IR 05000327/1990026

Insp Repts 50-327/90-26 & 50-328/90-26 on 900706-0805. Violations Noted But Not Cited.Major Areas Inspected:Control Room Observations,Operations Performance,Sys Lineups, Radiation Protection & Safeguards

ML20059H380
Person / Time
Site:	Sequoyah
Issue date:	08/30/1990
From:	Harmon P, Little W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20059H376	List: IR 05000327/1990026 ML20059H374
References
50-327-90-26, 50-328-90-26, NUDOCS 9009170136
Download: ML20059H380 (18)

Text

_ _ . - _ - - ~ . - . . _ _ _ - _ _ . . - - _ . . - - . . - - _ ---- --.-_- - -- - __---.

's ,  ;.

j

'

km me 1, ' UNITES STATES ;

" '

.

,

'

'[ , . NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5

'

-[ a CEDON li - t g; .

• • -

'

101 MARIETTA STREET, [f I

<

y -- .U I ATLANTA, GEORGI A 303231 j

• s.,..... /J'

'

.

. - .

.

,

,

,

... ,

- '

.

i., .,.

Report Nos.: 50-327/90-26 and 50-328/90-26- l Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authbrity- ,

. 6N 38A Lookout Place 1101 Market Street' .

l Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 [

-Docket Nos.: 50-327 and 50-328~ License Nos.: DPR-7.7 and DPR-79  !

q

. Facility Name: . Sequoyah Units 1 and 2 '

u

. Inspection. Conducted: July 6,1990 - August '5,1990 _

i Lead Inspector:/ / d l d m 8 /50 /9 0 f.' Harmon, JMnMr Resident Inspector . Date Signed Inspectors: D. Loveless, Resident-Inspector

.

J. Brady, Project Eng neer

.

Approved by: 4O, c d ) '

W. 5. Aitt M , Chief, Project Section_1 D6te 5fgned TVA Projects

~

,

L SUMMARY Scope:

This announced inspection involved inspection effort by the Resident Inspectors in the area of operational safety verification incluMng control. room observations, operations performance, system lineups, r;. iation . protection, safeguards, and conditions adverse to quality. Other areas l inspected included surveillance, testing observations, maintenance observations, review of previous

inspection findings, follow-up .of< eventsk review of licensee identified items,.

.

and . review of: inspector follow-up' items. A walkdown of the Unit 11 Auxiliary-Feedwater System was performed'.with ~ no deficiencies noted. During the inspection. period, the inspectors followed several- events : including licensee ,

investigation of excessive flow in' the feedwater. heatert drain 1 system which-forced reduced power, 'and identification . and1 resolution of - installation deficiencies involving the centrifugal-charging pumps'for'~both unit ,

'

-Results: , , ,

Two non-cited violations were identified. . One involved; a failure to follow procedures ~ to control material entering containment, paragraph 7.1The second involved failure to properly ' document calculation,., assumptions, paragraph - + <

,

'

_y ,

9009170136 900831 E '

PDR ADOCK 05000327 ,

,

O PNUf ,

y

__ _ _

_ - . _ _ - _ -. __ _ __ - i e -. -

,. 4 ,

'

.. .

2 y

The-areas of Operations, Maintenance, and Surveillance were adequate and fully >

l' capable to support current plant operations. The observed activities of the- ,; control room operators were professional and well execute )

m .;

.

i During the. inspection period, Unit 2 began-power coastdown, with' maximum unit' y l power decreasing approximately 1% per day. Unit 2 is scheduled,for shutdown' , 9

! September 7.for refueling outage cycle d '

! .

.!

l Unit 1 experienced.-secondary plant problems -in the feedwater. heater drain' o'

L system which necessitac & power reductions to 97% due to excessive flow, and to.-

69% power to isolate anu repair: a heater drain tank level control valve.-- O

During= the process to reduce power and isolate the control valve, a tube' lea y occurred in the 20 condenser. The apparent cause of the'1eak was impingement; .Q on the tubes from the drain. tank's level divert valve. Licensee investigation'

-

j is continuing on the tube leak and the level control valve failur ,

,

The licensee 4 identified .via th'e Experience Review program, that the high head ,

centrifugal charging pumps for both units had pump' alignment _ lugs that had beenL 1 welded to the pump support base with ' welds, that did not meet miniraum ,

-requirements. Operability deteminations were- performed which concluded the l pumps were still operable. Two unresolved items *. in paragraph 7 address the 4

! calculations for detennining seismic. loading, and the undocumented- design ,

'

L changes to the alignment method.for pump 2A.-

.

.

J

i,

$

\.J \

, -!

{k q

,

a j

-

f

-

• Unresolved items are -matters for which more . information is required ito 1

'

-determine whether they-- are acceptable - or may involve violations 'or - D deviation l

'

.)

I s

'

-+ >.-,n -- , a - , , ,

-

' '

,: -

j-

.

,

-

'

'

-C 'i

. , ij p-

,

,

. . . ,

l 11  ; -) ; j l

'

-b l:-

'

a l REPORT: DETAILS

!

-

,~ .;

1; Persons Contacted

): *

'

Licensee Em;loyee ? l

'

I o s

"

L J. Bynum, Vice President, Nuclear. Power Production

• W. Byrd, Manager, Project Controls / Financial Officer

'

• C. Vondra, Plant Manage .

R. Beecken, Maintenance. Manager ..

L. Bryant, Work Control: Superintendent ~

j~ * Cooper, Site Licensing.Managerf J. Gates, _ Technical Support Manager W. Lagergren, Jr. ,,0perations' Manager i M. Lorek,-Operations Superintendent?  !

