|
---|
Category:CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS
MONTHYEARML20217M4461999-10-20020 October 1999 Forwards Rev 8 to Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Physical Security/ Contingency Plan, IAW 10CFR50.54(p).Encl Withheld,Per 10CFR73.21 ML20217J4151999-10-15015 October 1999 Forwards Request for Addl Info Re Util 990624 Application for Amend of TSs That Would Revise TS for Weighing of Ice Condenser Ice Baskets 05000327/LER-1999-002, Forwards LER 99-002-00 Re Start of Units 1 & 2 EDGs as Result of Cable Being Damaged During Installation of Thermo- Lag for Kaowool Upgrade Project1999-10-15015 October 1999 Forwards LER 99-002-00 Re Start of Units 1 & 2 EDGs as Result of Cable Being Damaged During Installation of Thermo- Lag for Kaowool Upgrade Project ML20217G1141999-10-0707 October 1999 Responds to from P Salas,Providing Response to NRC Risk Determination Associated with 990630 Flooding Event at Sequoyah Facility.Meeting to Discuss Risk Determination Issues Scheduled for 991021 in Atlanta,Ga ML20217B2981999-10-0606 October 1999 Discusses Closeout of GL 92-01,rev 1,suppl 1, Reactor Vessel Integrity, for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant,Units 1 & 2. NRC Also Hereby Solicits Any Written Comments That TVA May Have on Current Rvid Data by 991101 ML20217B8431999-10-0505 October 1999 Requests NRC Review & Approval of ASME Code Relief Requests That Were Identified in Plant Second 10-yr ISI Interval for Both Units.Encl 3 Provides Util Procedure for Calculation of ASME Code Coverage for Section XI Nondestructive Exams IR 05000327/19990041999-10-0101 October 1999 Ack Receipt of Providing Comments on Insp Repts 50-327/99-04 & 50-328/99-04.NRC Considered Comments for Apparent Violation Involving 10CFR50.59 Issue ML20217C7101999-10-0101 October 1999 Forwards Response to NRC 990910 RAI Re Sequoyah Nuclear Plant,Units 1 & 2 URI 50-327/98-04-02 & 50-328/98-04-02 Re Ice Weight Representative Sample ML20212J5981999-10-0101 October 1999 Forwards SE Accepting Request for Relief from ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code,Section Xi,Requirements for Certain Inservice Insp at Plnat,Unit 1 ML20212M1081999-09-29029 September 1999 Confirms Intent to Meet with Utils on 991025 in Atlanta,Ga to Discuss Pilot Plants,Shearon Harris & Sequoyah Any Observations & Lessons Learned & Recommendations Re Implementation of Pilot Program ML20217A9451999-09-27027 September 1999 Forwards Insp Repts 50-327/99-05 & 50-328/99-05 on 990718- 0828.One Violation Identified & Being Treated as Non-Cited Violation ML20216J9351999-09-27027 September 1999 Responds to NRC Re Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-327/99-04 & 50-328/99-04.Corrective Actions:Risk Determination Evaluation Was Performed & Licensee Concluded That Event Is in Green Regulatory Response Band ML20212F0751999-09-23023 September 1999 Forwards SER Granting Util 981021 Request for Relief from ASME Code,Section XI Requirements from Certain Inservice Insp at Sequoyah Nuclear Power Plant,Units 1 & 2 Pursuant to 10CFR50.55a(a)(3)(ii) ML20212F4501999-09-23023 September 1999 Forwards Amends 246 & 237 to Licenses DPR-77 & DPR-79, Respectively & Ser.Amends Approve Request to Revise TSs to Allow Use of Fully Qualified & Tested Spare Inverter in Place of Any of Eight Required Inverters ML20212M1911999-09-21021 September 1999 Discusses Exercise of Enforcement Discretion Re Apparent Violation Noted in Insp Repts 50-327/99-04 & 50-328/99-04 Associated with Implementation of Procedural Changes Which Resulted in Three Containment Penetrations Being Left Open ML20211Q0311999-09-10010 September 1999 Requests Written Documentation from TVA to Provide Technical Assistance to Region II Re TS Compliance & Ice Condenser Maint Practices at Plant ML20216F5441999-09-0707 September 1999 Provides Results of Risk Evaluation