ML20237L344
| ML20237L344 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 08/27/1987 |
| From: | Zwolinski J NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS |
| To: | White S TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235T197 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-M83202, NUDOCS 8709080361 | |
| Download: ML20237L344 (4) | |
Text
-
r.
g
[(p %q'e[g UNITED STATES 9
,c -
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p
.j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 l ^
0,,
.f August 27, 1987 Docket Nos. 50-327/328 Mr. S. A. White Manager of Nuclear Power Tennessee Valley Authority 6N 38A Lookout Place 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801
Dear Mr. White:
SUBJECT:
EVALUATION OF NUCLEAR SAFETY REVIEW STAFF CONCERNS REQUIRING RESOLUTION BEFORE RESTART Re:
Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Enclosed is the Technical Evaluation Report (TER) by the staff's contractor, Franklin Research Center, on the review of the unresolved Nuclear Safety Review Staff (NSRS) recommendations. These are the recommendations that were not closed out by the NSRS as of August 31, 1985. They were submitted in the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Reports R-86-02-NPS, ECTG-NSRS-01 Revision 2 and ECTG-NSRS-02 Revision 1 in letters dated December 17, 1986; January 30, 1987; and January 16, 1987, respectively. NSRS recommendation R-85-03-NPS-08, which was addressed by TVA in Report R-86-02-NPS, was not reviewed by the staff's contractor and will be the subject of a separate letter.
These NSRS recommendations were reviewed by the staff's contractor to determine the following:
(1) thegacceptability of the determination by TVA that an NSRS recommendation did not have to be resolved before restart of Sequoyah and (2) the acceptability of the corrective actions by TVA to resolve the NSRS recommendations that.are Sequoyah restart items. The non-restart NSRS recommendations were. reviewed against the Sequoyah Restart' Criteria that were approved by the staff in its letter dated June 9,1987.
Each corrective action was reviewed against its associated NSRS recommendation to determine if it adequately addressed the recommendation.
The conclusions of the TER are that the HSRS recommendations considered by TVA to be non-restart items for Sequoyah are acceptable and the corrective actions described by TVA for,the restart NSRS recommendations are adequate.
In the TER, the contractor also recommended that TVA identify all of the restart NSRS recommendations as restart items on the Sequoyah Activities List (SAL), that TVA ensure that commercial grade equipment and spare parts that were installed or stored for later.use' prior to the revision of plant procedures have been verified as being acceptable for use in quality assurance applications and that environmental qualification (EO) documents that use the similarity method should be evaluated by an independent reviewer.
Doh $&y27 REP
~,
, August 27, 1987
- The staff has reviewed the TER and agrees with the contractor's conclusions in the document.. Therefore, the staff concludes that the' list of NSRS. recommendations that are restart items and the corrective actions' for the recommendations are i
acceptable.
I' You are requested to identify any of these restart NSRS recommendations that are not listed as restart items on the SAL. Because most of the corrective actions submitted by TVA are programs to be completed before restart, you are also requested to submit the details of the corrective actions taken to resolve these restart NSRS recommendations within 30 days of receipt of this letter. This is for the staff to review these details before the restart of Sequoyah Unit 2.
The contractor's recommendation concerning commercial grade equipment and spare parts is part of TVA actions in.the Sequoyah Replacement Items Project and does not.have to be addressed as_a response to this letter. The recommendation concerning review of EQ documents using the similarity method also does not have to be addressed because the independent review has been done by a contractor.
~The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.
Sincerely.
Original signed by:
John A. Zwolinski, Assistant Director for Projects TVA Projects Division Office of Special Projects
Enclosures:
Technical Evaluation Report cc w/ enclosure See next page.
DISTRIBUTION NDockettFile-BKSingh NRC PDR CJamerson Local PDR TVA-Bethesca JAxelrad SON File SEbneter Projects Rdg.
-SRichardson SConnelly EWS-461
~
JZwolinski RPierson i
BDLiaw JDorichew
[
EJordan MNBB-3302 FMiraglia P-428 GZech RII JPartlow EWS-360
- cf; ACRS(10)
<, 0GC-BETH MNBB-9604 A
TVA:0SP/L TV.