• R. Lumpkin, Site Quality Managerf

• R. Proffitt, Compliance Licensing, Manager ~

• R. Rogers, Technical SupportnProgram Manager ,

• Sullivan, Radiological Control Manage *R. Thompson, Licensing Engineer- '

)

• P.: Trudel, Project' Engineer . I t C. Whittemore, Licensing Engineer 1 -

NRC Employees B. A. Wilson, Chief TVA Projects 1 i

• W. S. Little, Chief, Project:Section 1 ,

'

r

• Attended exit interview

. =

Acronyms and initialisms usedJintthis Kreport 'are Llisted in: the- last-paragrap .

' Operational Safety Verification-(71707):

. Control Room Observations The inspectors con' ducted idiscuss~ ions' with - controt room--operators, verified that proper 'co'ntrol : room; staffing ~ was ~ maintained,. verified that access : to theicontrol1 room'was ' properly ' controlled, and that1 '

operator attentiveness was commensurate with the plant configuration- -

'

and plant activities in progress,. and _with on-going control room '

operations. The operators zwere? observed: adhering . toi appropriate, approved procedures, including Emergency Operating.' Procedures, for: _

the on-going ' activities. ; ' Additionally. the inspectorsn observed, upper management in- the control" room on a number of occasion The inspector also verified that the licensee was operating the plant'

in a normal plant configuration as required by TS and'when abnormal l

,

-, ,- , . , - - . . . ,, 4 - ,

._- ._

,

\ 1 g4l . , ,

3 .

j .. .- - -

'

r

'

-

N , :

- conditions existed, that the operators fweree complying - with the  !

appropriate 100 action statements. The inspector verified that RCS

,

^

l leak rate calculations were performed and that Eleakage- rates were- ,

within the TS limit '

[

L The inspectors observed instrumentation: and .' recorder traces : for  !

L abnormalities and. verified the status of selected- controlE room i l

annunciators to- ensure that control room operators understood the: <

status of the plant. Panel indicationsLwere: reviewed for the nuclea l l instruments, the emergency power sourcesk thensafety parameter  !

display system and the radiation monitors :to ensure ' "

operability and operation within TS limit i

~

No violations or deviations were' identifie , Control Room Logs The inspectors observed; conW41, room ; operatibns" and reviewed applicable 1 cgs ; including 'the WfUlogs. ' operating, orders, night order book, clearance- hold ort * ,rbook,nand; configuration log to obtain information concerning operating. trends and activities. The TACF log was reviewed to verify that theluserof hjumpers-and lifted leads causing equipment !to be : inoperable?was . clearly. 'noted and understoo The licensee ' was: actively; pursuing i correction to conditions requiring TACFs.- Noi issues' were: identified with these

'

specific log

Plant - secondary - chemistry reports were; redewi ;ihet inspector verified that primary plant chemistry was withiniTS limits .

-

,

In addition, the implementationt cF thec licensee's sampling > program -

was observe Plant specific monitoring systems including seismic, meteorological and -fire. detectionDindications : were : reviewed for operability.. A review of surveillance records and tago'ut. logs was performed to confirm the operability of.the:RP i No violations or deviations'were identified, ECCS System Alignment .

.

't The inspectors walked down . accessible portions ~ of the Unit l'

-

Auxiliary Feedwater (System to verify operability, flow path, heat-sink, water supply, power supply; and' proper ~ valveland breaker l alignmen (See paragraph 9)  :

'In addition, the . inspectors > verified that a(selected: portion .

of the containment isolation lineup was correc ;

-

No deviations or violations were' identified.-

,

.i

<

. ~ - -. . . _

- .

, ,

, ,

'

, ,

n l -.5 i'

p '. * 4

,

.

'

l Plant Tours Tours of the diesel _ generator,

auxiliary, control, and turbine; buildings, and exterior- areas were conducted to ' observe plant- <

p equipment conditions, potential fire hazards, controle of ignitio i 1 -1 - sources, fluid leaks, excessive vibrations, missile. hazards and plant =

'

housekeeping- and cleanliness conditions. The- plant was observed _.to '

be clean and in adequate condition. =The inspectors verified that maintenance work ~ orders- had been submitted asJ required - and that i fc110wup ' activities and prioritization of work was ; accomplished by-

.th9 licensee.-

+

l

!* The inspector -visually inspected the'. major components' for leakage :

preper-lubrication, cooling water supply,c and any general condition: i that might prevent fulfilling their1 functional requirement The inspector. observed shift 1 turnovers'and-determined that necessar information concerning-the plant' systems status.was addressed; No violations or deviations were identifie .i Radiation Protection' j The inspectors observed HP.- practices and verified the' implementation of radiation protection control On a regular basis, .RWPs were r

reviewed and specific work activities !were' monitored to ensure.the ,

activities were; being conducted in .accordance with the_ applicable, RWP Workers were observed for proper frisking upon exitin l contaminated areas and the radiologically controlled area. ; Selected

'

radiation protection instruments were. .. verified : operable and i calibration frequencies were reviewe a No violations or deviations were identifie ; Safeguards Inspectio '

In the course of the monthly activities, the inspectors included a review of the licensee's physical ' security program. The_ performanc of-various shifts of the security force ~ was observed in the conduc of daily activities including: protected and _ vital area ' access - .!

controls; searching of personnel and-packages; escorting of visitors; 4 badge issuance and retrieval; and patrols and compensatory post 'i t

I i

o ( ,

'

. - -.

.

-

x -

,

'

,

- -

, , m o ,

--

,4 - .;u-

. .

