IR 05000327/1990026
| 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: |
| 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 n.
g;
.
[f 101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.
<
-
'
.U I
ATLANTA, GEORGI A 303231 j
y --
- s.,.
/J'
'
.
.
....
-
.
.
,
,
...
,
,
.
i.,
-
'
.,.
1.
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 TVA Projects
~
D6te 5fgned
,
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 units.
,
'
-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 -6.
,.,
+
<
,
'
_y
,
9009170136 900831 E
'
PDR ADOCK 05000327
,
O PNUf
,
,
y
__ _
_
_ -
. _ _ - _ -. __ _ __ -
_.
i
,. 4 e
-.
-
,
'
.
..
y
The-areas of Operations, Maintenance, and Surveillance were adequate and fully
>
l'
capable to support current plant operations.
The observed activities of the-
,;
l.
control room operators were professional and well executed.
)
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'
,
!
September 7.for refueling outage cycle 4.
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' leak.
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 failure.
,
-
,
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
welded to the pump support base with ' welds, that did not meet miniraum
,4-requirements.
Operability deteminations were-performed which concluded the l
pumps were still operable.
Two unresolved items *. in paragraph 7 address the
!
calculations for detennining seismic. loading, and the undocumented-design
,'
L changes to the alignment method.for pump 2A.-
.
.
J
- i
,
$\\.J \\
-!
,
{kq a
,
j f
-
-
- Unresolved items are -matters for which more. information is required ito
-determine whether they-- are acceptable - or may involve violations 'or -
D
'
deviations.
'
.)
I s
'
-+
>.-,n
--
,
a
-
,,,
-
'
'
.
-
,: -
,
'i j-
'
'
- C ij p-
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
- -) ;
j l
l:-
- b
'
l
'
a REPORT: DETAILS
!
-
,~
. ;
1; Persons Contacted
):
Licensee Em;loyees.
?
l
'
I o
'
s L
J. Bynum, Vice President, Nuclear. Power Production
"
- W. Byrd, Manager, Project Controls / Financial Officer
'
- C. Vondra, Plant Manager..
.
R. Beecken, Maintenance. Manager..
L. Bryant, Work Control: Superintendent ~
j~
- M. 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
,
- M. Sullivan, Radiological Control Manager.
- 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-paragraph.
.
'
2.
Operational Safety Verification-(71707):
a.
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 occasions.3 The inspector also verified that the licensee was operating the plant'
in a normal plant configuration as required by TS and'when abnormal l
,
-,
,-
,
., - -
..
.,,
-
,
._-._
,
\\
g4l
.
,
,
c..
. j
-
...-
-
'
r
'
N 2.
-
,
,
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 limits.
'
[
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 nuclear.
l l
instruments, the emergency power sourcesk thensafety parameter
!
display system and the radiation monitors :to ensure operability and operation within TS limits.
i
'
"
~
No violations or deviations were' identified.
,
b.
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 understood.
The licensee ' was: actively; pursuing i correction to conditions requiring TACFs.- Noi issues' were: identified with these
'
specific logs.
Plant - secondary - chemistry reports were; redewid.
- ihet inspector verified that primary plant chemistry was withiniTS limits.
-
,
In addition, the implementationt cF thec licensee's sampling > program -
was observed.
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:RPS.
i No violations or deviations'were identified, c.
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 alignment.
(See paragraph 9)
'In addition, the. inspectors > verified that a(selected: portion.
of the containment isolation lineup was correct..
-
No deviations or violations were' identified.-
,
. i
<
.
~
-
-.
.
.
_
-.
'
n
,
,
,
,
,
,
l
-.5 i'
p '.
,
- l
'
.
d.
Plant Tours Tours of the diesel _ generator,: auxiliary, control, and turbine; buildings, and exterior-areas were conducted to ' observe plant-
<
l.
p equipment conditions, potential fire hazards, controle of ignition.
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 requirements.
The inspector. observed shift 1 turnovers'and-determined that necessary.
information concerning-the plant' systems status.was addressed; No violations or deviations were identified.
.i e.
Radiation Protection'
j The inspectors observed HP.- practices and verified the' implementation of radiation protection controls.
On a regular basis,.RWPs were reviewed and specific work activities !were' monitored to ensure.the r
,
activities were; being conducted in.accordance with the_ applicable, RWPs.
-Workers were observed for proper frisking upon exiting..
l contaminated areas and the radiologically controlled area. ; Selected
'
radiation protection instruments were... verified : operable and i
calibration frequencies were reviewed.
a No violations or deviations were identified.
f.
Safeguards Inspection.
