ML20149E512
| ML20149E512 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 01/15/1988 |
| From: | Richardson S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | White S TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8802110084 | |
| Download: ML20149E512 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000327/1987052
Text
i-
}
,
JAN 151988
- f
Tennessee Valley Authority
ATTN: Mr. S. A. White-
Manager of Nuclear Power
6N 38A Lookout Place
1101 Market Street
Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801
Gentlemen:
(
SUBJECT:
REPORT NOS. 50-327/87-52 AND 50-328/87-52
Thank you for your response of November 10, 1987, to our Notice of Violation
issued on September 25, 1987, concerning activities conducted at your Sequoyah
facility. We have evaluated your response and with the exceptions noced in
Enclosure 1 of- this letter, found that it meets the requirements of 10 CFR 2.201. We will examine the implementation of your corrective actions during
.
future inspections.
As indicated above, comments generated from our review are presented in
Enclosure 1.
For those items identified as requiring additional information,
please provide a supplemental response within 30 days of the date of this
letter.
We appreciate your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Original signed by B. D. Liaw
Steven O. Richardson,
Acting Director
TVA Projects Division
Enclosure:
NRC Review Comments
cc w/ enc 1:
'
H. L. Abercrombie, Site Director
Sequoyah Nuclear Plant
J. A. Kirkebo, Director,
Nuclear Engineering
R. L. Gridley, Director
Nuclear Safety and Licensing
M. R. Harding, Site Licensing
Manager
TVA Representative, Bethesda
Office
8802110004 000115
ADOCK 05000327
G
E \\
\\
ZEo/
}
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - -
e -
--
-
.
'
,
JAN '15 1988 ~
Tennessee Valley Authority-
2
.
bcc w/ enc 1:
S. D. Ebneter, OSP
- G. G.-Zech, OSP
B. D. Liaw, OSP
K. P. Barr, OSP/RII
W. S. Little, 0SP/RII-
.F.'R.
McCoy, OSP/RII
R.-E. Carroll, OSP/RII
J. B. Brady, OSP/RII
J. Rutberg, 0GC
NRC Resident Inspector
DRS Technical Assistant
NRC Document Control Desk
State of Tennessee
.
'
K
@-
,12/g,/8h, Y MlQ,1
Brady.er
FMcCoy
WLittle
v
12//6 /87
12// 7/87
12//7/87
,
-
-,. - - - , . . , - -
._, -
,
- . .
. , . . . - . . . , , -
,
.-
n- -
,
.
,4
JAN 15 1988
I-
r
ENCLOSURE
NRC Review Comments
Listed below are the comments generated from the NRC review of TVA's -
November 10, 1987 response to those findings addressed in Inspection Report
50-327 328/87-52:
(1) Example A of violation 1; We note that you did not address marking up
(red lining) the control room drawings to reflect the in-line skid
mounted valves (process lines).
Please provide a supplemental
response that addresses this issue.
(2) Example C of violation 1; Your conclusion that the screen wash pumps
are suitable for service is considered premature, since your 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluation has yet to be performed.
(3) Example E of violation 1 and example C of violation 2.
It is hard
to understand how the omission of the 2A ERCW traveling screen
instrumentation from the CSSC list is unique, when your own review
determined that other omissions have occurred.
You have indicated
in your response to both of these examples that the root cause was
the deterioration of the CSSC list through omission.
However, you
have not presented any "definite" corrective actions to keep the
CSSC list current by ensuring that both recent and future
modifications to the plant are reflected.
(It appears that your
"preliminary thoughts" for corrective actions on CAQR SQP8714761DI
would be appropriate in this matter.) Please provide a supplemental
response that addresses this issue.
(4) Example F of violation 2; Your conclusion that the misrouting of the
non-1E cables (reported in NRC Inspection Report 50-327,328/87-18) is
technically adequate, is considered premature since you have not yet
verified this by walkdown. Similarly, your conclusion that the three
misroutes identified in your Appendix R effort are technically
adequate, is also considered premature since your response reflects
your evaluations are still incomplete.
(5) Example F of violation 2; We consider that your long range cable
routing program should address the interaction of free air space
bundling of IE and non-1E cables together with separation and
segregation criteria.
You are requested to address this concern
in a supplemental response.
(6) Violation 3; We note that you can not deny the violation since, in
fact, it occurred. We do however, based on the information in your
response, consider that this violation meets the criteria for a
licensee identified violation as defined in 10 CFR 2, Appendix C and
we will disposition it as such. No further response is required with
regard to this item.
,
(7) Observed weakness 2; Your response did not address when your label-
ling program would be fully implemented
(e.g.,
tags properly
installed in Unit 2 and Unit 1) as requested. You are requested to
provide this information in a supplemental response.
I