ML20203G542

Summary of 860717-18 Meetings W/Util,Bechtel & S&W Re Util Design Baseline & Verification Program & Sys & Supports Acceptance Criteria.Lists of Attendees & Viewgraphs Encl

ML20203G542
Person / Time
Site:	Sequoyah
Issue date:	07/24/1986
From:	Joseph Holonich Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8608010298
Download: ML20203G542 (46)

Text

.

. pwo uq#o e UNITED STATES I

[

E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 I

e o e k.,,..+ 24 JUL 1936 Docket Nos.: 50-327 and 50-328 Plant: Sequoyah, Units 1 and 2 Utility: Tennessee Valley Authority

Subject:

Summary of Meetings Held on July 17 and 18,1986 On July 17 and 18, 1986, members of the staff met with representatives of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and its contractors. The purpose of the July 17, 1986 meeting was to have TVA present an overview of its Design Baseline and Verification Program (DBVP) and its Systems and Supports Acceptance Criteria ( SSAC) to the staff. Only July 18, 1986, the staff and TVA met to discuss the technical details of the interim criteria that are part of the SSAC.

Enclosure 1 is a list of the attendees at the July 17, 1986 meeting and En-closure 2 contains the July 18, 1986 attendees.

The July 17, 1986 meeting began with TVA providing the background on the events that resulted in the program, the reason for the program, how the various activities associated with the Sequoyah Plant will be integrated and the phased approached which will be used by TVA. Objectives of the DBVP include:

(1) Verification of the adequacy of the plant modifications made since licensing; (2) Assurance that the modifications are supported by the needed engineering analysis and documentation; and (3) assurance that the modifications conform with licensing comitments and design requirements. These objectives will be accomplished by reviewing the design criteria against which the plant modifications should be compared. In addition to the DBVP, TVA is also perfonning and Engineering Assurance Oversight Review (EA0R). The EA0R will have senior level personnel sample work from the various areas where work associated with the DBVP is being performed to provide in-process resolution of concerns and problems. TVA stated that there were three engineering disciplines involved in this program and that these disciplines would individually review five percent of the plant systems.

With respect to the SSAC, TVA has identified several areas in the plant where piping, the supports for piping, and cable tray supports do not meet the acceptance criteria identified in the Sequoyah Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). With the exception of small bore piping, the supports for small bore piping, and the cable tray supports, TVA will modify those areas where the piping or supports do not adhere to the appropriate criteria. For the small bore piping and cable trays, TVA has proposed an interim criteria that will be used to support restart. This interim criteria is based on various code re-quirements and the Standard Review Plan. The detailed meeting held on July 18, 1986 covered the development and application of the interim criteria.

8608010298 860724 PD9 ADOCK 05000327 p PDR

Enclosures 3 and 4 are copies of the slides used by TVA in its presentations on July 17, 1986, and July 18, 1986 respectively. A list of issues identified by the staff as feedback to TVA is given in Enclosure 5 for the July 17, 1986 meeting and Enclosure 6 for the July 18, 1986 meeting. Several of the issues identified by the staff will require TVA to submit additional information.

E'owever, some of these issues may be resolved during the staff inspection being conducted the week of July 21, 1986. At the completion of this inspection, the enclosed questions will be formalized.

/

Si 1, /

[f i r

( T NW

/YY N$/

oneph J. Holoni).h, Project ager Prpjec, Directorate #4 DWision of PWR Licensing-A

Enclosure:

As stated i

l

Mr. S. A. White Tennessee Valley Authority Sequoyah Nuclear Plant cc:

Herbert S. Sanger, Jr., Esq. Tennessee Department of Public General Counsel Health Tennessee Valley Authority ATTN: Director, Bureau of 400 West Summit Hill Drive, E 118 33 Environmental Health Services Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Cordell Hull Building Nashville, Tennessee 37219 Mr. K. W. Whitt Mr. Michael H. Mobley, Director Tennessee Valley Authority Division of Radiological Health 400 West Summit Hill Drive, E3A8 T.E.R.R.A. Building Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 150 9th Avenue North Nashville, Tennessee 37203 Mr. Bob Faas Westinghouse Electric Corp. County Judge P.O. Box 355 Hamilton County Courthouse Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402 Mr. Jerry Wills Tennessee Valley Authority SN 133B Lookout Place Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801 Mr. Donald L. Williams, Jr.