'
In the course of the monthly activities, the inspectors included a review of the licensee's physical ' security program. The_ performance.
of-various shifts of the security force ~ was observed in the conduct.
of daily activities including: protected and _ vital area ' access -
.!
controls; searching of personnel and-packages; escorting of visitors;
badge issuance and retrieval; and patrols and compensatory posts.
'i t
I i
o (
.
-
.
-
-.
,
'
-
x
-
'
-
-
,
,4 -
, m
.
,
,
--
.;u-o
,
q
.
.
.
,
.
.
.,
^
'
.
,
,
+
,
..
q
,!
4 j
>
o
r i
i
,
,
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 identified..
ia w
g.
Conditions Adverse.to Quality j
!.
The' inspectors' reviewed selected items to determine that thel..
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::'
'
d Work Requests-.
..
.
o
.
-
'
Preliminary Event Reports
--
Radiological. Incident. Reports-
,
.
--
L
"
Problem Reporting Documents
'
-
'
,
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 tfunctioning.
,
of the Management Review Connittee.was observed on.Jaidaily basis.
The new program was determined to be-effective infidentifying..
'
c 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 area.
General conditions in the plant were;ade_quate.
.
..
Radiation protection and security arej adequate to continue two' ' unit :
'
operations.
3.
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 requirements.
s u
The inspectors verified that:' testing was performed in accordance with I
adequate procedures; test instrumentation was calibrated; LCOs were met;
g l
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 identified.
,
No trends were-identified in-the, area of surveillance performance;during this inspection period.
The areaEof surveillance scheduling - and-
'
management was' observed to be adequate.
,
4.
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 T.S.
.
The following items were considered during1this review:.LCOs were met'.
l while components ' or systems' were removed from. service,1 redundant-
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 repair.
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 -
accordance 'with the approved -QA program, and housekeeping was actively
' pursued.
.
!
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 Maintenance.
!
5.
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 adequate.
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.. '
6.
NRC Inspector Follow-up Items, : Unresolved LItems, Violations (92701, 92702)
~
-
(Closed) URI 327,328/89-19'-01, Manual. Manipulation of - Motor-0perated-
- Valves.
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.J1989.
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 complete.
URI 327,328/89-19-01 is closed.-
'
(Closed) IFI 327,328/89-07-02, Test Deficiency Review andl Disposition for EDG SI-26.2A.
.
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 test.
Each of the deficiencies-were;later dispositioned-via-i
>
b e-
+-
b
m v'
s
'
'
.
-
1pf
.
,
'
,
'a~
.
,
,
,
'>
o
,
,
,
V
.
,
,
,
$
'4:
e i
q
,
,
'
- )
.
,
instruction changes, and _ the deficiencies logged las~ closed' on the test i
~
'
,
data sheets.
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 calculation and several previous
-
e 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 satisfied.
Thisiitem is; closed.
(0 pen)_URI 327,328/90-22-04, Unissued' Calculation for IE Cable Testing.
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.'.,,
>
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 l.
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 issue.
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 category.
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 7,1990.
This - item remains. open pending. comp _letion of the;
,
licensee's review.
'
l
7.-
EventFollow-up(93702)
a.
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 containment.
The AVO notified the SOS that he had'found 2 safety-.
l
-
v,' s,,.
,,.
-
J.
-
..-_-,,,,
,
,
,,., -
-.,-s
,.
,
...
--
g
-
-
-
-
.-
-_.
.. _ _ _ -. _.
J-
',
lb
.
.
<
y
.;
-
.
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
>
,,
The scaffoldid had b'een erected onluly 3,1990 to troubleshoot and'
~[
repair.' containment purge damper 1HS-30-0008-B.
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 inside.
Following the event DNE eval'ated the equipment and determined 4that u
blockage of the' refueling canal, drains or the containment sump was.
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 J.
,
bel expected. toiimp'ede the flow: through the refueling cavity.
M drains were transport possible.
2)
WCAP 11534 ~ documents that similar 4 debris: entering lower-.
containment through the refueling canal ' drains'should not be
'
I
.
l transported to the largest circle of influence for.the-t containment. sump.
.
'
]
Therefore. DNE determined that this material would not cause the
'
ECCS to be' inoperable for the'two days that the material remained in; upper containment.
q
'
si
'
The licensee performed an event' investigation documented inl Event (
Report 11.90-81, LMaterial aiid Tools ~ Lef t Unattended Inside -Unit.
,
No. 1 Containment - L'.C.O. 3.0.3.
The licensee's" review of the event.
>
appeared thorough and included a review'~of previous similar events.
' Recommended corrective actions appeared to be' adequate for both:the current specific event, and to prevent future similar: events.