.

. .,

, .

q

^

+

'

1 , ,

.

4 ,

q

..

1 ,!

>

4 j o  ;

r i i

, ,

5 In l addition, the . inspectors' observed i etected . area lighting,, andL '

!;

protected-and vital. areas _ barrier integrity.. The~ inspectors verified; ,

interfaces between the' security organization and both operations' and;

~

maintenance. LThe Resident. Inspector visited central- and secondary /

.

. alarm- stations, verified protection of Safeguards Information, 'and l '

verified onsite/offsite communication capabilities '

,

!

- y

' No violations or deviations were identifie i a

w Conditions Adverse.to Quality j

!.  :

The' inspectors' reviewed selected items to determine that thel . . 1 licensee's' problem identification system as defined in Site Standard i Practice. SSP-3.2, ProblemT Reporting, Evaluation. and L CorrectiveL : , j

. Action, was functioning ~ CAQR's were routinely reviewed for; adequacy)

.

. ,

'in addressing: a.- problem or event. Additionally a sampleiof the- '

following documents were reviewed for adequate handling::'

- Work Requests- . ..

.

o '.

d

-- Preliminary Event Reports  ;

-- Radiological. Incident. Reports- ,

.

- Problem Reporting Documents '

L ,

"

'

- Correct-on-the-Spot Documents

- Licensee. Event Reports Of the items reviewed, each was found to have been identified by the licensee with immediate corrective action in place. For: those , issue's that required long term corrective action. the licensee was making; ,

adequate progress. Use of the new procedure,. SSP-3.2 and tfunctionin ,

of the Management Review Connittee.was observed on.Jaidaily basi The new program was determined to be- effective c infidentifying. . '

problems,> determining true root causes, assigning respo'nsibility for corrective actioni and resolving problems exped.itiously.-

. ,

No violations or deviations were identified.- _

No trends were- 1dentified- in the operational safety ' verification l are General conditions in the plant were;ade_quat .

..  :

Radiation protection and security arej adequate to continue two' ' unit :

'

operation . Surveillance Observations and Review (61726)  ;

l Licensee activities were directly~ observed / reviewed to: ascertain that surveillance of safety-related systems.and components was being conducted-in accordance with TS requirement s u The inspectors verified that:' testing was performed in accordance with I adequate procedures; test instrumentation was calibrated; LCOs were met; 1 g

l I

4' , !

j

, . - n . , , - , ' , ~ - . . . . -, .

- _ _ _ _ - _

- >

.

. . s i

'

s .

. . .

W

.

_

'

. test'results met acceptance criteria and were' reviewed by, personnel other than the individual directing the test;- deficiencies were identified, as appropriate 4 and . any deficiencies identified L during' the' testing were; properly : revP.wed and resolved by management personnel;J and system; restoration was adequate.- f or- completed tests, the inspector verified'

that testing _ frequencies were met; and tests were performed by qualified

'

individua'1s - '

l SI 94.3, Reactor, Trip Instrumentation' Calibration, was observed /reviewedt with no deficiencies identifie ,

No trends were-identified in-the, area of surveillance performance;during this inspection perio '

The areaEof surveillance scheduling - and-management was' observed to be adequat , Monthly Maintenance Observations-and(Review (62703)

] I Station' maintenance activ'ities on safety-relatedl systems and- componentsL were observed / reviewed to ascertain.that they were conducted.in accordance ,

with approved procedures, regulatory guides l,- industry codes -and standards', j and in conformance'with .

The following items were considered during1this review: .LCOs were met'. l while components ' or systems' were removed from . service ,1 redundant- 1 components were operable; approvals were obtained prior;to initiating the 'l -

work, activities"were accomplished using approved. procedures' and were a inspected- as applicable.- procedures used were' adequate: to control. the-activity, troubleshooting activities' were controlled and the repai ,

records accurately reflected thet activities, functionali testing and/ ore ,1 ;

calibrations were performed prior to returning; components;or , systems to '

service, QC records were maintained., activities t were accomplished by:

qualified personnel, parts and' materials = used were properly certified,-

radiological controls were implemented, QC . hold ' points 'wereLestablished-  ;

where required and' were observed, fire. prevention controls were

-

l implemented, outside contractor force activities?were- controlled in - 1 accordance 'with the approved -QA program, and housekeeping was actively

' pursue .

!

The following work requests were reviewed:

.

Q}-

C001879, Replace 1-LCV-6-106B C002760, Replace 1 LCV-6-106A C011684, Condenser Tube Leaks l

No violations or deviations were identified in the area of Maintenanc ! Management Activities in Support of Plant Operations a

!

TVA management activities were reviewed on a daily basis by the NRC inspectors. Resident Inspectors observed that: planning scheduling, work .

.

!

control and other management meetings were effective in controlling, plant 1

!

l

- -

,

x ,

. i 1 ,.

,

g n .

-.

,

. r . -

L '6  !

?

.

P

, . . .