Tennessee Valley Authority 400 West Sunnit Hill Drive, W10885 Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Resident Inspector /Sequoyah NPS c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2600 Igou Ferry Road Soddy Daisy, Tennessee 37379 l

Regional Administrator, Region II l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 101 Marietta Street, N.W. , Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 1

1 l

. Enclosure 1 Attendee', at July 17, 1986 Meeting NRC Partici) ants Bechtel Joe Holonici E. Thomas Walton Jensen David Terao Steve Weise Stone and Webster S.V.'Athavale A. Banejee Ron Ballard James Milhoan Charles Tinkler Richard Lobel David C. Jeng Steve Goldberg Frank Ranaldi S. Hou H.L. Brammer R. E. Architzel T. Kenyon Charles E. Rossi R. L. Spessard R. Shemaker C. Stahle B. J. Youngblood B. K. Singh T. Poindexter H. L. Thompson, Jr.

TVA H. Jones D.W. Wilson M.R. Harding M. Burzynski A. Latti B. Hall J. Smith R. Barnett C. Wang J. A. Kirkebo M.P. Berardi W. Massie R. Hernandez 1

. Enclosure 2 Attendees at July 18, 1986 Meeting MEETING

SUMMARY

DISTRIBUTION NRC Participants Joe Holonich D. Jeng David Terao H. Bramer R. Ballard F. Ranaldo BECHTEL E. Thomas TVA Durzynski B. Hall R. Barnett C. Wang W. Massie

R. Hernandez E. Mysinger K. Spafes D. Wilson S. Mahan T. Lacroix J. Smith i

Enclosure 3 July 17, 1986 TVA Presentation 9

TVA/NRC MEETING i

JULY 17, 1986 l

PURPOSE: PROVIDE A BROAD OVERVIEW OF THE ENGINEERING l RESTART PROGRAMS WITH MORE DETAILED DISCUSSION ON THE DESIGN BASELINE PROGRAM AND THE USE OF SYSTEMS AND SUPPORTS ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA REASON: NRC - ENABLE NRC TO ALLOCATE RESOURCES AND OUTLINE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS TVA - ENABLE TVA TO PROCEED AS PROPOSED AND OBTAIN EARLY FEEDBACK ON USE OF SYSTEMS AND SUPPORTS ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 4

l

i e VOLUME I - NUCLEAR PERFORMANCE PLAN (CORPORATE) e VOLUME II - NUCLEAR PERFORMANCE PLAN (SEQUOYAH)

• DESIGN BASELINE PROGRAM e SYSTEMS AND SUPPORTS ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

O ENGINEERING RESTART PROGRAM UNDERTAKING EXTENSIVE REVIEW OF SQN DESIGN INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES PHASED APPROACH - PRE RESTART / POST RESTART l

ENGINEERIN3 RESTART PROGRAM EA AUDITS EQ CALCULATION ECNe PROGRAM REVIEW REVIEW SCR/NCR ACTION J

I I I SAFETY ^'M""AM 8Y8MW OTHER SAFE ANALYSIS SUPPORT SUPERHEAT OTHER RELATED SHUTDOWN PHASE I PNASE1 ACCIDENT J L MITIGATION -

ELECTRICAL C" mSC PUNE PHASEI PNAsE I EA TECH WODIRCATIONS WODIRCADONE AUDIT AS NEEDED AS NEEDED

> DESIGN BASEUNE &

m VERIRCATION 4

- PNASEI i

ACCEPTANCE

___ CRITERIA FOR SUPPORTS I

l PRE RESTART

(

MODIRCADOpt3 MODIRCATIONS WODIRCATIONS WODIRCATIONS WODIRCATIONS A8 88EEDED AS NEEDED AS NEEDED AS NEEDED A5 NEEDED l POST RESTART DS P H A S E 11 PHASEil 'N B UNE , ALTERNATE SUSPENDED VERIFICATION PHASE 11 ANALYSIS SYSTEM PHASE il PHASE 11 PHASE ll R