,;
i This-licensee identified violation was not. cited because the criteria
!
specified in Section V.A. of the Enforcement Policy were ' satisfied.
This licenseenidentified violation. will~ be tracked as non-cited M
'
violation ' (NCV) 327, 328/90-26-02, Unattended Items Left in-Unit =1
Containment During Power'0perations-Because corrective action'is.
.
-
complete and no further NRC review is'. required,- Nr"'327,328/90-26-02 is closed.
_
a
,
.,
i
,
- i
'[
,
.-
.
.
.
.
,
_ - _.
._.
__.
.
.__
_
--
.
,
4.
.
,
,
'
l
-
,
'
'
+
.
,
,
,
,:
-
-
b.
OnJuly-?5,1990,at3:30p.m.,thelicensesidentifiedaidefisiency.
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 pumps.
The-source. document, Westinghouse ; Letter WAT-D-8286,-
,
- by Dresser Pump Division. The : letter identified' pump modell supplied is an. advisory to clients of potential problems with; pumps
s 2.5: inch i
RL-IJ and 3 inch [JHF as,having previously identified deficienciesLin.
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 :from.
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'-
.
.
lugs were found to have no welds to the pump support.J: The alignment'
o 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.ian.
assessment to determine whether the pumps wererinifactLoperable ? The
,
'
assessment, as recommended by Westinghouse, 'used thei Sequoyah site.
specific seismic loading compared to the -as-built ' configuration of e
the locating lugs.
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 requirements.
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'. loads.
-,
-.
J_,
.
.
.-
-
- - -...... -
,
- -.
'
.
_
-
_
.
--
,;
'
x, y;;
,
p
-
.
.
.
>;
.
.l
,..
,.
a
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 : is.
J H
' complete.
'
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
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 i
c
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-327,328/90-26-04.
]
c.
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-106B.
The valve operator was found' to have'sep'arated. from the
_
l
valve stem, the third failure of. this type.in thei previous year.
- Unit power was Teduced -to 67% on August 5;to allow isolation of,the.
>L
'
drain tank to effect repairs.
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-level.
The 1-FCV-106-valves had been isolated during! the power reduction.-
-
'
-8.
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. -
.
_
'
~.
-
11r d
m
,
i.
'
,
,
L*
In Inspection. Report IR 327,328/86-28 the inspectors reviewed th'is item,-
l
Land questioned -the operability. of the system..InLIR)327,328/86-37,the-
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 transmitters.
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
,
made by TVA-appeared to.have corrected the specifica andigeneric-t deficiencies.
Therefore,i theninspector J closed. the ; inspector u followup item.
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 closed.
'
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 ' respectively.
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'utage.
.
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 units.
,
,
NUREG 0737, Item II.E.4'.2.1'-4, Con'tainment - Isolation. Dependatiility-'
f
-
Implement Diverse Isolation
' I l
,
--.m
-..
.
m.
-.
.
+
, + ~ -. -, -,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,...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-
- Nuclear Performance Plan dated, May 1988 as a result of open issues
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 exceptions.
The issue from IR.327,328/86-20: was closed'in IR' 327,328/87-76 issued-
. April 8,' 1988.
,
-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
^
~
closed.
l NUREG 0737, Item'. III.D.3.4.3, Control. Room Habitability L Implement l
Madifications.
j i
>
s The inspector determined that the licensee madeia submittal:on August 8, l
-
-
1982' which stated that control room habitability requirements were met.
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.
.
This item is closed.
a l-
.
.;
9.
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.that1the.
,
i
.
-
-.
- - -
-.
.
.
-.
.
.. -
-
-
_-
.
.
- _
.. _ _
.
,
.
.
- 4 -
.
.
.o
-
.
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 reviewed.
.
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 problem.
'
'
No violatic;s or deviations were identified.
10. 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 inspection.
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 identified..
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. Change.
l
,
URI 327,328/90-26-04,. Charging l Pump Seismic Calculation Errors
,
!
During the reporting period, frequent. discussions were' held with the Site?
y L.
Director, Plant Manager and other managers-concerning inspection findings.
,
11. List of Acronyms.and Initialisms ABGTS-Auxiliary Building Gas Treatment System ABI.-
Auxiliary Building-Isolation.
'
ABSCE-Auxlit?ry Building Secondary Containment Enclosure.
>
-
Auxiliary W water
>
AI Administrative Inftruction
-
Abnormal Operating instruction i
A0I
-
AU0 -
Auxiliary' Unit. 0; = tw
'
._
_
,-
_
.
,
_
.-
--
.
. _
. _ _ -
_ _ _
_ _ _ _
' i
y
,.
.-
m
,
-
.