. y '

activities, First - line supervisors appear . to ; be' knowledgt:able and involved in the daily activities of the plante First line supervisor-involvement in the field was observed and appeared . to be adequat Management response to those plant activities and events that occurred-during this inspection' period appeared timely and effective. Examples. of?

this management action were initiation of measures 1 to reduce formaldehyde-buildup.in Unit.2 containment'by purchasing and' installing charcoal filter !

units, .and formation of a = task force to reduce; the number _ and- frequency of .

containment entries for ALARA'and containment purge considerations.. ' ) NRC Inspector Follow-up Items, : Unresolved LItems, Violations (92701,

~

-

92702)

(Closed) URI 327,328/89-19'-01, Manual . Manipulation of - Motor-0perated-

- Valve This URI concerned the observed practice of disengaging the motor operators and manually. seating the BIT. isolation valves'in an' attempt;to-stop backleakye through the valves. Manual manipulation of valves which receive stroke time testing as.'part of their operability.- determinations

~ invalidates the stroke time testing due tos possible overtorquing or ,

jamming of the valve into the valve seat.' At the time of the occurrence, t specific written guidance to. prevent this1 practice' was not .in any of the licensee's procedures.- After1 discussing the problem with the resident-inspector, licensee management agreed: to reperform the. applicable stroke )

time testing of the specific 1 valves manipulated, and to issue written -

j guidance to prevent' recurrence.-

Written guidancec concerning valve' manipulations _inL general and manual operation of motor-operated valves in :particular was provided in G016,

!, - Apparatus Operations, Revision 51, -on SeptemberT1.J198 TheLwritten:

guidance provides specific instructions and precautions when manipulating

~ manual and motor-operated valves and the administrative- steps ' to. be. '

followed for such actions. Corrective actions for thiscitem are complet URI 327,328/89-19-01 is closed.- '

(Closed) IFI 327,328/89-07-02, Test Deficiency Review andl Disposition for EDG SI-26.2 . 4 Following the scheduled surveillance for. EDG 2A-A,- thel. inspector reviewed i the test package and noted that- minor test . deficiencies had not beens evaluated and dispositioned prior to the EDG being declared operable' and' l returned to service. The? licensee's review of;the test package-concluded ;

that the deficiencies identified had: no~ impact on the f operability

.

i determination but agreed that. the deficiencies; shouldLhave been resolved by the S0S. The deficiencies involved status lights and their-operation during the tes Each of the deficiencies-were;later dispositioned-via-i

>

+-

b 4 v' s

' '

, . ,

'a~ -

1pf

.

,

'

, ,

'>

,

.

o , ,

. V ,

,

,

i  ; '4: e $

, , q

)

'

. ,

~

'

instruction changes, and _ the deficiencies logged las~ closed' on the test ,

i data sheet IFI 327,328/89-07-02Lis' clos'ed, ;j ,

~

(Closed)URI 327,328/90-22-05 Assumptions Not Identified in Calculation l '

"

The inspector reviewed the subject calculation- (SQN-CSS-031);with th'e-licensee.1 Licensee personnel believed that the, conclusions in the calculation were . valid at the time the- calculation was1 issued. : The:  :

licensee,nowLbelieves, based on new information, that the calculation.is- ,

no longer supportable. :Rather than revising the calculation _ to.edd; thel assumption, _the licensee was already proceeding with a new calculation' '

-

which will supersede- the subject J calculatione and several previous calculations which were also affected. The- failure to documente i assumptions as required by_NEP 3.1, Calculation, isl considered a violation:  !

of . TS 6.8.1 ^and is identified Las NCV ' 327,328/90-26-01. - This c NRC s identified violation :is not' being' cited because- criteria specified. ino i Section V.A of the NRC Enforcement Policy were satisfie Thisiitem is; close (0 pen)_URI 327,328/90-22-04, Unissued' Calculation for IE Cable Testin The licensee expended considerable effort on this issue during thiss reporting period. The licensee undertook a technicali review of 'the unissued calculation (SQN-CSS-009) and as a result ~ issued CAQR SQP900305 >

on July 13, 1990 to : document- the initial l technical 1 inadequacies ! found.'. , , 4 The CAQR stated-that'l'of the~15 worst case. conduits did'not meet cr,iteH a  ;

5 and 6; that 42 conduits, which were' listed in' the calculation as not-having pull dates and therefore not evaluated, _were sampled:and that pull- t

'

dates were available; and that two additional calculations.. supporting the cable test program were not issued.- A: Justification for Continued -  :

Operation was submitted to the NRC on July- 17,.1990 and was updated oni 'J July 27, 1990. A meeting was held at NRC.. headquarters on July 23, 1990"  !

for the licensee to present their. findings 1 to NRC and .to discuss their corrective actions for this issu The -licenseeR revealed that' of 98 conduits reviewed 20 errors were identified. These errors resulted in:7 of the 15 worst case conduits no' longer being'in the-worst case categor The licensee presented a tentative. program.to resolve the' issue!which! ,

was finalized and submitted to theLNRC on' August _ 17, 1990; L The; licensee i is conducting a lookback review- to' determine the root cause of whyt the i calculation was not issued. - The .lookback _ report will be. issued' byL September 7,199 This - item remains. open pending. comp _letion of the; ,

licensee's revie '

l

7.- EventFollow-up(93702) ) While performing SI-108.1, ' Ice Condenser Intermediate and Lower Inlet Doors and Vent Curtains on July 4, 1990 at 1:15 p.m.,-an AU0 noticed that material and equipment had been left- in Unit 1 i containment. The AVO notified the SOS that he had'found 2 safety-. l l

l

-

- ..-_- ,,,, , , , , . , - -.,-s , . , v ,' s , ,. ,,.

.. . --

g - - - - .- - . . _ _ _ - . _ .

J-

',

<

. .

y lb

.

-

.;

LE

,

belts,. I condulet' cover, li roll 'of duct tape,1 roll; of tie wire and

1 pair. "of pliers and .that a fully erected scaffold was in . upper 1- containment.E The SOS entered TS 3.0.3 for potentially clogging the ':

refueling ~ cavity ,drainf or the containment sump suction making all ECCS inoperabl ,,

>

The scaffoldid had b'een erected onluly 3,1990 to troubleshoot and' ~[

repair .' containment purge damper 1HS-30-0008- The- licensee 1 i determined that <thel housekeeping proceduresL for, use inside

.