DESIGN BASELINE AND VERIFICATION PROGRAM l

RECONCILE DESIGN CONTROL ISSUES FROM:

l

• REVIEW 0F THE EXISTING PROGRAM

• EVALUATIONS BY TVA AND OTHERS INTERVIEWS OF KEY TVA PERSONNEL

• NRCINSPECTIONS

• GILBERT / COMMONWEALTH REVIEWS

• INP0 CORPORATE EVALUATION I

PROGRAM DBJECTIVES

1. VERIFY ADEQUACY OF PLANT MODIFICATIONS

• MITIGATE DESIGN BASIS EVENTS

• SAFELY SHUTDOWN THE PLANT

2. PE0 VIDE CONFIDENCE THAT MODIFICATIONS ARE SUPPORTED BY:

• ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

• DOCUMENTATION

3. ENSURE THAT MODIFICATIONS CONFORM WITH LICENSING COMMTMENTS AND DESIGN REQUIREMENTS l

E- - . . . - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I SCOPE PHASE I- PRE-RESTART

• SYSTEMS REQUIRED TO MITIGATE DESIGN BASIS EVENTS l

• SAFELY SHUTDOWN THE PLANT PHASE ll- POST-RESTART

• REMAINING SAFETY-RELATED SYSTEMS l

l

e MAJOR PROGRAM ELEMENTS

1. DESIGN CRITERIA AND COMMITMENTS II. SYSTEM WALKDOWN/ TEST Ill. REVIEW 0F SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS IV. SYSTEM EVALUATION f

S O N-3-301-9 9 9-74-Sh 14

1

l. DESIGN CRITERIA AND COMMITMENTS

• DETERMINE APPLICABLE COMMITMENTS

• DETERMINE APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS

• PREPARE DESIGN CRITERIA / DESIGN BASIS DOCUMENTS OMM.Q.OM4 OAO.TA.,Ob 9R

II. SYSTEM WALKDOWN/ TEST

• VERIFY CONFIGURATION FOR PROCESS FLOW FOR MECHANICAL SYSTEMS

• FOR ELECTRICAL AND I&C SYSTEMS, VERIFY FUNCTION OF MODIFICATIONS UTILIZING:

PRE 0PERATIONAL TESTS POSTMODIFICATION TESTS SURVEILLANCE TESTS l

l l

S O N-3-3 01-9 9 9-7 4-S h 1

WALKDOWN PROCESS TEAM MEMBERS

• ASSISTANT UNIT OPERATOR

• QA/QC REPRESENTATIVE

• DNE WALKDOWN ENGINEER REFERENCE INFORMATION

• FLOW DIAGRAMS

• CONTROL DRAWINGS

• AS-CONSTRUCTED DRAWINGS TALKDOWN[L)CUMENTATI)N

• MARKEDUP DRAWINGS AND SKETCHES

• WALKDOWN

SUMMARY

SHEETS l

l S O N-3-3 01-9 9 9-7 4-S h 22

Ill. REVIEW 0F SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS EVALUATE CHANGES

• ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICES ;ECN;

• TEMPORARY ALTERATION CONTROL FORM TACF

• LOCAL DESIGN CHANGE REQUESTS LDCR;

• FIELD CHANGE REQUESTS FCR;

• NONCONFORMANCE REPORTS ;NCR;

• SIGNIFICANT CONDITION REPORT SCR; CATEGORIZE ECNs AS:

• FULLYIMPLEMENTED

• PARTIALLYIMPLEMENTED l

• UNIMPLEMENTED

l 1

l l

IV. SYSTEM EVALUATION

• FOCAL POINT OF OTHER PROGRAM ELEMENTS  ;

DESIGN CRITERIA SYSTEM WALKDOWN/ TEST SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS

• SHOW THAT THE SYSTEM WILL FUNCTION AS REQUIRED e CONCLUSIONS REVIEWED BY DNE REVIEW BOARD ,

• CORRECTIVE ACTIONS WILL BE MADE AS REQUIRED i

l

._______-_-___.__,-__--,__,,_.,..-_.,_,.____--m-.------. - - - . - , . ._ - -- - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - .

