ML14064A473

Request for Additional Information for the Review of the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, LRA - Set 20

ML14064A473
Person / Time
Site:	Sequoyah
Issue date:	03/12/2014
From:	Plasse R License Renewal Projects Branch 1
To:	James Shea Tennessee Valley Authority
Sayoc E, 415-4084
References
TAC MF0481, TAC MF0482
Download: ML14064A473 (4)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 March 12, 2014 Mr. Joe Shea Nuclear Licensing Vice President Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Tennessee Valley Authority 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37 402

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE REVIEW OF THE SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION- SET 20 (TAC NOS. MF0481 AND MF0482)

Dear Mr. Shea,

By letter dated January 7, 2013, Tennessee Valley Authority submitted an application pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 54, to renew the operating license DPR-77 and DPR-79 for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, for review by the US. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff). The staff is reviewing the information contained in the license renewal application and has identified, in the enclosure, areas where additional information is needed to complete the review.

The request for additional information, outlined in the enclosure was discussed with Henry Lee, and a mutually agreeable date for the response is within 30 days from the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please contact me at 301-415-1427 or by e-mail at Richard.Ptasse@nrc.gov.

Sincerely, Richard A. Plasse, Project Manager Projects Branch 1 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328

Enclosure:

Request for Additional Information cc w/encl: Listserv

' ML14064A473 *concurred via email OFFICE LA:RPB1 :DLR PM:RPB1 :DLR BC:RPB1 :DLR PM: RPB1:DLR NAME I Kino E Savoc Y Diaz-Sanabria R Plasse DATE 3/7/2014 3/11/2014 3/11/2014 3/1/2014 Letter to J. Carlin from R. Plasse dated March XX, 2014

SUBJECT:

REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE REVIEW OF THE SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION- SET 20 (TAC NOS. MF0481 AND MF0482)

DISTRIBUTION HARDCOPY:

DLR RF E-MAIL:

PUBLIC RidsNrrDir Resource RidsNrrDirRpb1 Resource RidsNrrDirRpb2 Resource RidsNrrDirRerb Resource RidsNrrDirRarb Resource RidsNrrDirRasb Resource beth.mizuno@nrc.gov brian. harris@nrc.gov john.pelchat@nrc.gov gena.woodruff@nrc.gov siva.lingam@nrc.gov wesley.deschaine@nrc.gov galen.smith@nrc.gov scott. shaeffer@nrc.gov jeffrey.hamman@nrc.gov craig.kontz@nrc.gov caudle.julian@nrc.gov generette.lloyd@epa.gov gmadkins@tva.gov clwilson@tva.gov hleeO@tva.gov dllundy@tva.gov

SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RAI 8.1.13-4

Background:

The response to request for additional information (RAI) 3.0.3-1 Request 4b, dated January 16, 2014, states that nonintrusive techniques (e.g., volumetric testing) will be used in lieu of conducting flow testing or internal inspections to detect flow blockage, and an ultrasonic testing (UT) technique has been demonstrated on the essential raw cooling water (ERCW) system to detect flow blockage due to silt and clams.

Issue:

The staff lacks sufficient information to conclude that the UT technique can effectively detect flow blockage caused by corrosion product buildup.

Request:

For the requests below, ensure that the response addresses each sub-bullet.

1. Provide a detailed description of the UT procedure that will be used to detect obstructions.

a. What UT techniques are used to identify flow blockage in the ERCW system (e.g., 0 degree, guided wave)?

b. Is the procedure automated or manual?

c. What are the limits on the thickness, diameter, product form (e.g., straight pipe, elbows, tees) for the procedure?

2. Describe the qualification requirements for personnel and procedures.

a. What are the personnel qualification requirements?

b. What are the requirements for requalification (how often, what method, etc.)?

c. What are the procedure requirements?

d. What procedure controls are in place to control essential variables for the procedure (e.g., equipment, frequency, bandwidth)?

3. Describe the practical demonstration performed on the ERCW system in detail.

a. How many tests were conducted during the demonstration process?

b. How many different sizes of pipe were tested?

c. What adverse conditions were tested for in the demonstration (e.g. blockage, wall thinning, corrosion)?

d. Were there any false negatives or false positives during demonstration testing?

Quantify, if applicable.

4. Describe the results of the field inspections conducted using this UT procedure.

a. How much ERCW system piping has been examined (approximate number of feet) subsequent to the demonstration testing?

b. How many tests in the subsequent field inspections have detected flow blockage?

c. Have there been any false negatives or false positives during the field examination? Quantify, if applicable.

ENCLOSURE