14-
.
I ASOS.--
Assistant-Shift Operating Supervisor ASTM -'
American Society of Testing and Materials BIT -
' Boron Injection Tank
_ Browns Ferry Nuclear.P1 ant.
-
<
C&A
- Control and Auxiliary Buildings.
_
-!
CAQR -.
Conditions Adverse to-Quality Report-
.
CCS_,-
Component Cooling Water System
!
CCP -, Centrifugal Charging Pump CCTS -
. Corporate. Commitment Tracking. System i
'
Code of Federal Regulations-CFR
-
COPS -
= Cold.0verpressure Protection System
,
!
.
.
'
CS-
-
CSSC -
_ Critical Structures,~ Systems and Components
.
CVCS -
Chemical and Volume Control' System: '
-
CVI- -
Containment ~ Ventilation-Isolation'-
!
Direct Current
.
t DC
-
DCN -
Design Change Notice'
'
Diesel Generator-
.
.
.l
.DG :
-
Division of Nuclear Engineering'
ECN -
. Engineering Change Notice _
i LECCS.-
Emergency Core Cooling: System:
l Emergency Dietal Generator.
!
'EDG
-
Emergency Instructions El-
.
-Emergency Notification l System
-
'
E0P Emergency Operating: Procedure-
--
Emergency Operating Instruction.
'
-
ERCW --
. Essential Raw Cooling Water
,
Engineered. Safety Feature ESF
"
-
FCV Flow Control Valve
<
-
.
FSAR -
Final Safety Analysis Report-
"[
General Design Criteria-i; GDC
-
,
General Operating Pstruction :
l G0I
-
!
GL Generic Letter
'
-
'
,.
HVAC -
Heating _ Ventilation and-Air Conditioning HIC -
Hand-operated Indicating Controller
H0
-
Hold ' Order a
i
'
Health Physics HP
-
Instruction Change Form
'
ICF
<
-
r IDI- -
Independent Design. Inspection-NRC Information Notice u
a.
IN
-
,
h IFI Inspector FolIowup Item;
-
-Instrument Maintenance >.
IM
'
-
,
L'
IMI Instrument' Maintenance' Instruction-
-'
IR
'
Inspection' Report
-
p KVA
- Kilovolt-Amp
"
-
Kilowatt n
~KW
-
Kilovolt KV
-
o Licensee Event Report LER
-,
Limiting Condition-for'0peration'
LC0
-
LIV -
Licensee Identified ~ Violation-LOCA -
Loss of Coolant Accident
<
MCR '-
Main Control Room
,
.
.
4
't t
,.
.
-
,
1:
p
~ 15 '~
[
d MI Maintenance Instruction
~
-
~
Maintenance: Report-
_
MR'
-
MSIV -
'Ma1n Steam' Isolation Valve NRC Bulletin
- NB
-
'
-
- NQAM -:
Nuclear Quality:/ssurance_ Manual-
NRC.-
. Nuclear Regulatory Connission OSLA -
Operations _Section Letter - Administrative O
g L
OSLT -
Operations Section Letter - Training.
O?
Officeiof'Specini, Projects E
-
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
Problem Reporting Document-2; PRD
-
'
Potenthily' Reportable Occurrence PR0
-
Quality Assurance QA
-
Quality Control l
-
Radiation Control Area.
'
-
l RCDT'-
' Reactor Coolant Drain Tank i
.
RCP -
Reactor Coolant Pump
=l RG
'
Reactor' Coolant System:
')
-
Regulatory Guide
.!
-
-
Radiation Monitor l
-
Reactor Operator
/
R0
-
Rod Po:,ition Indication RPI
-
q Revolutions Per Minute RPM D
-
'I Resistivity Temperature Device Detector
'
j
.RTD
-
Radiation Work Permit RWP
-
RWST -
Refueling Water Storage Tank i
Safety Evaluation Report SER
-
-
l SI Surveillance Instruction-
'
-
Special Maintenance Instruction SMI
-
.
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
'
Technical Instruction
TI
-
'
TREF -
Reference Temperature
!
-
.
.
,
.
.
. - -.
"
f ",.
}
'
-..
.
'
.
.
..
,
.
,
o
,
f TROI -
Tracking Oper. Items Technical Spccifications TS
-
Tennessee Valley Authavity TVA
-
Upper Head Injection UHI
-
Unit Operator U0
-
Unresolved item
.
-
USQD -
Unreviewed Safety Question Determination Volts Direct Current VDC
-
Volts Alternating Current VAC
-
Work Control Group WCG
-
Work Plan WP
-
Work Request WR
--
i
>
I l
I
&
l
,
t i