PROGRAM OUTPUT DOCUMENTATION PHASEI

• SYSTEM EVALUATION REPORT

• REQUIRED ACTION

SUMMARY

• CONFIGURATION OF CONTROL ROOM DRAWINGS REQUIRED FOR OPERATIONS

• INPUT FOR OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS, AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

• UNREVIEWED SAFETY QUESTION DETERMINATION FOR MODIFICATIONS

• DRAWING DISCREPANCY RESOLUTIONS

• DESIGN BASIS DOCUMENTATION PHASE ll

• IMPLEMENT NON-RESTART MODIFICATIONS

• RESOLVE FSAR DISCREPANCIES

• COMPLETE THE EVALUATION OF THE SAFETY - RELATED SYSTEMS

l

\

l l

ENGINEERING ASSURANCE OVERSIGHT REVIEW

• INDEPENDENT REVIEW BY SENIOR EVEL PERSONNEL

• APPROPRIATE SAMPE OF WORK FROM EVERY AREA 0F ACTIVITY

• IMMEDIATE NOTIFICATION OF CONCERNS /PROBEMS TO PROJECT VIA ACTION ITEMS

• RECOMMEND CHANGES AND/0R ADDITIONS TO PROGRAM IMPEMENTATION TO ASSIST IN MEETING PROGRAM OBJECTIVES

• IN-PROCESS RESOLUTION OF CONCERNS /PROBEMS

SEQUOYAH UNIT 1 AND 2 PHASE 1 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA INTRODUCTION ,.

o LIMITED APPLICATIONS o TECHNICAL BASIS & PRECEDENTS o PHASED & CONTROLLED PROGRAM 5

- --,e . - . - - - , , __ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ , , _ , _ __ _ _ _ __ ___

SEQUOYAH UNIT 1 AND 2 PHASE I ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA SMALL BORE PIPING AND SUPPORTS BACKGROUND SCOPE OF APPLICATION o ONLY COOKBOOK ANALYZED o LOW TEMPERATURE o LOW PRESSURE o NOT SUBJECTED TO DBA LOADS o WATTS BAR IDENTIFIED PRECEDENT o CONSERVATIVE o OTHER PLANTS o EXPERIENCE o ANALYSIS o TEST

SEQUOYAH UNIT 1 AND 2 PHASE 1 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA SCOPE OF APPLICATION o SMALL BORE SAFETY RELATED PIPING ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTS o SAFETY RELATED CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS i PHASE PROGRAM I

o PHASE I OBJECTIVE o PHASE II OBJECTIVE

? -

9 s

i

4 i

1 1 PHASE I ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA ANALYSIS OF SMALL BORE SAFETY RELATED PIPING SYSTEMS 4

o EVALUATION OF SECONDARY STRESS o OBE LOAD COMBINATION o FAULTED PRIMARY STRESS 4.

'E s

' b t

1 F

4 t

I a

I i

l

.-. . . -- ._ . -_- .1_ _ :

v.

I PHASE I ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA SMAI L BORE PIPE SUPPORTS STRUCTURAL STEEL SUPFORTS

. o MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE STRESSES o RIGIDITY REQUIREMENTS

'o FRICTION LOADS COMPONENT STANDARD SUPPORTS o SPRINGS o LOAD RATINGS OF STANDARD COMPdNENT s-

?

i i

4 4

9

=m m. . _ . - .___ ...__._ _ ._. _ _, - _ . _ . . , . _ , .