J l containment had not been followed and had caused the oversight of the loose equipment left insid Following the event DNE eval'ated u the equipment and determined 4that blockage of the' refueling canal, drains or the containment sump wa j not considered credible for the following reasons:

'

j 1) The. items were of' heavy material and-would not be transported .

over the upper-deck curbs. Additionally, these items would not , bel expected. toiimp'ede the flow: through the refueling cavit M drains were transport possibl ) WCAP 11534 ~ documents that similar 4 debris: entering lower- .  :;

'

I containment through the refueling canal ' drains'should not be .

l transported to the largest circle of influence for .the- t

'

containment. sum .

]

Therefore. DNE determined that this material would not cause the '

ECCS to be' inoperable for the'two days that the material remained in; upper containmen '

q si

'

The licensee performed an event' investigation documented inl Event (

Report 11.90-81, LMaterial aiid Tools ~ Lef t Unattended Inside -Uni ,

No. 1 Containment - L'.C.O. 3.0.3. The licensee's" review of the even >

appeared thorough and included a review'~of previous similar event ' Recommended corrective actions appeared to be' adequate for both:the current specific event, and to prevent future similar: event ,;

i This-licensee identified violation was not. cited because the criteria

! specified in Section V.A. of the Enforcement Policy were ' satisfie ;

This licenseenidentified violation. will~ be tracked as non-cited M

'

violation ' (NCV) 327, 328/90-26-02, Unattended Items Left in-Unit =1 1 Containment During Power'0perations- . Because corrective action'i complete and no further NRC review is'. required,- Nr"'327,328/90-26-02

_

is close .,

,

a i

,

i

'[

,

.-

,

_ - _ . . __ . . .__ _ --

.

,

' .

, , ,

-

l

'

'

+

.

, ,

,

-

9 -

,:

OnJuly-?5,1990,at3:30p.m.,thelicensesidentifiedaidefisienc in the jump alignment configuration for. the centrifugal . charging . ,

pumps i igh-head Safety Injection Pumps)!for both Unit l'and Unit :'.

Each of. the four pumps, -(two pumps per- unit)' were inspected by L ,

. licensee personnel. and failed? to meet.the' acceptance criterialin the i a aplicable source document for; the-locating lug. welds' used1to align t1e pump The- source . document, Westinghouse ; Letter WAT-D-8286,- ,

is an. advisory to clients of potential problems with; pumps 7 i : by Dresser Pump Division. The : letter identified' pump s 2.5:modell inch supplied RL-IJ and 3 inch [JHF as,having previously identified deficienciesLi the locator lug welds.-. An; attached table lofa potentially affected ; ,

plants listcd both. Sequoyah and' Watts Bars plants as having( the <

particular models identified.- . Since SSequoyahi plant : personnel *

received' notification via the Watts - Bar facility, rather than :fro Westinghouse. directly, this indicates thatrthe: licensee's; Experience Review program is functioning properly.:

L The-described condition.was inspected and confirmed asiexistingt for

'

the Sequoyah-' pumps. . Each pump. is aligned: totthe base plate by'.

locator lugs: which are welded to the support pedestal, and' matching-

-

,

dowels' (inboard) and fins (outboard) which are: welded' to thec '

underside of the pump casing. The specified weld; acceptance criteria requires the alignment ;1ocator' lugs de contain a . minimum weld: for:

each of the lugs tot the

pump base plates c . Th'el2A' charging -pump's'-

. .

o lugs were found to have no welds to the pump support.J: The alignment'

was changed without : beingL properlyL documented. Theinew method ~

.

consists of locator pins .in the outboard feet of. the" pump-casing.- <

l Each of the other pumps had inadequate welds for the lugs.; Since the'

lugs are required to-maintain proper alignment of the' pumps, for. both "

nozzle -loads--and: seiscic loads,'theDlicensee: immediately began.ia assessment to determine whether the pumps wererinifactLoperable ? The ,

'

assessment, as recommended by Westinghouse, 'used thei Sequoyah site.

e specific seismic loading compared to the -as-built ' configuration of the locating lug A CA(R describing the issue was -initiated. An the' problemewas -

-

confirmed to exist. - CAQR SQP900315;deset%ed the Lproblem in detail; and initiated immediate corrective 1actioni in the, form'of an . . '

,

assessment of the as-built condition relative to theisite-specific ~ s L seismic requirement The assessment was completedtby: DNE Eatt approximately 11:00 p.m. on July 25. The assessment concluded ~that '

although the pumps did.not meet the ^ minimum acceptancei criteria for the as-designed condition; the lug welds'were--adequate 3for the site

.

specific seismic loads. The 2A pump.'sialignment:configurationiwas:

l also considered to meet the seismicirequirements. Therefore,.all:

four pumps were considered to be operable. ' This determination! was principally-due to the' fact that the generic load used in specifying minimum welds was much higher than,the site specific' seismic'. load '

J_, _ .- -

- - - . . . . . . - ,

. _

'

-

_ .

--

,;

,

x , y;;

- .

. . p

. >;

,

..

,.