of 990630,flooding Event at Sequoyah 1 & 2 Reactor Facilities.Event Was Documented in Insp Rept 50-327/99-04 & 50-328/99-04 & Transmitted in Ltr, ML20211N5681999-09-0101 September 1999 Submits Clarification of Two Issues Raised in Insp Repts 50-327/99-04 & 50-328/99-04,dtd 990813,which Was First Insp Rept Issued for Plant Under NRC Power Reactor Oversight Process Pilot Plant Study ML20211G5881999-08-27027 August 1999 Submits Summary of 990820 Management Meeting Re Plant Performance.List of Attendees & Matl Used in Presentation Enclosed ML20211F8891999-08-25025 August 1999 Forwards Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Unit 1 Cycle 9 Refueling Outage, Re Completed SG Activities,Per TSs 4.4.5.5.b & 4.4.5.5.c ML20211A1851999-08-16016 August 1999 Forwards Proprietary TR WCAP-15128 & non-proprietary Rept WCAP-15129 for NRC Review.Repts Are Provided in Advance of TS Change That Is Being Prepared to Support Cycle 10 Rfo. Proprietary TR Withheld,Per 10CFR2.790 ML20210V1471999-08-13013 August 1999 Forwards Insp Repts 50-327/99-04 & 50-328/99-04 on 990601- 0717.One Potentially Safety Significant Issue Identified.On 990630,inadequate Performance of Storm Drain Sys Caused Water from Heavy Rainfall to Backup & Flood Turbine Bldg ML20211A1921999-08-12012 August 1999 Requests Proprietary TR WCAP-15128, Depth-Based SG Tube Repair Criteria for Axial PWSCC at Dented TSP Intersections, Be Withheld from Public Disclosure Per 10CFR2.790 ML20210Q5011999-08-0505 August 1999 Informs That NRC Plans to Administer Gfes of Written Operator Licensing Exam on 991006 at Sequoyah Nuclear Plant. Sample Registration Ltr Encl ML20210L4291999-08-0202 August 1999 Forwards Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Cycle 9 12-Month SG Insp Rept & SG-99-07-009, Sequoyah Unit-2 Cycle 10 Voltage-Based Repair Criteria 90-Day Rept. Repts Submitted IAW TS 4.4.5.5.b & TS 4.4.5.5.c ML20210L1611999-07-30030 July 1999 Forwards Request for Relief RV-4 Re ASME Class 1,2 & 3 Prvs, Per First ten-year Inservice Test Time Interval.Review & Approval of RV-4 Is Requested to Support Unit 1 Cycle 10 Refueling Outage,Scheduled to Start 000213 ML20210G5301999-07-28028 July 1999 Forwards Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Unit 2 ISI Summary Rept That Contains Historical Record of Repairs,Replacement & ISI & Augmented Examinations That Were Performed on ASME Code Class 1 & 2 Components from 971104-990511 ML20211B9661999-07-26026 July 1999 Informs That Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Sewage Treatment Plant, NPDES 0026450 Outfall 112,is in Standby Status.Flow Has Been Diverted from Sys Since Jan 1998 ML20210B2521999-07-14014 July 1999 Confirms 990712 Telcon Between J Smith of Licensee Staff & M Shannon of NRC Re semi-annual Mgt Meeting Schedule for 990820 in Atlanta,Ga to Discuss Recent Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Performance ML20210J1091999-07-10010 July 1999 Submits Suggestions & Concerns Re Y2K & Nuclear Power Plants ML20196K0381999-06-30030 June 1999 Provides Written Confirmation of Completed Commitment for Final Implementation of Thermo-Lag 330-1 Fire Barrier Corrective Actions at Snp,Per GL 92-08 ML20209E4071999-06-30030 June 1999 Forwards Insp Repts 50-327/99-03 & 50-328/99-03 on 990328- 0531.Violations Being Treated as Noncited Violations ML20196J8261999-06-28028 June 1999 Forwards Safety Evaluation Authorizing Request for Relief from ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI Requirements for Certain Inservice Inspections at Sequoyah Nuclear Plant,Units 1 & 2 ML20196G7881999-06-22022 June 1999 Informs NRC of Changes That Util Incorporated Into TS Bases Sections & Trm.Encl Provides Revised TS Bases Pages & TRM Affected by Listed Revs ML20196G1801999-06-21021 June 1999 Requests Termination of SRO License SOP-20751-1,for Lf Hardin,Effective 990611.Subject Individual