PHASE I ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS BACKGROUND o DBA DESIGN CRITERIA o POST OPERATING MODIFICATIONS o SCRs/NCRs SCOPE OF APPLICATION PRECEDENT o TESTS o OTHER PLANTS o EXPERIENCE l

PHASE I ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS o DAMPING

o COMBINING DBA AND SS2 o MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE STRESSES o SEISMIC LOADINGS o DEAD LOAD 1

j i

{-

1 l

B

i. - - - . . . . . . . . _ . - - . . - - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___

PHASE I ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA APPLICATION PROCESS EVALUATION OF DOES IT MEET YES ACCEPTABLE EXISTING PIPING P A FOR PHASE SYSTEM, PIP PLANT DESIGN BASIS SUPPORT OR CRITERIA REQMT I & II CABLE TRAY  ?

SUPPORT FOR PROGRAM DEFICIENCY NO DEVELOP l V

MODIFICATION TO MEET DOES IT MEET THE PLANT _DOES NOT ACCEPTANCE DESIGN BASIS & ' MEET CRITERIA IMPLEMENT CRITERIA RLuUIREMENTS

?

PRIOR TO PLANT RESTART MEETS CRITERIA v

ACCEPTABLE FOR PHASE I OPERATION u

INPUTS INTO CONTROL PROGRAM TO. ENSURE PHASE II EVALUATION TO MEET PLANT DESIGN BASIS IS PERFORMED. SCOPE &

' SCHEDULE FOR PHASE II WORK IDENTIFIED PRIOR TO PLANT RESTART l

l l

SUMMARY

o LIMITED APPLICATIONS o TECHNICAL BASIS o CONTROLLED PROGRAM I

i

._\-

q la X r, As 4r, r, - g v__u. N--

• REQUIRED SUBMITTALS

• : :X::TIAL FEEDBAC.K 3

. .s ,

e.

s i

. l l

Enclosure 4 July 18, 1986 TVA Presentation l

CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS ITEf1 ORIGINAL INTERIM DESIG!! BASIS ACCEPTANCE

. CRITERIA

1. DAMPING

• 5% SSE DA!1 PING 7" SSE DAMPING

2. C0f1BINING DBA + SSE COMBINED DBA + SSE COMBINED DBA & SSE ABSOLUTELY BY SQUARE ROOT OF THE SUN OF THE SOUARES (SRSS)

3. ALLOWABLE

• MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE MAXIMUM ALLONABLE

, STRESSES STRESS 0.9 x FY STRESS OF 1.7 x AISC ALLOWABLES

11. SEISMIC

• OBE/SSE SSE LOADINGS

5. k b bow i

e i

,- --n - , , ,

,.,,-.y- -

-e -,--,- , , , - - ,,- , -- - - , - -- -- - , , . - - - - - - - - , , .

CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS DAMPING INCREASE SSE DAMPING FROM 5% T0 7%

i e BECHTEL TESTING 2

e URS/BLUME TESTING 7% IS A CONSERVATIVE FIGURE FOR THE SQN SUPPORTS, l

l I

l ,

~

t-..----- . _ . . . _ _ - _ _ ---.,. _ --_ _-.___ - - . . _ . _ _ _ - - _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _

1 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS 2

kDBA+SSE2' s HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED AND ACCEPTED BY NRC FOR A LARGE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS, e DBA NOT INITIATED BY SSE, I

I

. - - .L. _ . --__1____..__ _ _ _ - . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ .

4 -

CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS ALLOWABLE STRESSES e A MAXIMUM 0F 1,7 TIMES AISC ALLOWABLES, e CONSISTENT WITH NRC SRP, O

I 1

A

_ _ . _ - - ~ _ . - - _ _ . _ - .- _ _ _ _ w _. _.

4 i

t i

j 4

CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS i

T

SEISMIC LOADINGS e ANALYSIS BASED ON SSE (CONTROLS FAILURE)

?