.l a

'

,

,

'

10 5 L =

L ,

l L At:the time of the exit, .the licensee had not been able to deternine j '

why*'the welds were'not installed according-to-requirements,.and tow:.

the alignment l method was-changed in' pump 2A. Since the installatton L of the' welds may constitute . violations of' licensee. procedures', and' R thel change to; the12A. pump L alignment method may constitutesan; ,

unauthorized design change,'This issue will-be tracked as unresolved

-

j item 1 URI 327/328-90-26 03 until i the olicensee's investigation : i J

'

' complet H On August 3[1990, the Resident Inspector reviewed the calculations, _

-supporting the licensee's position.reoarding seismic qualification oil a the: charging. pumps.- At that time, calculation assumptions were noted 3 in the use of. Operational Base Earthquake' (0BE) design: values in '

.

parts of:the calculation, while Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) values?

were referenced in other? locations. The licensee was asked < to c

i explain the apparent differences. :On August .6, the licensee informed the; resident inspector that a mistake had been made in the useJof 0BE- ~;

.

valuesLbut that the' mistakes were conservativeLin nature and had4no impactL on the seismic operability determination ~ . The licensee is-

.

still< investigating the circumstances of-how the error was introduced ,.

and why the calculation was .not properly reviewed and checked. ~ This J item will be; tracked as unresolved, item URI- 327,328/90-26-0 ] Secondary system prob'lems persist on. Unit l', particularly in the; feed- j heater drain system. The-number 3 heater drain tank level' control; *

system experienced high flow - rates. - which > prompted - walkdowns: to identify ~ the cause. Unit power was reduced- to 97% onJuly 29.-to' e preventLthel heater drain tank pumps from- tripping on: overload. The A walkdowns . identified a failure:in the drain tank level controli valve -

1-FCV-106 The valve operator was found' to have'sep'arated. from the _

l valve stem, the third failure of. this type .in thei previous yea * 4 Unit power was Teduced -to 67% on August 5;to allow isolation of ,the . >L'

drain tank to effect repair Following the power reduction,1at u approximatelt 7% a.m.'on. August 6, a condenser tube leak occurredt -i on condenser C-2. - The cause was attributed to flow impingement on:

the y tubes from the bypass valves - 1-FCV-105' A and B,,which - open a automatically to divert' drain _-tank contents to the condenser.'when the- :l L normal -. level control . via the.1-FCV-106 valves; fails to . maintain-leve The 1-FCV-106- valves had been isolated during! the power reduction.-

-

'

- Review 'of Facility Operating l License D(FOL) Conditions,' and NUREG-0737 d 1(TMI-2 Action Plan Commitments)-(TI 2515/65).

.NUREG-0737, Item II.F.1.2.e - Containment Water' Level

)

a

q

,

i

!' ,-

'

!

l

., - ,. , - .- .- . - , , - .. _ : .

.__

'

i - . , ,

-

, -

, , ..

a .

.

-

y.1. - . _

'

~.

d m 11r , '

, ,

L*

In Inspection. Report IR 327,328/86-28 the inspectors reviewed th'is item,-

Land questioned -the operability. of the system. .InLIR)327,328/86-37,the-l

inspectors reviewed the adequacy of corrective maintenance,.the:licen'see's [

trending.of corrective maintenance ~,Tand the continued o'perability:of the! j L, system. -The inspectorcconcluded that~ these conditions had' not rendered '

,

the safety: injection system inoperable. " However,- the LTMI' item was lef t -

i; open until there~ was . satisfactory resolution of the fout-of-tolerance'

I- ' problems associated with ;the Containment Sump Water Level transmitter ;

L - Because^ of the plant wideLproblem with tracking 1of_ out .of toleranceL <

instrumentation the inspector ' opened- an'IFI to track licensee corrective -

action. under CAR 85-10-017. Additionally, failure 'of the licenseeltoi '

adequately trend instrument.out.of tolerance conditions was identifiedLas-

'

violation 327,328/86-37-06..'

In Inspection Repcet'327,'328/87-60,the inspector stated that CAR 85-10-17 l had been closed'by tholicensee and; that revisions to SI-li Surveillance -

Program, SQE-8,1 Control,of: Installed JPermanent Process Instrumentation;; ,

'

TI-54, Compliance Instruments,: Units O sand 11; andiTI-54~.2, . Compliance; Instruments, ' Unit 2, were adequate Sto correct : the : problems identified :

under .IFI . 327,328/86-37-05,1 Followups on CAR? 85-10-0171 Con'pliance! ,

,

. Instrument Review By TVA'QA. The reviews', evaluations and; program changes t

made by TVA- appeared to .have corrected the specifica andigeneric-deficiencies. Therefore,i theninspector J closed . the ; inspector u followup ite In Inspection Reporte :327,328/88-19: thel inspector clo' sed

'

VIO 327,328/86-37-06, . Test' Def.iciencies' as -Conditior,s Adversec to; Quality  ;

(Containmt.nt' Sump Level). It was determined:that theEl.icensee'siresponse to the specific deficiencies -listed: in the Eviolation :were adequate.-

Therefore - the specific concerns relating' to;the' Containrrent. Sump Level-  ;

Transmitters was close '

The inspector reviewed DCNmM01343A Eand- M00932A, whicii:" document 2the l replacement of the old : Containment 'Sumpilevel: TransmittersLwith at more '

reliable type of level transmitter for. Units l'and 2 ' respectivel The.-

specific 1 replacement -involved: replacing the 0 old H Barton'~ diaphragm .

seal / oil-filled capillary . system transmitters 'LT-63-176,'177,178- and ;179 -

with Statham ND3200 ~1evel transmitters for both units.' ; These replacements'

were completed' during the UIC410'utag .

