ML20005B375
| ML20005B375 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 06/17/1981 |
| From: | Adensam E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Parris H TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737, TASK-1.C.1, TASK-TM NUDOCS 8107080045 | |
| Download: ML20005B375 (2) | |
Text
,
Y.,
/., '
y.
.. e g.-
s N
g 17 DISTRIBUTION
< Docket-Filo*
OELD Docket Nos.:
50-327 LB#4 RDG OIE (3) and 50-328 DEisenhut bcc:
TERA /NSIC/ TIC EAdensan ACRS (16)
KJabbour Mr. Hugh G. Parris JLee fianager of Power SHanauer Tennessee Valley Authority RTedesco 500A Chestnut Street, Tower II RVollmer Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401 TMurley RMattson
Dear Mr. Parris:
RHartfield, MPA
Subject:
Staff Evaluation of Item I C.1 for Westingliouse Facilities We have completed our interim review of the Westinghouse Owners Group subraittal for Action Plan item I.C.1, Guidance for the Evaluation and Development of Procedures for Transients and Accidents. A copy of Mr. Eisenhut's May 28, 1981 letter to Mr. Jurgensen, Chairman, Westing.
house Owners Group is enclosed for your information. As indicated in the enclosure, further work will be necessary in order to produce a docuwnt which satisfies the staff positions in a timely natter.
Sincerely, Elinor G. Adensam, Acting Chief Licensing Branch No. 4 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated g [.15 cc:
See next page qr ~
,g l
0.
b Z
JUN 2 51981 * -
a
~
g vn. g, g.m 3I y
v en se c'07080045 810617 T'
.Gn ADOCK 050003271 P
PDR) xA e
.y i
n
"'c'>0L,,B.M...
..h 18. 0
.0L:.
/L.
= = 4 KJab.b,qur.:,eb,.
,, EA.d e.ngm...
. 8Te. a Ac.o..
WEf6,[lh/8]
,, 6/,,k/8]
6/
,/8]
osc ros:4 3ie no.co, sscu e24o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- "o ' " *o-3"
> ; zo Mr. H. G. Parris Manager of Power Tennessee Valley Authority 500A Chestnut Street Tower II Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401 cc:
Herbert S. Sanger, Jr., Esq.
General Counsel Tennessee Valley Authority 400 Commerce Avenue E llB 33 Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Mr. H. N. Culver Tennessee Valley Authority 400 Conmerce Avenua, 249A HBB Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Mr. Bob Faas' Westinghoase Electric Corporation P. O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Psnnsylvania 15230 Mr. Mark Burzynski Tennessee Valley Authority 400 Chestnut Street Tower II Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401-Mr. J. F. Cox Tennessee Valley Authority 400 Commerce Avenue, W10Cl31C Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Resident Inspector /Sequoyah NPS c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2600 Igou Ferry Road Soddf Daisy, Tennessee 37379 e
-.-.-%v y..y y-w y- -. -,,.
-7.,
,)
. p* Acr tifJITED STATES
[ [ h w y ]f g f;UCLEAR CEGULATORY COWwnN i
t 5.umncTon. c. c. __,
- ,'.4C@ s.
Q@k " i b.
+#
i/A'r 2 8 1901 Robert W. Juroensen, Chairman Westinghouse Owners Group American Electric Power Service Corporation 2 Brcadway New York, flew York 10004
Dear Mr. Jurgensen:
In your letter dated March 18, 1981 (06-54), you summarized a meeting held on February 20, 1981 between representatives of the fiRC staff, Westinghouse Owners, and Westinghouse Electric Corporation. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Westinghouse Owners Group (WOG) activities in response to fiUREG-0737, Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements, Item I.C.1, Guidance for the Evaluation and Develop-ment of Procedures for Transients and Accidents.
Following the meeting summary, you requested that the staff acknowledge the acceptability of the program described in the meeting.
As indicated in a meeting with Tom Andersca, of Westinghcuse, on April 8, 1981, we have concerns about the acceptability of the WOG
. The last submittal of generic WOG guidelines, including the program.
Inadequate Core Cooling Guidelines, required _the operator to diagnose a specific event usir.g the diagnostic procedure included in the guide-lines.
Subsequent' failures were, essentially, addressed by entry into one of the in dequate core cooling guidelines. As indicated in the February meeting and discussed in your letter, the guidelines do not provide smcoth transitions from the event procedures to direct theThis operator if subsequent multiple or consequential failures occur.
leaves the operator with no guidance until entry conditions for the Inadequate Core Cooling Guidelines are reached.
Furthermore, the guidelines do not address subsequent reevaluation of plant conditions I
to ensure that tie expected plant response is occurring.
Our second concern is your proposed schedule for completing the program recognizing that development of emergency operating procedures is a However, we are concerned dynamic process with no absolute end point.
l that continual, major rewriting of emergency operating procedures is a l
burden on plant operating staffs and confusing to the operators who must relearn the procedures.
In the February meeting, WOG representa-tives indicated thay they expect to have the initial development phase of the guidelines completed in July 1981, and would not expect major changes to the guidelines to result from the phases to be completed in January 1982 and July 1982.
You also state in your letter that the initial phase will address over 98 percent of the total risk.
- However, we were also told in the meeting that the guidelines to be submitted in July would probably not differ greatly from those already submitted.
Considering our concerns with the existing guidelines, as addressed above, we do not see how the July submittal can be responsive to fiUREG-0737, Item I.C.1 without signifi cant change.
We believe that additional work is necessa y.
I c
iknDbI9d?
,,. E.,
~
~
i.iAY 2 0 i^,~,,
cnimates presented in the Fcbruary meeting, a not addressed the broad range of initiating events, including natural phenomena such as earthquakes, in the analysis presented to date Therefore, we cannot assess the overall adequacy of the proposed program.
ability of licensec:Unless our concerns, as stated herein, are satisfied, the may be compromised.
to mect the schedule for revising their procedur s As indicated in the April 8, 1981 meeting, we have serious doubts th the full range of initiating events and subsequent failures can be house Owners Group. addressed within the event specific framewo If your additional wo insight into resolution of these concerns,rk to date provides more we would be available to meet with you at your convenience.
By copy of this letter, each licensee and applicant of a Westinghous type plant, is being advised of our evaluation of your submittal
- incerely, n
L Darrell G.
isenhut, Director _........
Division of Licensing cc:
E. Murphy W Licensees W Applicants
.