I J

F 4

1 1

! 1 i

I i

9

---ww,*c-- ,s-wv~m,v-,-~ -~--,-,--=-,--w-w, ~v w ww w r - -va ,w w v- w w,- v - ~w--r-,vww- - - - - - - ~ - - - - --* -~ - - - , - - - ---n-- - - - ww-- -- --,,v--= --, <

SMALL BORE PIPE SUPPORTS 1

ORIGINAL INTERIM ACCEPTANCE ITEM DESIGN BASIS CRITERIA

1. STRUCTURAL STEEL A. ALLOWABLE

• MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE STRESS STRESSES STRESS OF 1.6 X AISC OF 1.7 X AISC ALLOWABLE ALLOWABLES. SPECIFIC FOR FAULTED LOAD CASE ALLOWABLES PROVIDED (CONTROLS FAILURE)

FOR DIFFERENT LOAD COMBINATIONS. .

B. RIGIDITY TWO SUPPORTS ADJACENT TO REQUIREMENTS ROTATING EQUIPMENT WILL BE EVALUATED FOR RIGIDITY. ,

FRICTION LOADS WILL NOT

.C . FRICTION LOADS BE CONSIDERED FOR

~

REEVALUATION OF EXISTING SUPPORTS.

2. COMPONENT STANDARD SUPPORTS STANDARD FOR ALL STANDARD USE 1.7 FACTOR APPLIED TO COMPONENTS COMPONENTS, USE LOAD THE MAXIMUM LOAD RATING OR NF RATINGS / FACTORS FOR THE PERTINENT FAULTED CONDITION, WHICHEVER IS GREATER, CONDITION.

EXCEPT FOR SNUBBERS, WHERE THE MANUFACTURER'S LOAD RATINGS WILL BE USED.

O

Sf1ALL BORE PIPE SUPPORTS STRUCTURAL STEEL ALLOWABLE STRESSES e ASME SECTION III, SUBSECTION NF ALLOWS USE OF 1.88 x APPENDIX XVII ALLOWABLE.

e ANSI /AISC fl690 ALLOWS USE OF 1.7 x AISC ALLOWABLES OR O 7Fu (WHICH EVER IS LESS).

e NRC SRP SECTION 3.8.4 ALLOWS USE OF 1.7 x AISC ALLOWABLES 4

FOR EXTREME LOAD CONDITIONS.

I:\ .

~

= n.. - - - - ,,.-----,---.----.----.-.m . . . - - . . - .,....-~w..-..-

SMALL BORE PIPE SUPPORTS RIGIDITY REQUIREMENTS e TO MEET EQUIPMENT N0ZZLE ALLOWABLES, ADJACENT SPAN OF PIPE ARE SUPPORTED RIGIDLY FOR SEISMIC LOADS.

i 1

i 1

I

9 SMALL BORE PIPE SUPPORTS 2

4 FRICTION LOADS:

l e PREVIOUS PLANT OPERATION CONFIRMED PERFORMANCE OF SUPPORTS AGAINST FRICTION LOADS, e TVA STUDY ON WATTS BAR SHOWS FRICTION DOES NOT GOVERN

! SUPPORT DESIGN, i .

e CONFIRMATORY STUDY' UNDERWAY AT SON, i

4 1

1 l

SMALL BORE PIPE SUPPORTS

'i COMPONENT STANDARD SUPPORTS e ASME SECTION III, SUBSECTION NF ALLOWS USE OF 1,88 x APPENDIX XVII ALLOWABLE.

e MSS-SP-58, USES FACTOR OF SAFETY = 5 BASED ON Su.

j .

4 4

6 4

Enclosure 5 Issues Identified at July 17, 1986 Meeting (1) The scope of the Design Baseline and Verification Program (DBVP) is smaller than the staff originally believed. Initially, the staff thought that the DBVP covered all aspects of Sequoyah restart such as the surveillance program and the post maintenance testing program.

(2) Because the DBVP addresses modifications made to Sequoyah after licensing, the staff raised a question cf how TVA would address the original plant design.

(3) TVA stated that it would expand the scope to areas it originally intended to delay until restart if problems were identified as part of its Phase I program. The staff wanted to know what the criteria were to expand the scope of the program to include post-restart systems.

