ML20149E512

Ack Receipt of Informing NRC of Steps Taken to Correct Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-327/87-52 & 50-328/87-52.Response Meets 10CFR2.201 Requirements W/Encl Exceptions.Exceptions Require Response within 30 Days

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

PDR ADOCK 05000327

G PDR

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

.

'

Brady.er FMcCoy WLittle K

v ,12/g,/8h, @-

12//6 /87 12// 7/87 12//7/87 Y MlQ,1

,

-

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

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