Resigned from Position at TVA ML20195G1821999-06-0808 June 1999 Requests NRC Review & Approval of ASME Code Relief for ISI Program.Encl 1 Provides Relief Request 1-ISI-14 That Includes Two Attachments.Encl 2 Provides Copy of Related ASME Code Page ML20195E9521999-06-0707 June 1999 Requests Relief from Specific Requirements of ASME Section Xi,Subsection IWE of 1992 Edition,1992 Addenda.Util Has Determined That Proposed Alternatives Would Provide Acceptable Level of Quality & Safety ML20195E9311999-05-28028 May 1999 Informs of Planned Insp Activities for Licensee to Have Opportunity to Prepare for Insps & Provide NRC with Feedback on Any Planned Insps Which May Conflict with Plant Activities ML20195B3631999-05-21021 May 1999 Requests Termination of SRO License for Tj Van Huis,Per 10CFR50.74(a).TJ Van Huis Retired from Util,Effective 990514 ML20207A5721999-05-20020 May 1999 Forwards Correction to Previously Issued Amend 163 to License DPR-79 Re SR 4.1.1.1.1.d Inadvertently Omitted from Pp 3/4 1-1 of Unit 2 TS ML20206Q8791999-05-13013 May 1999 Forwards L36 9990415 802, COLR for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Unit 2,Cycle 10, IAW Plant TS 6.9.1.14.c 05000327/LER-1999-001, Forwards LER 99-001-00 Re Condition That Resulted in Granting of Enforcement Discretion,Per Failure of Centrifugal Charging Pump.Condition Being Reported IAW 10CFR50.73(a)(2)(i)(B) & (a)(2)(iv)1999-05-11011 May 1999 Forwards LER 99-001-00 Re Condition That Resulted in Granting of Enforcement Discretion,Per Failure of Centrifugal Charging Pump.Condition Being Reported IAW 10CFR50.73(a)(2)(i)(B) & (a)(2)(iv) ML20206M9341999-05-10010 May 1999 Forwards Rept of SG Tube Plugging During Unit 2 Cycle 9 Refueling Outage,As Required by TS 4.4.5.5.a.ISI of Unit 2 SG Tubes Was Completed on 990503 ML20206K6271999-05-0606 May 1999 Requests Termination of SRO License for MR Taggart,License SOP-21336 Due to Resignation on 990430 ML20206J2061999-05-0404 May 1999 Requests Relief from Specified ISI Requirements in Section XI of ASME B&PV Code.Tva Requests Approval to Use Wire Type Penetrameters in Lieu of Plaque Type Penetrameters for Performing Radiographic Insps.Specific Relief Request,Encl ML20209J0391999-04-27027 April 1999 Forwards Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Rept, Radiological Impact Assessment Rept & Rev 41 to ODCM, for Period of Jan-Dec 1998 ML20206C6541999-04-23023 April 1999 Forwards Response to NRC 990127 RAI Re GL 96-05 for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant,Units 1 & 2 ML20206C0841999-04-23023 April 1999 Forwards Insp Repts 50-327/99-02 & 50-328/99-02 on 990214-0327.No Violations Noted ML20206B9591999-04-20020 April 1999 Responds to 990417 Request That NRC Exercise Discretion Not to Enforce Compliance with Actions Required in Unit 1 TS 3.1.2.2,3.1.2.4 & 3.5.2 & Documents 990417 Telephone Conversation When NRC Orally Issued NOED ML20205S5891999-04-17017 April 1999 Documents Request for Discretionary Enforcement for Unit 1 TS LCOs 3.1.2.2,3.1.2.4 & 3.5.2 to Support Completion of Repairs & Testing for 1B-B Centrifugal Charging Pump (CCP) 1999-09-07
[Table view] Category:OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE
MONTHYEARML20217J4151999-10-15015 October 1999 Forwards Request for Addl Info Re Util 990624 Application for Amend of TSs That Would Revise TS for Weighing of Ice Condenser Ice Baskets ML20217G1141999-10-0707 October 1999 Responds to from P Salas,Providing Response to NRC Risk Determination Associated with 990630 Flooding Event at Sequoyah Facility.Meeting to Discuss Risk Determination Issues Scheduled for 991021 in Atlanta,Ga ML20217B2981999-10-0606 October 1999 Discusses Closeout of GL 92-01,rev 1,suppl 1, Reactor Vessel Integrity, for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant,Units 1 & 2. NRC Also Hereby Solicits Any Written Comments That TVA May