ML18029A898: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| page count = 4 | | page count = 4 | ||
}} | }} | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:p~~IA TENNESSEE | {{#Wiki_filter:p | ||
TENNESSEE 37401 400 Chestnut Street Tower II Ep@September 18, 1985 48 U.S.Nuclear Regulatory | ~~ | ||
Commission | IA TENNESSEE VALLEYAUTHORITY CHATTANOOGA. TENNESSEE 37401 400 Chestnut Street Tower II Ep@ | ||
Region II ATTN: Dr.J.Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator | September 18, 1985 48 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II ATTN: | ||
101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Dear Dr.Grace: Please refer to J.A.Domer's letter to you dated June 21, 1985, which contained our response to OIE Inspection | Dr. J. Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 | ||
Report 85-25 for our Drowns Ferry Nuclear Plant.As a result of discussions | |||
with Floyd Cantrell of your staff, we have revised our response to Violation 1.d, which is enclosed.If you have any questions, please get in touch with R.E.Alsup at FTS 858-2725.To the best of my knowledge, I declare the statements | ==Dear Dr. Grace:== | ||
contained herein are complete and true.Very truly yours, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY R.H.Shell Nuclear Engineer Enclosure cc: Mr.James Taylor, Director (Enclosure) | Please refer to J. | ||
Office of Inspection | A. Domer's letter to you dated June 21, 1985, which contained our response to OIE Inspection Report 85-25 for our Drowns Ferry Nuclear Plant. | ||
and Enforcement | As a result of discussions with Floyd Cantrell of your staff, we have revised our response to Violation 1.d, which is enclosed. | ||
U.S.Nuclear Regulatory | If you have any questions, please get in touch with R. | ||
Commission | E. Alsup at FTS 858-2725. | ||
Washington, D.C. | To the best of my knowledge, I declare the statements contained herein are complete and true. | ||
Very truly yours, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY R. H. Shell Nuclear Engineer Enclosure cc: | |||
~N-~Le II 0 II | Mr. James Taylor, Director (Enclosure) | ||
REVISED RESPONSE NRC INSPECTION | Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. | ||
REPORT NOS.50-259/85-25, 50-260/85-25, AND 50-296/85-25 | 20555 An Equal Opportunity Employer | ||
DAVID M, VERRELLI'S | |||
LETTER TO H.G.PARRIS DATED MAY 22'985 am Technical Specification | ~N | ||
6.3.A.6 requires that detailed written procedures | - ~ | ||
covering surveillance | Le II 0 | ||
and testing requirements | II | ||
be adhered to.Contrary to the above, Plant Standard Practice BF 14.25, Clearance Procedure, was not followed in that all electrical | |||
power was not isolated from the 2DA low pressure coolant injection (LPCI)motor-generator | REVISED RESPONSE NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. | ||
set under hold order 85-150A.The motor was removed with voltage (18 volts)still applied to the thermistor | 50-259/85-25, 50-260/85-25, AND 50-296/85-25 DAVID M, VERRELLI'S LETTER TO H. | ||
leads.On April 23, 1985, the inspectors | G. | ||
observed that various indicating | PARRIS DATED MAY 22'985 am Technical Specification 6.3.A.6 requires that detailed written procedures covering surveillance and testing requirements be adhered to. | ||
lights were still illuminated | Contrary to the above, Plant Standard Practice BF 14.25, Clearance Procedure, was not followed in that all electrical power was not isolated from the 2DA low pressure coolant injection (LPCI) motor-generator set under hold order 85-150A. | ||
although hold order tags were in place.1.dmissi o'a o ed'o a'on TVA disagrees that this example is a violation. | The motor was removed with voltage (18 volts) still applied to the thermistor leads. | ||
2.eas F th i a The 2DA low pressure coolant injection (LPCI)motor generator (MG)set was-tagged to pull the generator for transport to Louis-Allis | On April 23, 1985, the inspectors observed that various indicating lights were still illuminated although hold order tags were in place. | ||
Company for repair.The equipment was tagged in accordance | 1. | ||
with Standard Practice 14.25 for this job.The electrical | dmissi o | ||
maintenance | 'a o | ||
personnel felt the clearance was sufficient | ed | ||
and safe to do work, and the shift engineer issuing the clearance felt it was adequate to safely perform the work.Involved personnel were aware of limitations, conditions, and boundaries | 'o a 'on TVA disagrees that this example is a violation. | ||
of this clearance. | 2. | ||
This meets the intent and purpose of BF 14.25.The 18-volt thermistor | eas F | ||
power supply is shared with the 2EN LPCI MG set, and there is no way to provide isolation if the other MG set is to remain operable.The maintenance | th i | ||
personnel did not request.this circuit tagged because they could safely handle the wiring by lifting the leads"hot." This is commonly required and done on systems with common low voltage power supplies.This circuit was subsequently | a The 2DA low pressure coolant injection (LPCI) motor generator (MG) set was-tagged to pull the generator for transport to Louis-Allis Company for repair. | ||
