Text

Forwards Insp Repts 50-327/86-01 & 50-328/86-01 on 860106-17,0210-14 & 0623-27.Eleven Equipment Deficiencies Classified as Potential Enforcement/Unresolved Items Will Be Referred to Region II for Further Action
	ML20214K468
Person / Time
Site:	Sequoyah
Issue date:	08/15/1986
From:	Heishman R; NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	White S; TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
Shared Package
ML20214K471	List: ML20214K468; ML20214K477;
References
	NUDOCS 8608210112
	Download: ML20214K468 (6)
	v • d • e

. _ _

. .

-

.

/ 4 UNITED STATES l

8" *$ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

( WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655

'

\*****/ August 15, 1986

Docket Nos.: 50-327 and 50-328 )

Tennessee -Valley Authority

<

ATTN: Mr. S. A. White

Manager of Nuclear Power

6N 38A Lookout Place

1101 Market Street

Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801

Gentlemen:

SUBJECT: INSPECTION NOS. 50-327/86-01; 50-328/86-01

'

Enclosed is the report of the team inspection conducted by Mr. G. T. Hubbard

and other NRC representatives on January 6-17, February 10-14, and June 23-27

1986, at your corporate offices in Knoxville, Tennessee and at the Sequoyah

Nuclear Power Plant of activities authorized by NRC License Nos. DPR-77 and

i DPR-79. The team's findings were previously summarized in Mr. Taylor's letters-

i to you dated February 11, February 25, and July 31, 1986 and discussed with

Mr. P. R. Wallace and other members of your staff on June 27, 1986. A follow -

1

up inspection will be performed prior to Sequoyah restart to review corrective

action on any outstanding deficiencies identified.during this inspection and

, completion of outstanding TVA identified items. The inspection reviewed your

implementation of a program for establishing and maintaining the qualification

of electric equipment within the scope of 10 CFR 50.49. Within these areas,

the inspection consisted of examinations of selected procedures and records,

interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspectors.

The inspection determined that you have implemented a program to meet the re-

quirements of 10 CFR 50.49, except for certain deficiencies identified in the

enclosed inspection report. Eleven of the deficiencies, summarized in Appendix

A, are classified as Potential Enforcement / Unresolved Items and will be refer-

red to the NRC Region II office for further action. These deficiencies involve

failure to adequately demonstrate qualification for eight types of equipment

and one system (high range radiation monitoring system-two types of equipment),

failure to install one type of equipment in a location consistent with its

qualified environment, and failure to install one type of equipment in its

qualified configuration. Five additional concerns are classified as Open

Items, and will be reviewed during the follow-up EQ inspection prior

to restart. Fifteen other concerns regarding equipment maintenance are identi-

fled in the report and have been referred to the Region II office for consider-

ation in their Operational Readiness Review prior to restart. Details of all

the deficiencies and concerns are discussed in the enclosed inspection report.

5

0 /t

.

-

.-

.

l

August 15, M86 l

Tennessee Valley Authority -2-

In addition to the above inspection scope, your corrective actions taken with

regard to the findings of the TVA/Westec Report were reviewed. The inspection

determined that the EQ Program which you are implementing is adequately addressing

the findings of the report.

The inspection also reviewed a sample of employee concerns relative to your EQ

program to evaluate whether the concerns had been resolved from the technical

standpoint. No deficiencies were identified during the inspection relative to

the concerns reviewed.

Your corrective actions regarding the identified deficiencies and concerns should

not be delayed pending either future NRC inspections or further action by the

Region II office.

We are available to discuss any questions you have concerning the inspection

activities conducted to date.

Sincerely,

[b

Rob t F. Heishman, Chief

Ven or Program Branch

Division of Quality Assurance, Vendor

and Technical Training Center Programs

Office of Inspection and Enforcement

Enclosures:

1. Appendix A-Potential Enforcement / Unresolved Items

2. Inspection Report No. 50-327/86-01 and 50-328/86-01

-- -- -_

'

. .

Tennessee Valley Authority -3- August 15, 1986

, DISTRIBUTION:

w>

VPB Reading

'JTaylor-

HDenton, NRR

RStarostecki

BGrimes-

RVollmer

GHubbard(2)

UPotapovs

HMiller

BHayes, 01A

BYoungblood, NRR

CStahle, NRR

HThompson, NRR

GZech, RII

LSpessard, IE

BDebs, RII

Docket File, RII

ARuff, RII

AGibson, RII

SAlexander

SConnelly, 0IA

RMoist

AJohnson, RIV

PShemanski, NRR

AMasciantoni, NRR

RKarsch, NRR

LBustard, SNL

VDandini, SNI.

JGrossman, SNL

i

l

!

i *SEE PREVIOUSE PAGE FOR CONCURRENCES

d

BC/VP 1[OAV D

of

T:D VT / (RI /

f

VPB:DQAVT SC/VPB:DQAVT I

GHubbard:tt *UPotapovs RFH915hman H 11 r rimes T~ lin

.

I

'

08/08/86 08/11/86 f/jy/86 /'l 86 f//(/86

DD/DI

RSpessard

08/1?/86

\

6

9 i\

.

,! ,. -

. ,

.

Tennessee Valley Authority -3- August 15, 1986

.