Have on Current Rvid Data by 991101 IR 05000327/19990041999-10-0101 October 1999 Ack Receipt of Providing Comments on Insp Repts 50-327/99-04 & 50-328/99-04.NRC Considered Comments for Apparent Violation Involving 10CFR50.59 Issue ML20212J5981999-10-0101 October 1999 Forwards SE Accepting Request for Relief from ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code,Section Xi,Requirements for Certain Inservice Insp at Plnat,Unit 1 ML20212M1081999-09-29029 September 1999 Confirms Intent to Meet with Utils on 991025 in Atlanta,Ga to Discuss Pilot Plants,Shearon Harris & Sequoyah Any Observations & Lessons Learned & Recommendations Re Implementation of Pilot Program ML20217A9451999-09-27027 September 1999 Forwards Insp Repts 50-327/99-05 & 50-328/99-05 on 990718- 0828.One Violation Identified & Being Treated as Non-Cited Violation ML20212F4501999-09-23023 September 1999 Forwards Amends 246 & 237 to Licenses DPR-77 & DPR-79, Respectively & Ser.Amends Approve Request to Revise TSs to Allow Use of Fully Qualified & Tested Spare Inverter in Place of Any of Eight Required Inverters ML20212F0751999-09-23023 September 1999 Forwards SER Granting Util 981021 Request for Relief from ASME Code,Section XI Requirements from Certain Inservice Insp at Sequoyah Nuclear Power Plant,Units 1 & 2 Pursuant to 10CFR50.55a(a)(3)(ii) ML20212M1911999-09-21021 September 1999 Discusses Exercise of Enforcement Discretion Re Apparent Violation Noted in Insp Repts 50-327/99-04 & 50-328/99-04 Associated with Implementation of Procedural Changes Which Resulted in Three Containment Penetrations Being Left Open ML20211Q0311999-09-10010 September 1999 Requests Written Documentation from TVA to Provide Technical Assistance to Region II Re TS Compliance & Ice Condenser Maint Practices at Plant ML20216F5441999-09-0707 September 1999 Provides Results of Risk Evaluation of 990630,flooding Event at Sequoyah 1 & 2 Reactor Facilities.Event Was Documented in Insp Rept 50-327/99-04 & 50-328/99-04 & Transmitted in Ltr, ML20211G5881999-08-27027 August 1999 Submits Summary of 990820 Management Meeting Re Plant Performance.List of Attendees & Matl Used in Presentation Enclosed ML20210V1471999-08-13013 August 1999 Forwards Insp Repts 50-327/99-04 & 50-328/99-04 on 990601- 0717.One Potentially Safety Significant Issue Identified.On 990630,inadequate Performance of Storm Drain Sys Caused Water from Heavy Rainfall to Backup & Flood Turbine Bldg ML20210Q5011999-08-0505 August 1999 Informs That NRC Plans to Administer Gfes of Written Operator Licensing Exam on 991006 at Sequoyah Nuclear Plant. Sample Registration Ltr Encl ML20210B2521999-07-14014 July 1999 Confirms 990712 Telcon Between J Smith of Licensee Staff & M Shannon of NRC Re semi-annual Mgt Meeting Schedule for 990820 in Atlanta,Ga to Discuss Recent Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Performance ML20209E4071999-06-30030 June 1999 Forwards Insp Repts 50-327/99-03 & 50-328/99-03 on 990328- 0531.Violations Being Treated as Noncited Violations ML20196J8261999-06-28028 June 1999 Forwards Safety Evaluation Authorizing Request for Relief from ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI Requirements for Certain Inservice Inspections at Sequoyah Nuclear Plant,Units 1 & 2 ML20195E9311999-05-28028 May 1999 Informs of Planned Insp Activities for Licensee to Have Opportunity to Prepare for Insps & Provide NRC with Feedback on Any Planned Insps Which May Conflict with Plant Activities ML20207A5721999-05-20020 May 1999 Forwards Correction to Previously Issued Amend 163 to License DPR-79 Re SR 4.1.1.1.1.d Inadvertently Omitted from Pp 3/4 1-1 of Unit 2 TS ML20206C0841999-04-23023 April 1999 Forwards Insp Repts 50-327/99-02 & 50-328/99-02 on 990214-0327.No Violations Noted ML20206B9591999-04-20020 April 1999 Responds to 990417 Request That NRC Exercise Discretion Not to Enforce Compliance