tagged, but this was for NRC inspectors | The equipment was tagged in accordance with Standard Practice 14.25 for this job. | ||
concern rather than a safety concern of personnel doing the work.The basis of this violation is related to the wording of BF 14.25.Although we believe the directions | The electrical maintenance personnel felt the clearance was sufficient and safe to do work, and the shift engineer issuing the clearance felt it was adequate to safely perform the work. | ||
provided in the procedure were adequate, we have reworded BF 14.25 to unambiguously | Involved personnel were aware of limitations, conditions, and boundaries of this clearance. | ||
assure a uniform understanding | This meets the intent and purpose of BF 14.25. | ||
on the clearance procedure. | The 18-volt thermistor power supply is shared with the 2EN LPCI MG set, and there is no way to provide isolation if the other MG set is to remain operable. | ||
~~1 Ev 1 | The maintenance personnel did not request. this circuit tagged because they could safely handle the wiring by lifting the leads "hot." | ||
}} | This is commonly required and done on systems with common low voltage power supplies. | ||
This circuit was subsequently | |||
: tagged, but this was for NRC inspectors concern rather than a safety concern of personnel doing the work. | |||
The basis of this violation is related to the wording of BF 14.25. | |||
Although we believe the directions provided in the procedure were adequate, we have reworded BF 14.25 to unambiguously assure a | |||
uniform understanding on the clearance procedure. | |||
~ ~ | |||
1 Ev 1}} | |||
Latest revision as of 03:25, 7 January 2025
| ML18029A898 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 09/18/1985 |
| From: | Shell R TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | Grace J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8510030068 | |
| Download: ML18029A898 (4) | |
Text
p
~~
IA TENNESSEE VALLEYAUTHORITY CHATTANOOGA. TENNESSEE 37401 400 Chestnut Street Tower II Ep@
September 18, 1985 48 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II ATTN:
Dr. J. Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323
Dear Dr. Grace:
Please refer to J.
A. Domer's letter to you dated June 21, 1985, which contained our response to OIE Inspection Report 85-25 for our Drowns Ferry Nuclear Plant.
As a result of discussions with Floyd Cantrell of your staff, we have revised our response to Violation 1.d, which is enclosed.
If you have any questions, please get in touch with R.
E. Alsup at FTS 858-2725.
To the best of my knowledge, I declare the statements contained herein are complete and true.
Very truly yours, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY R. H. Shell Nuclear Engineer Enclosure cc:
Mr. James Taylor, Director (Enclosure)
Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 An Equal Opportunity Employer
~N
- ~
Le II 0
II
REVISED RESPONSE NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS.
50-259/85-25, 50-260/85-25, AND 50-296/85-25 DAVID M, VERRELLI'S LETTER TO H.
G.
PARRIS DATED MAY 22'985 am Technical Specification 6.3.A.6 requires that detailed written procedures covering surveillance and testing requirements be adhered to.
Contrary to the above, Plant Standard Practice BF 14.25, Clearance Procedure, was not followed in that all electrical power was not isolated from the 2DA low pressure coolant injection (LPCI) motor-generator set under hold order 85-150A.
The motor was removed with voltage (18 volts) still applied to the thermistor leads.
On April 23, 1985, the inspectors observed that various indicating lights were still illuminated although hold order tags were in place.
1.
dmissi o
'a o
ed
'o a 'on TVA disagrees that this example is a violation.
2.
eas F
th i
a The 2DA low pressure coolant injection (LPCI) motor generator (MG) set was-tagged to pull the generator for transport to Louis-Allis Company for repair.
The equipment was tagged in accordance with Standard Practice 14.25 for this job.
The electrical maintenance personnel felt the clearance was sufficient and safe to do work, and the shift engineer issuing the clearance felt it was adequate to safely perform the work.
Involved personnel were aware of limitations, conditions, and boundaries of this clearance.
This meets the intent and purpose of BF 14.25.
The 18-volt thermistor power supply is shared with the 2EN LPCI MG set, and there is no way to provide isolation if the other MG set is to remain operable.
The maintenance personnel did not request. this circuit tagged because they could safely handle the wiring by lifting the leads "hot."
This is commonly required and done on systems with common low voltage power supplies.
This circuit was subsequently
- tagged, but this was for NRC inspectors concern rather than a safety concern of personnel doing the work.
The basis of this violation is related to the wording of BF 14.25.
Although we believe the directions provided in the procedure were adequate, we have reworded BF 14.25 to unambiguously assure a
uniform understanding on the clearance procedure.
~ ~
1 Ev 1