ML20140E743
| ML20140E743 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 03/19/1986 |
| From: | Gridley R TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| REF-GTECI-A-46, REF-GTECI-SC, TASK-A-46, TASK-OR NUDOCS 8603280156 | |
| Download: ML20140E743 (4) | |
Text
.9-
~
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY CHATTANOOGA.' TENNESSEE 37401 5N 1578 Lookout Place March 19, 1986 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
. Attention: Mr. B. J. Youngblood, Project Director PHR Project Directorate No. 4
' Division of Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs) Licensing'A U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hashington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr.'Youngblood:
In the Matter of the
)
Docket Nos. 50-327 50-328 Tennessee Valley Authority
).
As a result of recent telephone discussions with members of.your: staff, enclosed is a discussion regarding seismic qualification of equipment at Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN). The seismic qualification of safety-related electrical and mechanical equipment at SQN has been thoroughly evaluated by NRC's Seismic Qualification Review Team.
The enclosed discussion provides the factual Information and documentation necessary to show that'SQN should be removed from the list ~of plants "to be reviewed" under the scope of Unresolved Safety Issue (USI) A-46.
The results of the referenced NRC evaluations show.
that further evaluation under the scope of USI A-46 is not warranted.
It is therefore requested that SQN be deleted from the list of facilities "to be reviewed" under USI A-46 resolution.
Please inform me when SQN has been removed from the list.
If.you have any questions regarding this subject, please call Joe Ziegler of my staff at FTS.858-8077.
Very truly yours, TENNESSE. VALLEY AUTHORITY
.'Gridley Manager of Licensing Enclosure cc: See page 2 s
86032801!kb 960319 PDR ADOCK 05000327 0
P PDR g
An Equal Opportunity Employer
[
c,
Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation March 19, 1986 cc (Enclosure):
Mr. R. J. Clark Browns Ferry Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Dr. J. Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. Carl Stahle, Senior Project Manager PHR Project Directorate No. 4 Division of PHR Licensing-A U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. P.Y. Chen Mail Stop P-728 Integrated Safety Assessment Program Directorate Division of PHR~ Licensing-B U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Dr. T. Y. Chang Mail Stop 144 Engineering Issues Branch Division of Safety Review and Oversite U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Dr. Jai Rajan Mail Stop P-712 Engineering Branch Division of PHR Licensing-B U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814
ENCLOSURE The status of activities related to the resolution of USI A-46, " Seismic
- Qualification'of_ Equipment in Operating Plants," is outlined in a July 7, 1985
. NRC memorandum from H. R. Denton to V. Stello, CRGR (reference 1).
That memorandum and'also the enclosu're to NRC's " Regulatory Analysis.for Proposed Resolution of USI A-46.
" included a listing of nuclear plants which fall within the scope of A-46 resolution, i.e., those plants which have not been audited against the current seismic qualification criteria of IEEE 344-1975.
4-
- Our Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) is appropriately included in the list;
.also included, however, is our Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN).
While TVA believes that resolution of USI A-46 is the appropriate mechanism to evaluate i
seismic adequacy of equipment in older plants, the inclusion of SQN is not appropriate.
The. seismic qualification of safety-related electrical and mechanical j-equipment at SQN has been thoroughly evaluated against current criteria as reflected in IEEE 344-1975 and Regulatory Guide 1.100.
TVA's efforts.to demonstrate that SQN equipment is seismically. qualified to meet current j
'Dr. S. Hou (DSS /MEB) in 1976. With NRC concurrence, the presentation was criteria began with a presentation to NRC's seismic audit team headed by generic in nature and addressed two primary areas of concern.
4 I
TVA's efforts on implementing new seismic qualification requirements of IEEE 344-1975 standard.
TVA's efforts on verifying seismic adequacy for equipment tested under the guidance of IEEE 344-1971 standard.
l This initial-effort to resolve the seismic qualification concern is documented in the audit team's trip report, reference 2.
i j
^
R'ference 2 ilso included a listing of specific seismic qualification data for e
use by the NRC seismic audit team to verify that the SQN equipment was adequately qualified against the IEEE 344-1975' criteria. The requested additional data was provided for NRC's Seismic Qualification ~ Review Team 4
(SQRT) for technical review in February 1977 (reference 3).
It was assumed by TVA that this additional data served to resolve seismic qualification-concerns until April 1979, when TVA received an NRC request by-way of telecon-from-Dr. P. Y. Chen for more information related to the data package submitted in February 1977.
The requested additional data was transmitted in June 1979 j
(reference 4).
This additional data was presented in such a way as to further demonstrate that the SQN equipment seismic qualification program was consistent with the procedures of IEEE 344-1975.
i i
l
- A - ~--
..-.a-- L L -
4
~
- 4 Receiving no further comments or questions from the.SQRT, it was concluded that-NRC concurred with TVA's position regarding. the adequacy of SQN.'s seismic qualification program.
This conclusion of adequacy is reflected in
~
i Supplement 1 of' the SQN safety evaulation report (reference 5),; section 3.10,-
1
" Seismic Qualification of Seismic. Category:I Instrumentation and Electrical
[
Equipment." - Here,it is concluded that the SQN equipment, originally quallfled 1
in accordance with IEEE 344-1971, was evaluated against current criteria-2 (i.e., IEEE 344-1975) and'was found to be acceptable, thus satisfying the.
j applicable requirements of General Design Criterion 2.
I j
TVA agrees that using earthquake experience data is the most reasonable and i
cost-effective alternative for verifying seismic adequacy of-equipment at BFN i
through the program resulting from the A-46 effort. However, seismic 3
qualification has been fully resolved to the satisfaction of NRC's SQRT for SQN equipment'and no further effort in this regard is warranted.'
References:
Memorandum from Ha'old R.'Denton, NRC, to Victor Stello, NRC, dated j'
l.
r 1
June 7, 1985.
2.
Letter from S. A. Varga, NRC, to Godwin Hilliams, Jr.,-TVA, dated j
November 16, 1976.
3.
Letter from-J. E. Gilleland, TVA, to S. A. Varga, NRC, dated February 7, 1977.
i 4.
Letter from J. E. G111 eland,'TVA. to S. A. Varga, NRC, dated June 22,
- 1979, 1
j 5.
NRC's NUREG-0011, Supplement 1, Safety Evaluation Report related to operation of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant units 1 and 2.
JDZ:KEH i
3/19/86
-0606h-
[-
~
I
-