following the

'

'

'

plant trip the inspector verified that plant conditions were stabilized and _

controlled in accordance with approved procedures. The unit was cooled down

, to mode 5 following the trip to support a scheduled outage.

I No violations or deviations were identified.

I On June 4,1982, the inspector witnessed S/U 9.3 "Large Load Reduction Test" l performed on Unit 2 at 100% power. The inspector verified that a properly i authorized procedure was in use, that test and operations personnel were i briefed and adequate communications were established. Discussions with the test director and observations by the inspector confirmed precautions were observed and prerequisites met. Methodology for documenting and tracking of test deficiencies were discussed as was appropriate acceptance criteri ,

Following the load reduction and return to power the inspector verified that the plant had returned to stable condition Post test review and discus-

! sions with the test personnel indicated that the test would meet the primary acceptance criteria.

f I

No violations or deviations were note . Independent Inspection Effort

,

) The inspector routinely attended the morning scheduling and staff meetings

during the reporting period. These meetings provide a daily status report I

!

i  ;

. ,

e .:

.. . ',

,

r

,e

.

< 'd

.J h ...

,

on the operational and testing activities in progress as well as a 3  ;,

discussion of significant problems or incidents associated with the start-up .; y testing and operations effor s /

, /

During the week of May 3-7, 1982, the resident's office was visited py /-7 Mr. Peulo Ambros of the Brazilian flational Connission for Nuclear Energy - fje + 3 (CilEN) . Mr. Ambros studied the workings and functions of a resident / '

, ,

inspector's office by accompanying the inspector throughout the week as he ,,)' '

discharged his duties; both progransnatic and reactiv ,'

No violations or deviations were identifie [

<'

I

/ P ,

-

t

/ ,

-

..

p y

.

) y

,

. ,t . J ., _.-

' '

,

.

/

~

.)

'

'

o f} ,

,,,

,,'

-

- ,

, . .

,,

• N

,, 'g

• * ' '

,

, ,, j

.- 7 g a

i p p t * '

/

<

.', s

/

f

/

t a

w, t

I

,

/

'

/

,

l !

t h

p*' ,

,

I s

"

, j

'

_3 Q .-