IR 05000328/1981026
| ML20005B498 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 06/05/1981 |
| From: | Burnett P, Hunt M, Whitener H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20005B497 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-328-81-26, NUDOCS 8107080301 | |
| Download: ML20005B498 (5) | |
Text
.
.
'o.
UNITED STATES
<
[
'"j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- -
c REGION 11 o,
,_ [
101 MAR!EiTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 b
ATLANTA.GCoRGIA 30303 o
JUN 0 91981
- "**
Report No. 50-528/81-26 Iicensee: Tennessee Valley Authority 500A Chestnut Street Chattanooga, TN 37401 Facility Name:
Sequoyah 2 Docket No. 50-328 License No. CPPR-73 Inspection at Sequoyah Site near Chattanooga, TN Inspectors:
fj/juj2/
A_
d-JC M W L'. Wnitener p
Date Signed ha A4Lu)
GMet
'M. D. H tin t '
Date S'igned
'
' '
///>d 4-67/
Approved by:
f P.'T. Bu rn ett, S'e~cti o n C ni s f Date Signed
~
Engineering Inspection Branch Engineering and Technical Inspection Division SUMMARY Inspection on April 6-9, 1981 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 60 inspector-hours on site in the areas of procedure revicw, preoperational test program review and test witnessing.
.
Results Of the three areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
N910700 lh
o 14PDq AD PDH (20
-
-
- -
- -
- -
-
. - -
-
-
-
-
..
.
- P.
.
.
,
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
"J. McGriff, Assistant Plant Superintendent E. Condon, Preoperational Program Supervisor
- D. Wilson, Assistant Head Nuclear Engineer, EN-DES B. Williams, Design Engineer Test Representative M. Halley, Preoperational Test Section Supervisor
- M. 3karzinski, Assistant Preoperational Test Supervisor L. Kuehn, Test Supervisor D. Hutsell, Test Directar
- M. Harding, Compliance Supervisor
- W. Glasson, QA Coordinator
- B. Hamilton, QA Engineer NRC Rasident Inspector
- E. Ford, Senior Resident Inspector S. Butier, Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on April 9,1981 with those persons indicated in paragraph I above.
The inspector expressed concerns regardirg the failure to make displacemen't measu er..ents on safety systems attached to the reactor coolant system and f ailure to require reinspection of areas which were shimmed in the hot cc.dition on a subse-quent heatup. These matters ware identified for.further NRC review and are discussed in paragraph 5.b of this report.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
Unresoived Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
.
-
.
.
-
.
.
-
.
.
..
.
.
,
5.
Thermal Expansion Test The inspector reviewed test procedures for monitoring safety-related piping and piping support and restraint systems during the initial plant heatup performed in conjunction with hot functional testing. Pertinent aspects of this review are discussed below.
a.
Procedure Review The following procedures were reviewed for approvals and content:
(1) Raactor Coolant System Thermal Expansion, W-1.7 (2) Thermal Expansion of Piping Systems (Main Steam Piping), TVA 23A During this review the inspector determined that the procedures contained test requirements as follows:
(1) Reactor coolant (RCS) and main steam (MS) piping and component displacement measurements are made at temperature plateaus (100 degree Fehrenheit intervals) during plant heat up and again at ambient temperatures after plcnt cool down.
(2)
Reactor coolant and main steam system movement is evaluated against calculateo expected movement for the hot no load temper-ature (540 degrees Fahrenheit).
(3) Walidown inspections for interference with piping movement are performed at each temperature plateau.
(4)
System inspection and measurement resuli.s are evaluated at each temperature plateau prior to further heatup.
(5) The loading of variable spring supports is ve-ified to be within 10's of design load.
(E) The position of snubber pistons is monitored to verify that the styoke is in the operational range.
(7) Clearance between piping and pipe rupture restraints is verified
~
at each temperature plateau.
The inspector concluded that the procedures defined an adequate program for monitoring the thermal expansion of the reactor coolant and main steam systems.
However, certain concerns were identified during the procedure review as delineated in subparagraph "b" belo.
..
.
.
,
b.
Areas of Concern Procedure W-1.7 provides for monitoring safety-related systems such as i
residual heat removal system letdown and charging lines, and portions l
of the safety injection system during plant heatup. These systems were included in walkdown inspections, pipe-rupture restraint gap measure-ments, variable hanger support loading verification and snubber stroke range verification. However, no displacement measurements were made on these systems for comparison with calculated expected movement in order to confirm that the systems were behaving in a manne consistent with design predictions and that no overstress conditions existed.
This matter was identified as an unresolved item at the exit interview pending further NRC review. After telephone discussions between IE
!
Region II and licensee.waragem;nt personnel, the licensee committed to perform evaluations and/or analysis on safety systems attached to the RCS for those cases where the RCS piping or components did not move in the predicted manner.
This item was changed from unresolved to an ins pector followup item (328/81-26-01).
The test procedures do not require that areas which are shimmed at the hot condition will be reinspected on a subsequent heatup to confirm that system performance is maintained. At the exit interview, the licensee stated that reinspection of hot shimmed areas will be reviewed. This matter is identi-fied fcr followup inspection (328/81-26-02).
6.
Test Observations Witnessing of the thermal expansion test activities was a coordinated effort involving the resident inspectors and a Region II specialist.
General observations were as follows:
'
a.
The test was conducted in accordance with an approved procedure main-tained by the Test Director.
b.
Changes to the procedure were documented and reviewed, c.
Test deficiencies were logged and reviewed.
d.
Licensee crew performance appeared to be timely and coordinated.
,
e.
Data were collected for final analysis.
The ir.spectors performed an independent inspection of selacted supports and restraints at cold and hot conditions. No major problems were identified in this inspection; nowever, some anomalies were observed and identified to the licensee for evaluation and followup.
,
_
.
.
..
_ - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ ~
..
.f.
.
7.
Preoperational Test Status The inspectors reviewed aspects of the preopertional testing to update the record of tests completed, tests evaluated by the licensee and test deficiency status.
No significant anomalies were identified.
This is an ongoing inspection.
.
-
-