(4) The staff wanted to know that TMI modifications would not be included, in Phase I of the program.

(5) With respect to the Engineering Assurance Program, the staff recommended that TVA include an evaluation by the three disciplines involved of at lease one system, e.g. a vertical review of the system.

r p,f Enclosure 6 gf i,.

$ b@( ),k TVA-NRC SEQUOYAH RESTART MEETING: 07/18/86 I

ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REQUESILD lj y ON IVA'S PROPOSED INItHIM CRIIERIA 'J :

1. Provide a description of the analysis procedures being used for the interim criteria. Compare these to the original Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) analyses. Include the technical basis for the analyses based on the interim criteria.

2. The staff will provide a list of generic questions on cable trays. TVA will be required to address the questions.

3. Describe how the Design Basis Accident (DBA) response spectra for the cable trays within the reactor containment have been developed. How many supports are affected by the DBA spectra?

4. Provide a description of how anchor bolt load capacities were determined by TVA.

5. How will employee concerns be integrated and resolved for the cable tray and piping program?

6. Provide TVA's best estimate of its schedule for Post-Restart Phase II program implementation.

7. Provide a list of exceptions to FSAR commitments being taken under during the interim period. Also provide a complete discussion of technical basis for all interim criteria proposed.

8. What Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC) procedures were applied to the original cable tray design and construction? Provide the same description for the Phases I and II programs.

9. For the July 21, 1986 ir,spection make available to the staff reviewers copies of key documents pertinent to cable tray design, analysis and construction as well as Cook Book Analytical technique for piping and pipe supports.

10. Describe the walkdown procedures for data-gathering to ensure that the interim cable tray qualification program adequately reflects as built conditions.

11. Amplify justification for separating the secondary stresses for piping or provide alternate technical approaches for justifying the decoupling of the secondary stresses due to thermal and seismic induced anchor motions.

12. Provide additional justification for the 2 Sy stress level used in the faulted primary stresses.

MEETING

SUMMARY

DISTRIBUTION 24 JUL 1986 h56? File"l" 9

'~~NRC"PDR" ~" "

NRC Particiaants Joe Holonici L PDR Walton Jensen NSIC David Terao PRC System Steve Weise PWR#4 Reading File S. V. Athavale Project Manager J. Holonich Ron Ballard M. Duncan James Milhoan Attorney, OGC Charles Tinkler J. Partlow Richard Lobel E. Jordan David C. Jeng B. Grimes Steve Goldberg ACRS(10) Frank Ranaldi TVA0G (3) S. Richardson AR 5029 S. Hou H. Denton H. L. Brammer B. Hayes R. E. Architzel G. Zech T. J. Kenyon N. Grace Charles E. Rossi S. Weise, RII R. L. Spessard S. A. Connelly R. Shewmaker D. Muller C. Stable T. Novak B. J. Youngblood W. Long B. K. Singh T. Alexion T. Poindexter K. Hooks H. L. Thompson, Jr.

OTHERS bcc: Licensee & Service List

24 JUL 1986 Enclosures 3 and 4 are copies of the slides used by TVA in its presentations on July 17, 1986, and July 18, 1986 respectively. A list of issues identified 4

by the staff as feedback to TVA is given in Enclosure 5 for the July 17, 1986 meeting and Enclosure 6 for the July 18, 1986 meeting. Several of the issues identified by the staff will require TVA to submit additional infonnation.

However, some of these issues may be resolved during the staff inspection being conducted the week of July 21, 1986. At the completion of this inspection, the enclosed questions will be formalized.

Sincerely,

\ 6\

Joseph J. Holonich, Project Manager PWR Directorate #4 Division of PWR Licensing-A

Enclosure:

As stated 1

i t

l l

i QD

[l 1

?)

1 J

' L

{

PWR#4/ PWR-J P @/DPWR-A PWRjb k-A JHo:onich'/ra CS btrie BJYbungblood

/86 07 g/86 07 86 07/f

- - - - - - - - - - . . - . - . - _ - - - _- .