ML20237C833
| ML20237C833 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 12/09/1987 |
| From: | Richardson S NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS |
| To: | White S TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8712220215 | |
| Download: ML20237C833 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000327/1987018
Text
eg
~-
,
DEC 0 91987
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. 50-327/87-18-01 AND 50-328/87-18-01
Thank you for your response of July 24, 1987, to our Notice of Violation issued
on June 10, 1987, concerning activities conducted at your Sequoyah facility.
We have evaluated your response and found that it meets the requirements of
'
After discussing the reasons for your denial of example 5 of the subject
,
violation with the associated inspector, for the reasons stated in the
'
enclosure, we accept your denial.
Concerning your denial of examples 8 and 9
of the subject violation, for the reasons stated in the enclosure, we believe
the violation occurred as stated.
Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.201
and within 30 days of the date of this letter, please resubmit your response
for examples 8 and 9 of the subject violation.
We appreciate your corporation in this matter.
Sincerely,
,
Original signed by
S. D. Richardson
Steven D. Richardson,
l
Acting Director
'
TVA Projects Division
Office of Special Projects
Enclosure:
Staff Review of Licensee Response
Dated July 24, 1987
cc w/ encl:
I
H. L. Abercrombie, Site Director
l
Sequoyah Nuclear Plant
l
J. A. Kirkebo, Director,
l
Nuclear Engineering
R. L. Gridley, Director
Nuclear Safety and Licensing
M. R. Harding, Site Licensing
Manager
TVA Representative, Bethesda Office
!
I
bec w/ enc 1:
(See page 2)
B71222021g 973gg,
{DR ADOCK 05000327l
PDR .
\\\\
.CE o /
.__-_ __________-__ _ - __ a
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _
'
.
. d-
Tennessee Valley Authority.
2
DEC 0 91987-
bec w/ enc 1:
S. D. Ebneter OSP
S. D. Richardson, OSP
G. G. Zech,~OSP.
B..D. Liaw, OSP
J. Rutberg, OGC-
W. S. Little OSP/RII
F. McCoy.-OSP/RII
R. Carroll, OSP/RIT
i
J. Brady, OSP/R11
'
NRC Resident Inspector
-DRS Technical Assistant
NRC Document Control Desk
State of Tennessee
l
I
'
1
.i
I
!ady:er
VA:A/DM
cCo
.. C'
h
ichardson
'
'
3,,jn(t /a ' p/s5/S 7
(T/ A/87
l
s al'
a
2"#
11/z'/87
11/?i/87
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
_
']'i)
i
y
,
ENCLOSURE
'
STAFF REVIEW 0F LICENSEE RESPONSE
DATED JULY 24, 1987
,
Violation Example 5
i
"During functional and stroke time testing of a containment standpipe
isolation valve, a faulty indicator dial was used to determine valve
mid-position, and there were no procedure instructions for determining valve
full-orin position."
Discussion
l
'
TVA has denied this example of the 87-18 violation stating that existing .
acceptance criteria is fully adequate to determine valve travel to its
open- ptsition.
1
Discussions with the NRC inspector who identified this violation indicate
concurrence with the TVA response.
His subsequent evaluation of site
criteria, and test performance suggest adequate program controls in this
area.
Conclusion
The TVA denial of this example is accepted.
No further action is required.
Violation Example 8
" Work activities, including disassembly and reassembly of a bolted flange and
other jcints and cleanout of instrument tubing, were performed without work
instructions, inspections, or second party verification of joint makeup."
Discussion
TVA has denied this example of the violation stating that such work
activities are within the daily skill of the craft, second party
verification was provided, and that no evidence could be obtained that
i
would indicate that instrument personnel removed or rebolted the flange
mentioned in the report.
This response was discussed with the NRC inspector whu identified the
originci concern.
Based upon this discussion it appears that TVA has not
adequately addressed the following concerns.
1.
While TVA claims that no evidence could be found that instrument
personnel removed or rebolted the flange, the inspector observed
the flange disassembled, has reinspected the installation and
verified that the flange has been reassembled and is covered with
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ -
,
\\
\\
< Enclosure
2
il
insulation.
Since this flange is considered a portion of critical
structures, systems, and components equipment, skill of the craft is
considered an unacceptable method for complying with the
requirements of 10 CFR 50 Appendix B.
,
2.
As indicated in the report the associated tubing lines had been
clogged with crystallized boric acid, and were subsequently cleaned
out by craftsmen.
However, no investigation was initiated to
determine the cause, extent or possible adverse impact of this
l
material upon the tubing lines.
3.
The first and second-party verification mentioned in the TVA response
is limited to confinning existence of the gauge and does not address
tightness of joints or component fitup.
Conclusion
The TVA denial of this violation example is not accepted.
Additional
'
evaluation which addresses the concerns detailed above and how skill of
t
the craft meets the requirements of 10 CFR 50 Appendix B is required.
Violation Example 9
"During functional testing of diesel generator room exhaust fans, a step
verifying that red lights on the fan breaker were energized was signed
off when, in fact, the panel lights were burned out."
Discusplon
TVA denies this example of the violation stating that the subject test
was properly performed.
Discussions with the NRC inspector who identified this concern reaffirm
that the functional test was not performed as required by test instruc-
tions, specifically, that the step which requires verification of
indi< ating lights was signed off prior to bulbs being installed for
indi ation.
The criteria used at the time of sign off was whether the
fan cas running.
After the sign off the inspector observed that
f.mitating bulbs were installed and the test rerun.
jonclusion
The TVA denial of this violation example is not accepted.
Additional
evaluation of the performance of this test, and general test practices is
required.
l
_--__
-