with Actions Required in Unit 1 TS 3.1.2.2,3.1.2.4 & 3.5.2 & Documents 990417 Telephone Conversation When NRC Orally Issued NOED ML20205M0431999-04-13013 April 1999 Eighth Partial Response to FOIA Request for Records.App Q & R Records Encl & Being Made Available in PDR ML20205T1751999-04-0909 April 1999 Informs That on 990408 R Driscoll & Ho Christensen Confirmed Initial Operator Licensing Exam Scheduled for Y2K.Initial Exam Dates Scheduled for Wk of 000807 for Approx Seven Candidates ML20205B9601999-03-24024 March 1999 Seventh Partial Response to FOIA Request for Documents. Records in App N Already Available in Pdr.App O Records Being Released in Entirety & App P Records Being Withheld in Part (Ref FOIA Exemptions 7C,2 & 5) ML20204J5451999-03-19019 March 1999 Advises of NRC Planned Insp Effort Resulting from Sequoyah Plant Performance Review on Feb 1998-Jan 1999.Historical Listing of Plant Issues & Details of NRC Insp Plan for Next 8 Months Encl ML20204J5721999-03-15015 March 1999 Forwards Insp Repts 50-327/99-01 & 50-328/99-01 on 990103-0213.Violations Noted & Being Treated as non-cited Violations.Weakness Identified in Licensed Operator Training Program & Freeze Protection Program ML20207J0901999-03-0303 March 1999 Forwards FEMA Final Rept for 981104-05,full Participation, Ingestion Pathway Exercise of Offsite Radiological Emergency Response Plans for Sequoyah Npp.Three Areas Requiring Corrective Action Identified ML20203H7211999-02-18018 February 1999 Forwards Safety Evaluation Accepting Topical Rept BAW-2328, Blended Uranium Lead Test Assembly Design Rept, for Allowing Insertion of Lead Test Assemblies in Plant,Unit 2 Cycle 10 Core.Rept Acceptable with Listed Conditions ML20203B9001999-02-0808 February 1999 First Partial Response to FOIA Request for Documents. Forwards Documents Listed in App a Already Available in PDR, Documents in App B Released in Entirety & Documents in App C Being Withheld in Part (Ref Exemption 6) ML20203G5631999-02-0505 February 1999 Informs That NRC Plans to Administer Generic Fundamentals Exam Section of Written Operator Licensing Exam on 990407. Representative of Facility Must Submit Either Ltr Indicating No Candidates or Listing of Candidates for Exam ML20202J1211999-02-0202 February 1999 Submits Summary of 990128 Meeting with Listed Attendees at Region II Ofc for Presentation of Recent Plant Performance. Presentation Handout Encl ML20202J5421999-02-0101 February 1999 Forwards Insp Repts 50-327/98-11 & 50-328/98-11 on 981122-990102 & Nov.Violations Noted Re Failure to Comply with EOPs Following Rt & Failure to Enter TS 3.0.3 When Limiting Condition for RCS Flow Instrumentation TS Not Met ML20202C1771999-01-27027 January 1999 Forwards Request for Addl Info Re Util 980428 Response to GL 96-05, Periodic Verification of Design-Basis Capability of Safety-Related Motor-Operated Valves. Licensee Agreed to Provide Response to Request by 990426 ML20199E7081998-12-23023 December 1998 Refers to 991105 Training Managers Conference Conducted at RB Russel Bldg.Agenda Used for Training Conference & List of Attendees Encl.Goal of Providing Open Forum for Discussion of Operator Licensing Issues Was Met IR 05000327/19980151998-12-17017 December 1998 Forwards Safeguards Insp Repts 50-327/98-15 & 50-328/98-15 on 981116-20.