ML20235K459
| ML20235K459 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 09/25/1987 |
| From: | Ebneter S NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS |
| To: | White S TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235K462 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8710050099 | |
| Download: ML20235K459 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000327/1987052
Text
- - - - - - -
'
s
v
-
o
N
SEP 2 51987
'
Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328
License Nos. DPR-77 and DPR-79
Tennessee Valley Authority
14TTN: .Mr. Steven A. White
Manager of Nuclear Power
-6: North 38A Lookout' Place
'1101 Market Stre n
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
SEQUOYAH ESSENTIAL RAW COOLING WATER SYSTEM AS BUILT VERIFICATION
INSPECTION (NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-327/87-52 and 50-328/87-52)
This letter refers to a special as built verification team inspection conducted
by F. R. McCoy at the Sequoyah facility during August 3-14 and 19, 1987.
-This inspection included a review of activities authorized for, your Sequoyah
facility in order to verify that the Essential Raw Cooling Water (ERCW) system,
as currently constructed and installed, is in accordance 'with applicable
drawings-and des gn specifications.
At the conclusion of the inspection, the
d
inspection findings and conclusions were discussed with those members of your
staff identified in the enclosed inspection. report.
Although deficiencies were
observed with the ERCW system, we have concluded that, in general and subject
to resolution of those deficiencies, the ERCW system is installed and
constructed in accordance with design specifications.
The inspection findings indicate that certain of your activities appeared to
violate NRC requirements.
The violations, reference to pertinent requirements,
l
and elements to be included in your response are described in the enclosed
Violation A involves six examples where either:
established measures did not assure that applicable regulatory requirements and
the design basis for the ERCW system were correctly translated into specifica-
i
tions, drawings, procedures, and instructions; or where specific design changes
were made to the as configured plant without being subject to required design
control measures and approvals.
These activities are contrary to 10 CFR 50
Appendix B Criterion III, Design Control.
We are particularly concerned that
your design control process allowed components with undesignated valves, whose
positions could affect the design basis of the ERCW system, to be installed in
the plant without proper translation into specifications, drawings, procedures,
and instructions.
This condition precluded formal alignment of those valves
and resulted in noncompliance with Technical Specification surveillance require-
!
ments for the ERCW system since initial plant operation.
I
Violation B involves six examples where activities affe"~ z quality were not
prescribed and/or accomplished by docuented instruction.
These activities
are contrary to 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, Criterion V, instructions, procedures,
l
and drawings.
Of particular concern is: -(1) the failure to provide any
instructions for initial and periodic alignment of valves within instrument
lines when the positioning of those valves could affect the operability of
gR10050099 870925
g
ApoCM 05000327
l{(
]
m
-_
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
SEP 2 51987
i
Tennessee Valley Authority.
2
safety-related instruments, and (2) the failure to properly route identified
safety-related cables pursuant to cable pull cards or cable schedules. With
regard to the latter failure we are also concerned with the number of
deficiencies noted over a relatively small sample size.
Violation C involves one example where document control measures did not
assure that a drawing change was properly reviewed for adequacy as evidenced by
errors in that change.
This activity is contrary to 10 CFR 50 Appendix B,
Criterion VI, Document Control.
During the course of this inspection, a number of weaknesses were identified
which you should also address in your response to the enclosed violations.
These weaknesses are identified in enclosure 2 to this letter.
In accordance with Section 2.79G of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2,
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its
enclosure (s) will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
The responses directed by this letter and its enclosure (s) are not subject to
the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
i
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact us.
.i
Sincerely,
Original signed by S. Ebneter
Stewart D. Ebneter, Director
TVA Projects Division
Office of Special Projects
Enclosures:
1.
2.
Observed Weaknesses
3.
NRC Inspection Report
,
cc w/encls:
& L. Abercrombie, Site Director
Sequoyah Nuc1 car Plant
C A. Kirkebo, Director,
Nuclear Engineering
4t. L. Gridley, Director
Nuclear Safety and Licensing
fC R. Harding, Site Licensing
l
Manager
i
bec w/ enc 1:
(See page 3)
1
- - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _
3
,
.
.:
.-
SEP 2 51987
Tennessee Valley Authority
3
h
bec w/encis:
i
J. N. Grace,'RII
)
G. G. Zech
tJr G. Keppler, OSP
LK D. Ebneter, OSP
WA. Zwolinski, _ OSP
tB: D. Liaw, OSP
E D. Richardson, OSP
(R.R. Connelly, DIA
~K. P. Darr, OSP/RII
F. McCoy, OSP/RII
.
R. Carroll, OSP/RIl
_J. Brady, OSP/RII
t-G Walton, SRI Watts Barr
t.d. York, SRI Bellefonte
8. Thomas,RegionIIDRS
M
Kelly, OSP
. W Airch, Region I DRS
tr'Vanderneit, Region I Monticello
i
tR A. Ippolito, TVA Nuclear
. Ret,ulatory Contultant
dfRC Rcsident Inspector
.NRC Document Control Desk
State of Tennessee
,.
RII
II/O
'I
P
&
F
oy
KB r
GZech
9/2//87
p
7
9/k3/87
_ _ _ -