With the above reviews and:the replacement of the old system with one'more reliable, NUREG-0737, Item II.F.1.2.e f Containment: Water Level, is closed-for both unit , ,

NUREG 0737, Item II.E.4'.2.1'-4, Con'tainment - Isolation . Dependatiility-'

-

f Implement Diverse Isolation

'I l

,

-- _.._ . --

- . _ . _ _ + , + ~ - . - , - , , , . , , , ,...a ,. ,

,

. -

.__ _ _

fG I #

_

g;

'

k .i. :

..x g, ,

.

, '

(

1 <

!

!

^ The containment isol,ation system design was reviewed-in~NUREG-1232, Volume j 2,1Safetyc Evaluation' Report on Tennessee Valley? Authority: Sequoyah- 1

1. - Nuclear Performance Plan dated, May 1988 as a result of open issues 3 tidentified- in Inspection Report 327,328/86-20 issued April 23, 1986;-  !

NUREG-1232,' Volume < 2, Section 3.6 ' addresses the containment -isolation L system as compared to'the requirement'in:the Standard Review Plan'(SRP)',

-

.]

Section 6.2.4, Containment Isolation- System. The conclusion of NUREG-1232

-

. wasLthat,the containment Isolation system -met the requirement ofvthe=

General Design Criteria' of- Appendix- A to'10 CFR 50 and SRP Section16.2.4' s with several- exceptions; pertaining to the' use 'of, closed systems outside - l containment. . The licensee made changes: in the designation 'of several *

containment isolation valves; as ;a- result of, this review and submitted exemption requests which were' approved,-.for the rest of the exception The issue from IR .327,328/86-20: was closed'in IR' 327,328/87-76 issued-

. April 8,' 198 ,

-The specific design and installation of, various L containment' penetrations:. .

and the associated containment. isolation valves and functions were sampled j

"

'as ; part of the Sequoyah Integrated Design. Inspection (IR 327,328/87-48 issued Noverber'7,11987), and;the associated. As-Built Walkdown ' Inspection-(327;328/87 5251ssued' September. 25,'1987). In addition, inspec' ions of-the Unit % containment integrated leak' rate' test (IR 327,328/89-W ; issued l May - 4, 1989) ' and local . leak rate testing (IRv327,328/87-51 issued g j September 29, 1987. and IR:327,328/90-10: issued April 10,1990).have'been conducted with no findings in relation to: containment isolationisystem design deficiencies. Containment isolation valve position w n reviewed ^as_  !

h part of the system alignment.. inspections conducted for-Unit 2 startup (IR l- 327,328/87-661 issued December 21', 1987; IR' 327,328/88-66 issued December 21, 1987; and IR 327,328/88-06 issued April 1, 1988)..

'

As a result of- the above reviews and inspections- conducted for the restart- a of Unit 2 and since the restart of Unit 2, the requirements of TMI. Action : g

. Item LII.E.4.2.1-4 are considered - satisfied for. Unit 2. This item isi

~

^

close ;

l NUREG 0737, Item'. III.D.3.4.3, Control . Room Habitability L Implement l Madification j

> s i

-

The inspector determined that the licensee madeia submittal:on August 8, l

-

1982' which stated that control room habitability requirements were me The ' licensee determined that .no - modifications were L required. .The i t inspector discussed this item with the NRR Project Manager and determined.-

.

that this item was not. applicable since no modifications were ~ required.

l- This item is close a

.;

. Engineered Safety Feature Walkdown (71710) >

During . the. inspectior. period the inspector- walked. down all: accessible portions of the Unit 1 Auxiliary Feedwater System. The walkdown confirmed that the system lintup was in accordance with the most. recent" system surveillance for both valve position'and power availability and.that1th ,

i

-

- - . _ - - - . . -. . . . - -

_- . . - _ . . _ _ .

,

.

.

-4- . .

.o 1

- .

i 13' i

\

lineup matched the ,as-built; flow and instrument diagrams. . The material-condition of system components was observed. maintenance work request and clearance status: verified .

and configuration: control" of the system reviewe The results of the walkdown confirmed that the system is being maintained -

in a full state of readiness.= The material condition of the system is adequate -in all a respects, with' no notedt deficiencies. The status and configuration of the system agreed- with the most recent surveillance in the. licensee's system status file.- Configuration control clearance records agreed with' the observedJ configuration. = Where material-deficiencies existed, work requests or tag requests: wereLin. place to -

'

. disposition the proble '

No violatic;s or deviations were identifie . ExitInterview(30703) .

The- inspection scope and findings were sunanarized-on :Abgust 7,1989, with those persons indicated in, paragraph :1. TheiSenior Resident Inspector described the areas.3 inspected and discussed in: detail the inspectio findings -listed below. . The licensee acknowledged the inspection' findings .

and did not identify as proprietary any of the' material; reviewed by the

'

inspectors during the inspection.-

'

Inspection Findings:

Two non-cited violations were identifie NCV 327,328/90-26-01, Failure to Document lC lculation Assumptions- t NCV 327,328/90-26-02, Failured to' Control ' Equipment Entering ~

Containnient Two unresolved items were identified.

l URI 327,328/90-26-03, Charging 1 Pump. Alignment Design. Chang ,

l URI 327,328/90-26-04,. Charging l Pump Seismic Calculation Errors ,

!

y During the reporting period, frequent. discussions were' held with the Site? Director, Plant Manager and other managers-concerning inspection finding ,

11. List of Acronyms.and Initialisms ABGTS- Auxiliary Building Gas Treatment System ABI .- Auxiliary Building-Isolation . '

ABSCE- Auxlit?ry Building Secondary Containment Enclosur >

AFW -

Auxiliary W water >

AI -

Administrative Inftruction A0I - Abnormal Operating instruction i AU0 - Auxiliary' Unit. 0; = tw

'

._ _ ,- _

. , _ -- _ .