DISTRIBUTION:

DCS

VPB Reading

JTaylor

HDenton, NRR

RStarostecki

BGrimes

RVollmer

GHubbard (2)

UPotapovs

HMiller

BHayes, 01A

BYoungblood, NRR

CStable, NRR

HThompson, NRR

GZech, RII

LSpessard, IE

BDebs, RII

Docket File, RII

ARuff, RII

AGibson, RII

SAlexander

SConnelly, 0IA

RMoist

AJohnson, RIV .

PShemanski, NRR

,

AMasciantoni, NRR

RKarsch, NRR

LBustard, SNL

VDandini, SNL

JGrossman, SNL

/

SEE PREVIOUSE PAGE FOR CONCURRENCES

pD VT

'

<

VPB:00AVT SC/VPB:DQAVT BC/VPl QAV D Dj R: . Q/ 'qRII

RFH1ihmanj .IB rime 9 TCpnlin

GHubbard:tt *UPotapovs 9 HJ,li lJer

08/08/86 08/11/86 f/p/86 [ (9/86 f//(/86 </ N/86

[/

DD/DI

RSpessard

C8/12/86

__ , __

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

r

-Q

'

-

. .

.

APPENDIX A

Potential Enforcement / Unresolved Items

As a result of the equipment qualification inspections on January 6-17, Feb-

ruary 10-14, and June 23-27, 1986, the following items will be referred to NRC

Region II as Potential Enforcement / Unresolved Items (paragraph references are

to detailed portions of the inspection report).

1. Contrary to paragraph (f) of 10 CFR 50.49, at the start of the inspection,

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) had not adequately demonstrated qualifi-

cation of Masoneilan 8012 level control valve for the required functional

performance requirements defined in the equipment qualification (EQ) binder.

(Paragraph 4.D.(1)(a), 50-327/86-01-06; 50-328/86-01-06).

2. Contrary to paragraph (f) of 10 CFR 50.49, at the start of the inspection,

TVA had not adequately demonstrated qualification of Westinghouse modular

electrical penetration

(Paragraph assembly

4.D.(1)(b), for its post-accident

50-327/86-01-07; operating) environ-

50-328/86-01-07.

ment.

3. Contrary to paragraphs (f) and (k) of 10 CFR 50.49 and section 2.2.(3) of

NUREG-0588 (For Comments Version), at the start of the inspection, TVA had

not adequately demonstrated qualification of Essex power and control cable

for its required functional performance requirements since qualification

test instrumentation data was unavailable. (Paragraph 4.0.(1)(c),50-327/

86-01-08; 50-328/86-01-08).

4. Contrary to paragraph (f) of 10 CFR 50.49, at the start of the inspection,

TVA had not adequately demonstrated qualffication of ASCO solenoid valve,

model 206-381, for its required accident and/or post-accident environment

of submergence. (Paragraph 4.D.(1)(d),50-327/86-01-09;50-328/86-01-09).

5. Contrary to paragraph (f) of 10 CFR 50.49, at the start of th'e inspection,

TVA had not adequately demonstrated qualification of Nutherm 32KW air duct

heater and control ccmponents in that similarity between tested and in-

stalled equipment was not established and post-accident operability was

not demonstrated. (Paragraph 4.D.(1)(e), 50-327/86-01-10; 50-328/86-01-10).

6. Contrary to paragraph (f) of 10 CFR 50.49, at the start of the inspection,

TVA had not adequately demonstrated qualification of GA Technologies RD-23

radiation detector / Brand-Rex coaxial cable fcr their required functional

performance requirements. (Paragraph 4.D.(1)(f), 50-327/86-01-11;

50-328/86-01-11.)

7. Contrary to paragraph (f) of 10 CFR 50.49, at the start of the inspection,

TVA had not adequately demonstrated oualification of Eaton multiconductor

signal cable for iti required functional performance requirements with regard

to system loop accuracies. (Paragraph 4.0.(1)(g),50-327/86-01-12;

50-328/86-01-12.)

.

'

.. .- -

. .

'

-2-

8. Contrary to paragraph (f) of 10 CFR 50.49, at the start of the inspection,

TVA had not adequately demonstrated. qualification of Limitorque motor valve

operators for their as installed condition without drains in limit / torque

switch compartments. (Paragraph 4.D.(1)(h),50-327/86-01-13;

50-328/86-01-13.)

9. Contrary to paragraphs (f) and (k) of 10 CFR 50.49 and section 5.(1) of

NUREG-0588 (For Comments Version), at the start of the inspection, TVA

had not adequately demonstrated qualification of Cyprus (Rome) cross-

linked polyethylene insulated /polyvinylchloride jacketed cable for its

required post-accident operating temperature. (Paragraph 4.0.(1)(i),

50-327/86-01-14; 50-328/86-01-14.)

10. Contrary to paragraph (f) of 10 CFR50.49, Barton tot 7-764 transmitters

2-LT-3-38, 43, and 56 were installed in locations inside Unit 2 contain-

ment that exposed the transmitters or their associated electrical conduit

fittings to accident environmental conditions for which they were not

qualified. (Paragraph 4.0(2),50-328/86-01-15).

11. Contrary to paragraph (f) of 10 CFR 50.49, Raychem splices (including

breakouts and motor connector kits) were installed in the plant in con-

figurations different from the qualified configuration. (Paragraph 4.F (1),

50-327/86-01-15; 50-328/86-01-16).

.

)

i

I

l

. . .. - -. -- -. .- - .

ML20214K468

Text

Navigation menu

Search