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Repts Withheld Per 10CFR73.21 ML20198A8101998-12-0707 December 1998 Forwards Insp Repts 50-327/98-10 & 50-328/98-10 on 981011- 1121.No Violations Noted ML20206N4171998-12-0404 December 1998 Forwards Insp Repts 50-327/98-14 & 50-328/98-14 on 981102-06.No Violations Noted.Insp Team Observed Selected Portions of Emergency Organization Response in Key Facilities During EP Plume Exposure Exercise on 981104 ML20198A8531998-12-0404 December 1998 Expresses Appreciation for Support That TVA Provided NRC During Recent Plant Emergency Exercise.All Foreign Vistors Expressed Appreciation for Very Informative & Interesting Visit to TVA ML20196D6001998-11-24024 November 1998 Forwards Insp Repts 50-327/98-13 & 50-328/98-13 on 980914- 1016 & Notice of Violation Re Lack of Attention to Detail Installing Unit 2 Intermediate Deck Doors ML20196C5191998-11-17017 November 1998 Confirms 981110 Telephone Conversation Between P Salas & H Christensen Re Mgt Meeting Which Has Been Scehduled for 990128.The Purpose of Meeting Will Be to Discuss Recent Plant Performance for Sequoyah ML20196D0831998-11-16016 November 1998 Advises of Planned Insp Effort Resulting from Insp Planning Meeting Held on 981102.Details of Insp Plan Through March 1999 & Historical Listing of Plant Issues,Called Plant Issues Matrix,Encl ML20196D5981998-11-13013 November 1998 Informs That on 981007,NRC Administered Gfes of Written Operator Licensing Examination.Copy of Answer Key & Master Bwr/Pwr GFE Encl,Even Though Facility Did Not Participate in Exam.Without Encl ML20196D4121998-11-13013 November 1998 Discusses 981110 Request Re Noed.Based on NRC Evaluation, Staff Concluded That NOED Warranted.Nrc Intends to Exercise Discretion Not to Enforce Compliance with TS 3.8.2.1,action B,For Period from 981110-12,at Stated Times ML20195G5331998-11-0909 November 1998 Forwards Insp Repts 50-327/98-09 & 50-328/98-09 on 980830-1010 & NOV Re Failure to Perform Adequate Testing to Ensure That Low Voltage Circuit Breakers Would Perform Satisfactorily in Svc ML20207M6951998-10-30030 October 1998 Informs That on 980928-1001 NRC Administered Operating Exam to Employees Applying for Licenses to Operate at Plant ML20155A5131998-10-22022 October 1998 Discusses Review of Response to GL 97-05 for Plant,Units 1 & 2.Review Did Not Identify Any Concerns with SG Tube Insp Techniques ML20155B7481998-10-0909 October 1998 Extends Invitation to Attend Training Manager Conference on 981105 in Atlanta,Ga.Conference Designed to Inform Regional Training & Operations Mgt of Issues & Policies That Affect Licensing of Reactor Plant Operators ML20154D3081998-09-18018 September 1998 Forwards Insp Repts 50-327/98-08 & 50-328/98-08 on 980719- 0829.No Violations Noted.Effective Radiological Emergency Plan Drill Was Conducted ML20239A0601998-08-27027 August 1998 Forwards SER Re Licensee 960213,0315 & 0806 Responses to GL 95-07, Pressure Locking & Thermal Binding of Safety-Related Power-Operated Gate Valves. Staff Finds Licensee Adequately Addressed Actions Requested in GL 95-07 1999-09-07
[Table view] |
Text
i s Docket Nos.: 50-327/328 lAl1G1986 Mr. S. A. White Manager of Nuclear Power Tennessee Valley Authority 6N 38A Lookout Place 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801
Dear Mr. White:
SUBJECT:
VERIFICATION TESTING FOR AUXILIARY POWER SYSTEM VOLTAGE STUDY FOR SEQUOYAH Enclosed is the NRR evaluation of the TVA reanalysis report on verification testing for the auxiliary power system voltage study in compliance with NRC Branch Technical Position PSB-1.
We find that the new TVA computer program can adequately predict the steady state response of Sequoyah's power system down to the 480 volt level.
However, there is insufficient basis for us to conclude that the computer program can predict the transient response of the system or the steady state response at the 120/208 volt level.
We recommend further testing and analyses as described in the enclosed evaluation report.
Sincerely, B. J. Youngblood, Director PWR Project Directorate #4 Division of PWR Licensing-A
Enclosure:
As stated cc: See Next Page DISTRIBUTION: See Other Page
(
I Il" / \ I .l -
. /p .
,) , /
PWR# 1, +A PWR P4 -A PW f CSta. e':) h k
MDuncan ' BJYoin/DPWR-A gblood
/86' 7/ /86 7/ /86 7/}
\
8608070021 860801
,hDR ADOCK 05000327 PDR j
DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File NRC PDR Local PDR PRC System NSIC PWR#4 Rdg.