. _ . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _

y

'

i * ,. .-

m ,

-

.

14-

.

I ASOS.-- Assistant-Shift Operating Supervisor ASTM -' American Society of Testing and Materials BIT - ' Boron Injection Tank

<

BFN - _ Browns Ferry Nuclear.P1 an C&A * Control and Auxiliary Building _

-!

CAQR -. Conditions Adverse to-Quality Report- .

CCS_,- Component Cooling Water System  !

CCP -, Centrifugal Charging Pump CCTS - . Corporate . Commitment Tracking. System i

'

CFR - Code of Federal Regulations-COPS - = Cold.0verpressure Protection System ,

CS- - Containment Spray . .

'

!

CSSC - _ Critical Structures,~ Systems and Components .

CVCS - Chemical and Volume Control' System: ' -

CVI- - Containment ~ Ventilation- Isolation'-  !

DC - Direct Current . t DCN - Design Change Notice'  ;

'

.DG : -

Diesel Generator- . .

DNE :

Division of Nuclear Engineering' .l ECN - . Engineering Change Notice _ i LECCS.- Emergency Core Cooling: System: l

'EDG - Emergency Dietal Generato !

El- . Emergency Instructions

ENS -

-Emergency Notification l System '

E0P --

Emergency Operating: Procedure-50 - Emergency Operating Instructio '

ERCW -- . Essential Raw Cooling Water ,

ESF -

Engineered. Safety Feature "

FCV -

Flow Control Valve .

<

FSAR - Final Safety Analysis Report- "[

i; GDC -

General Design Criteria- ,

l G0I - General Operating Pstruction :

!

'

GL -

Generic Letter '

,.

HVAC - Heating _ Ventilation and-Air Conditioning HIC - Hand-operated Indicating Controller '

H0 -

Hold ' Order a i HP - Health Physics

'

ICF -

Instruction Change Form <

r IDI- - Independent Design. Inspection-u IN -

NRC Information Notice ,

h IFI - Inspector FolIowup Item;

, IM -

-Instrument Maintenance >. '

L' IMI -'

Instrument' Maintenance' Instruction- 1 p IR -

'

Inspection' Report

"

KVA -

- Kilovolt-Amp n ~KW -

Kilowatt o KV -

Kilovolt LER -,

Licensee Event Report LC0 -

Limiting Condition-for'0peration'

LIV - Licensee Identified ~ Violation-  !

<

LOCA - Loss of Coolant Accident MCR '- Main Control Room

,

. .

4 't

,. t

. 1

- ,

1:

p ~ 15 '~

[

d

~

MI - Maintenance Instruction 1 MR' ~

- Maintenance: Report- _

MSIV - 'Ma1n Steam' Isolation Valve

- NB - NRC Bulletin

NOV -

'

Notice of Violation

- NQAM -: Nuclear Quality:/ssurance_ Manual- 5 NRC .- . Nuclear Regulatory Connission g OSLA - Operations _Section Letter - Administrative O L OSLT - Operations Section Letter - Trainin O

?

E OSP - Officeiof'Specini, Projects ' '

l PLS' Precautions,' Li'n'itatiers, and Setpoints .

PM- -

Preventive Maintenance

- PPM -: Parts-Per Million 1 .

O PMT ~

- Post Modifica+, ion Test y -

PORC - Plant Operationsr Review Committee '

P0RS-- Plant Operatfon Review Staff q PRD - Problem Reporting Document- 2;

'

PR0 - Potenthily' Reportable Occurrence QA - Quality Assurance QC - Quality Control l

'

1 RCA -

Radiation Control Area.

l RCDT'- ' Reactor Coolant Drain Tank i

.

RCP - Reactor Coolant Pump =l RCS - Reactor' Coolant System: ')

Regulatory Guide .!

'

RG -

RHR -

Residual Heat Removal a RM -

Radiation Monitor l R0 - Reactor Operator /

RPI - Rod Po:,ition Indication q

RPM -

Revolutions Per Minute D

.RTD -

Resistivity Temperature Device Detector 'I j

'

RWP - Radiation Work Permit RWST - Refueling Water Storage Tank i SER - Safety Evaluation Report SG -

Steam Generator i'

l SI -

Surveillance Instruction-SMI - Special Maintenance Instruction .

S01 - System:0perating Instructions SOS - Shift Operating Supervisor i SQM -

Sequoyah Standard Practice Maintenance < -- l l SQRT - Seismic Qualification Review Team Surveillance Requirements '

'

SR' -

SR0 -

Senior Reactor Operator SS0MI- Safety Systems Outage Modification Inspection  !

SSQE - Safety System Quality Evaluation _i '

l

'

SSPS - Solid-Statc-Protection System STA -

Shif t Technical Advisor '

STI - Special Test Instruction-TACF - Temporary Alteration Control . Form TAVE - Average Reactor Coolant Temperature i TDAFW- Turbine Driven Auxiliary Feedwater '

TI -

Technical Instruction '

TREF - Reference Temperature

!

- . . , . - - .

" '

f ", . }

-.. .

'

. .

..

,

,

. , o

f TROI - Tracking Oper. Items TS - Technical Spccifications TVA - Tennessee Valley Authavity UHI - Upper Head Injection U0 - Unit Operator URI - Unresolved item .

USQD - Unreviewed Safety Question Determination VDC - Volts Direct Current VAC - Volts Alternating Current WCG - Work Control Group WP - Work Plan WR -- Work Request i

>

I l

I

&

l

,

t i