ML20214K468
| 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: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8608210112 | |
| Download: ML20214K468 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000327/1986001
Text
.
_ _
. .
-
.
/
4
UNITED STATES
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
- - - - . - - .
-
. - - . - -
. - - .
- - . - - - - - - -
.
-
.-
.
August 15, M86
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 CONCURRENCESd
of
f
VPB:DQAVT
SC/VPB:DQAVT
BC/VP
1[OAV
D
T:D VT
/
(RI /
I
rimes
T~
lin
RFH 15hman
H 11
r
.
- GHubbard:tt *UPotapovs
9
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:
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
.IB rime 9
TCpnlin
'
<
Dj R:
. Q/
'qRII
BC/VPl
QAV
D
RFH1ihmanj
VPB:00AVT
SC/VPB:DQAVT
9
HJ,li lJer
- GHubbard:tt *UPotapovs
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 assembly for its post-accident operating) environ-
ment.
(Paragraph 4.D.(1)(b), 50-327/86-01-07; 50-328/86-01-07.
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
..
.
.
.
..
-
-.
--
-.
.- -
.