ML15159B164

Requests for Additional Information for the Review of the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal Application-Set 25 (TAC Nos. MF0481 and MF0482)

ML15159B164
Person / Time
Site:	Sequoyah
Issue date:	06/22/2015
From:	Sayoc E License Renewal Projects Branch 1
To:	James Shea Tennessee Valley Authority
Sayoc E, NRR/ DLR,415-4084
References
DLR-15-0295, TAC MF0481, TAC MF0482
Download: ML15159B164 (4)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 June 22, 2015 Mr. Joseph W. Shea Vice President, Nuclear Licensing Tennessee Valley Authority P.O. Box 2000 Soddy-Daisy, TN 37384

SUBJECT:

REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE REVIEW OF THE SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION - SET 25 (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 operating licenses DPR-77 and DPR-79 for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, for review by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 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.

These requests for additional information were discussed with Dennis Lundy, 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 301-415-4084 or by e-mail at Emmanuel.Sayoc@nrc.gov.

Sincerely,

/RA by John Daily for/

Emmanuel Sayoc, Project Manager Projects Branch 1 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328

Enclosure:

Requests for Additional Information cc: Listserv

ML15159B164 *concurred via email OFFICE LA:DLR/RPB1* PM:DLR/RPB1 BC:DLR/RPB1 PM:DLR/RPB1 NAME YEdmonds ESayoc YDiaz-Sanabria ESayoc (JDaily for ) (JDaily for )

DATE 6/ 22 /15 6/ 22 /15 6/ 22 /15 6/ 22 /15

Letter to J. Shea from E. Sayoc date June 22, 2015

SUBJECT:

REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE REVIEW OF THE SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION - SET 25 (TAC NOS. MF0481 AND MF0482)

DISTRIBUTION:

E-MAIL:

PUBLIC RidsNrrDlr Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb1 Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb2 Resource RidsNrrDlrRerb Resource RidsNrrDlrRarb Resource RidsNrrDlrRasb Resource RidsNrrPMSequoyah Resource

---

beth.mizuno@nrc.gov jeremy.wachutka@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 ekwest@tva.gov dllundy@tva.gov

SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RAI 3.0.3.2.17-1a (Surveillance Capsule Operating Experience Followup)

Background:

During Refueling Outage No. 20 at Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN), Unit 1, inservice inspections of the reactor vessel internals (RVI) revealed that two reactor pressure vessel (RPV) surveillance capsules had become dislodged from their baskets and that capsule pieces or specimens from at least one of these capsules had become loose inside the Unit 1 RPV.

Apparent damage to some RVI components was noted by Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA or the applicant).

Issue:

Any damage to RVI components should be assessed to demonstrate that stress profiles for the damaged components remains bounded by those assumed for the as-built component configurations in the applicable Materials Reliability Program (MRP) reports; this is regardless of whether the damage was induced by an age-related aging effect.

In addition, the staff is concerned that any damage that occurred from the impacts of the loose parts (e.g., causing cold work to the affected components) could create a preferential site for initiation of degradation, such as stress corrosion cracking, during the period of extended operation. Evaluation should adequately address the use of future examinations of the damaged locations using inspection methods that will address this issue.

Request:

(1) Provide an adequate technical justification for not considering the potential effects of loose part-induced cold work on the likelihood of degradation of the damaged reactor internals, in particular the long term prospects for initiation of stress corrosion cracking in the damaged internals.

(2) Provide a basis for not performing subsequent re-inspections of the damaged locations of the Unit 1 reactor internals using inspection methods that will effectively address impact-related damage.