IR 05000327/1987012

Insp Repts 50-327/87-12 & 50-328/87-12 on 870216-0417.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected: Employee Concerns Element Repts in Operations Category

ML20216E062
Person / Time
Site:	Sequoyah
Issue date:	06/16/1987
From:	Mccoy F, Poertner W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II), NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS
To:
Shared Package
ML20216D947	List: IR 05000327/1987012 ML20216D940
References
50-327-87-12, 50-328-87-12, NUDOCS 8706300633
Download: ML20216E062 (5)

Text

- _ _ _ .

j

"j i;[ >Heco

'o UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[ p . REGION 11 q jy y j 101 MARIETTA STREET, * 2 ATLANT A. GEOnGI A 30323 i jf s...../

Report Nos.: 50-327/87-12 and 50-328/87-12 1.icensee: Tennessee Valley Authority 6N38 A Lookout Place 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 Docket Nos.: 50-327 and 50-328 License Nos.: DPR-77 and DPR-79 Facility Name: Sequoyah 1 and 2 Inspection Conducted: February 16-20, March 2-6, March 16-20, and April 13-17, 1987 -

Lead Inspector: d > ye /g f./~

E K. Poertner Dafd 'Vigned Accompanying Inspectors: W. Bearden J. Brady R. Cooper D. Ford T. Powell W. Rowley Approved by: ~ > 3 4 6 [

F. R. NcCoy, Section Chief Dpte Signed

~

Division of TVA Projects Office of Special Projects SUMMARY Scope: This special, announced inspection was conducted in the area of Employee Concerns Element Reports in the Operations' Categor Results: No violations or deviations were identifie PDR ADOCK O 0%h7 PDR G

!

-_- _ _ _ -

.

DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

• E. Ennis, Plant Managers Staff

• A. Qualls, Plant Managers Staff

• B. Patterson, Maintenance Superintendent

• Harding, Licensing Group Manager

• M.. Martin, Licensing Manager

• Lagerghen,' Employee Concerns

• S. Franks, Employee Concerns

• R. McCraney._ Employee Concerns

• G. Kirk, Compliance Supervisor

• M. Cooper, Compliance Engineer Other licensee employees contacted included engineers, technicians, operators, mechanics, security force members, and office personne NRC Resident Inspectors

• K. Jenison P. Harmon D. Loveless

• Attended exit interview Exit Interview i The inspection scope and findings were summarized on March 20 and April 17,1987, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection finding No dissenting comments were received from the license The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspectors during this inspec-tion. . Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters This subject was not addressed in the inspection. Unresolved Items *

.

Unresolved items were not identified during this inspectio i i

• An Unresolved Item is a matter about which more information is required to ,

determine whether it is acceptable or may involve a violation or deviatio j l

i

)

I J

.

. Operations Employee Concerns Element Reports The purpose of this_ inspection was to review 38 Employee Concerns Element Reports in the Operations Category. The purpose of this review was to determine the adequacy of the licensees evaluation of the employee concerns contained in the element reports and to generate Safety Evalua- 3 tion Reports (SERs) for every element report reviewed. The inspectors '

used the following criteria as a basis for reviewing the Employee Concerns Element Report '

-

Does the statement of the problem agree with the referenced concern (s)?

-

What criteria or requirement was violated: code, standard, SAR commitments, TVA procedure, etc?

-

Was the problem programmatic?

-

Was the investigation adequate: aspects inspected, sample size, etc?

-

Was the root cause identified?

-

Is the corrective action adequate?

-

Has the corrective action been implemented?

-

Has implementation of the corrective action been verified?

-

Is the scope and timeliness of the corrective action (s) adequate for restart?

-

Are there any open items remaining to be resolved?  !

-

Was the problem identified by TVA prior to the concern being issued?

-

Does the TVA report contain all pertinent information?

-

Were the verifiable facts stated in TVA's investigation report correct? j I

-

Were any new problems identified, either related to the concern (s) i being inspected or otherwise? l

The inspectors reviewed the following Employee Concerns Element Reports: l

OP 30101 - Kerotest Valve Leakage and Corrosion OP 30102 - Diesel Generator Reliability Problems a

l i

, ..

OP 30105 - Questionable Design and Construction Practices OP 30107 - General Paint Concern Reactor Building OP 30108 - S/G Manway Installation OP 30112 - Valve Closure Problem OP 30114 - Malfunction of Doors OP 30115 - Hardware not Properly Identified OP 30201 - Possible Lack of Watertight Conduit and Connections OP 30202 - Five Percent Low Voltage Problems OP 30204 - Ground Detector Problems OP 30206 - Transfer Canal Electrical Equipment Problem OP 30301 - Difficulty of Obtaining Obsolete Equipment OP 30302 - Location of Cold Leg Accumulator and RWST Level Transmitters OP 30303 - Accuracy of Safety-Related Equipment OP 30305 - Reliability, Design and Maintenance of Radiation Monitoring Equipment OP 30401 - Procedure Problems OP 30402 - Electrical Penetration Breached OP 30403 - Cable Problems in Manholes OP 30501 - Accessibility Problems OP 30701 - Plant Operations Review Committee (PORC) Process OP 30704 - Workplan Process OP 30705 - Surveillance Program and Instructions OP 30706 - Test Procedures / Programs OP 30713 - Configuration Control OP 30801 - Adequacy of Procedures OP 30805 - Maintenance Training OP 30806 - Subjourneyman/ Journeymen

- - _ - -

.

I I

. .-

I

'

OP 30807 - Clam Control Program OP 30901 - Adequacy of Procedures I

OP 31001 - Operations Program and Procedures Inadequate

OP 31003 - Operations Procedures Need Clarification, Rewritten and Used (

i OP 31302 - Personnel Safety (Hardware)

OP 31303 - Housekeeping OP 31307 - SQN Insulation OP 31309 - Use of Video Cameras in High Radiation Areas As a result of this inspection effort, the inspectors concluded that TVA's evaluations of the employees concerns addressed in the above element reports were acceptable for restart of the Sequoyah units. Problems with

. individual element reports identified by the inspectors were resolved during the inspection process and SERs were generated to document the NRC evaluation of the individual element report I i

)