P/PM T
EC P
/TP 6 ATP TVA:AD/P O
CJamerson V BKSingh c
.W:pw RPierson BDLdaw JZwolinski 1
% /p /87 g /2)/87
/87 d'/g/,87 g /O' 87 6 h1/87
/
34
I i August 27, 1987 j
The staff has reviewed the TER and agrees with the contractor's conclusions in the document. Therefore, the staff concludes that the list of NSRS reconnendations that are restart items and the corrective actions for the recommendations are acceptable.
' Yots are requested to identify any of these restart NSRS reconnendations that are not listed as restart items on the SAL. Because most of the corrective actions submitted by TVA are programs to be completed before restart, you are also requested to submit the details of the corrective actions taken to resolve these restart NSRS recommendations within 30 days of receipt of this letter. This is for.the staff to review these details before the restart of Sequoyah Unit 2.
The contractor's recommendation concerning commercial grade equipment and spare parts is part of TVA actions in the Sequoyah Replacement Items Project and does not have to be addressed as a response to this letter. The reconnendation concerning review of E0 documents using the similarity method also does not have to be addressed because the independent review has been done by a contractor.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is nut required under P.L.96-511.
Sincer ly,4 L t
John \\. Zwolinski, Assistant Director for lProjects TVA frojects Division Office of Special Projects
Enclosures:
Technical Evaluation Report cc w/ enclosure See next page 1
l l
Q j{ '
[ Tj[,,y j,[ q..
~T RX T J
]
a Q, c q
i j
gW,%
t..g Y a wsS,2
- p. -
E; m(
a f:
I August 27,1987y Q
if,j p
[M%
A 3
s 4 %'
Mr.' S. A. Whites
!e Ah d
b Sequoyah Nuclear Plant
,! T l
.7eniesseeValley'lAutirity L
U
\\
}%
t.
.y ;
- %9
.c w
i:
.u s s
"q) l,
- ?\\
g q
r Region 3) ' Administrator, RagWII
~X ' J,ireral'Couns9 f' f
s l
U.S. ' Nuclear Regulatory tomisdion-4,
! :1'] l3.%nnessee Vayeg Authority
)(J Rt Atlanta, Georgia 30323 w,
>(
i 101 Marietta Street, N.W.
4' ] ? 400 West Suimiit Hill Drive i
l
' UCE33 6.,_
4 fnoxville, Tennessee 37932
! b:< ' '
)
Resident Inspector /Sequoyah NP
" g t if c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory' Commission
}
Mr. R. L..Gridley c
2600 Igou Ferry Road
, Q,j'i Tennessee Valley Authority.
b1
~
.SN 157B Lookout P1 ace i.
I~'
tedtfy Daisy, Tennessee 37379 Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2091 B3
- ~
Mr. Richard King fr. H. L, Abercrombie
-}
'6/o U.S. GA0 Y s i-.U 4
gy 3
,lenessehvalleyAuthority 111P North Shore Di n..e i
W Sec$yamidclearPlant Suita 225, Box 194 s'
P.O. Box 2000
?
ti h ville, Tennetsen ?37919
,) y t
C Soddy Daisy, Tennessee 37?79
- f. (
S
' ' ' ' ' Tennessee Department of A
'4 Mr. M. R. Harding
'x-
)
Public Health
.TennesseeValleyAuthoM6,-
,?
ATTN: Director, Buru n of 4
^
Environmental Health Services SequoyahNuclear[lann x
1%
6 Cordell Hull Buildinga P.O. Box 2000
- ~hashville, Tennessee 37219 Soddy Daisy, Tennessf] P 379.
(a s
Mt.'D, L. Willians Mr. Michael H. Mobiey, Director
biaiessee Vallsy fatherity Division of Radiological Health a4 400 9ssteSumreit Hiji Drive
.-T.E.R.R.A. Belldfef-i K109.45 150 9th Avenur/ North I
1
,Knoxvilles Tennessee 3/902 Nashville, Tennessee 37203 d"s 9 t
% D.A g Cout.Q Judge
?Hhmilton County CQ rthouse 9Chstte.nooga, Tennende 37402; e
a 3,.
l
)
q
'r g
5
/
I 1
V -
v
)
f/
i
',E
.\\
- , (
L ej
+
_.._L r