MDuncan BJYoungblood Rdg.
CStahle TVA0G (3) S. Richardson 5029 HDenton JTaylor BHayes GZech NGrace LSpessard SWeise, RII SAConnelly DMuller TNovak BJYoungblood JHolonich TKenyon WLong TAlexion BKSingh KHooks ACRS (10)
OELD JPartlow BGrimes EJordan 6
l l
, Mr. S. A. White Tennessee Valley Authority Sequoyah Nuclear Plant I cc:
Herbert S. Sanger, Jr. , Esq. Tennessee Department of Public General Counsel Health Tennessee Valley Authority ATTN: Director, Bureau of 400 West Sumit Hill Drive, E 11B 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 Sumit 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 Sumit Hill Drive, W10B85 Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Resident Inspector /Sequoyah NPS c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2600 Igou Ferry Road Soddy Daisy, Tennessee 37379 Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 101 Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 l
l l
L __ ___ _ _ . _ _ _ ____
j ENCLOSURE 1 EVALUATION REPORT VERIFICATION TEST FOR AUXILIARY POWER SYSTEM VOLTAGE STUDY UNDER PSB-1 SEQUOYAH UNITS 1 AND 2 BACKGROUND In reference to verifying the validity of voltage drop calculations for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Auxiliary Power System, a letter from B. J. Youngblood to S. A.
White, dated March 26, 1986, recommended that TVA perform a new verification test as prescribed in Branch Technical Position PSB-1 (part B.4) since the staff could not conclude that TVA had adequately demonstrated that a new verification test was not necessary. This recommendation was largely based on Electrical, Instrumentation and Control Systems Branch's (EICSB) finding of the inconsistency between the measured load data during the test and how it was used in the analysis and the questionable accuracy of the test instrumentation recording. A meeting was held on April 16, 1986, during which TVA presented additional information and clarification to their October 2, 1980 test report in support of its position that performing additional verification testing of the Auxiliary Power System at Sequoyah was not necessary. Subsequently, TVA agreed to provide additional information for our further consideratian as follows:
e
- 1) Confirmatory analysis to demonstrate that the new computer proaram is comparable to the old computer program which was used in the original test report by inputting the same load values into the new computer program and comparing the calculated voltages.
r --
t
- 2) Analyses to demonstrate that there is no significant configuration change between the 1980 and 1986 systems by inputting the data from the July 12 & 16, 1980 tests into the 1980 & 1986 system models and comparing the calculated voltages.
- 3) More detail on how the two tests (July 12 & 16, 1980) were conducted and description of how the circuit breakers were aligned for each configuration.
I On June 2, 1986, TVA provided a response to our previous concerns on the changes along with a report titled "NRC Branch Technical Position PSB-1 Reanalysis."
EICSB has reviewed the additional information and has re-evaluated the previous position on the need for the verification test.
6
- - - , - , - , - - - -- -- ~-, . - , . . -,.n.-, , -n - ,--,. -- ,. - ,- - - , . , . . , - -
I EVALUATION I) THE COMPUTER HARDWARE AND PROGRAM CHANGES Since the mainframe computer (MC) and its program "VNEW" which were used for the previous verification test have been replaced by the personal computer (PC) with a new program called " RADIAL", EICSB was concerned whether the program RADIAL /PC is equivalent to the old program VNEW/MC regarding analytical techniques and assumptions. At the meeting, we requested a confirmatory analysis (Item 1) using the July 12, 1980 test configuration to demonstrate that there is no appreciable difference in the calculated voltages of the' two (i.e., RADIAL /PC vs. VNEW/MC).
? Our review of the latest TVA comparison analysis also included a Stone & Webster computer program. All three computer programs were run by usir.g an identical set of loads for each board. The summary table I (page 10) of the report showed the following:
BOARD VNEW RADIAL STONE & WEBSTER 6.9kv Start BUS A 7152, 7151 7148 6.9kv Start BUS B 7011 7008 7005 6.9kv Unit Bd IB 7011 7008 7005 6.9kv Shutdown Bd 1A-A 7004 7002 6998 480v Shutdown Bd 1Al-A 495 495 495 480v RX Vent Bd 1A-A 483 483 Not Conducted
t Our review of the results of these analyses finds that the voltage values obtained from the three computer programs show no appreciable voltage differences. This indicates that both computer programs' analytical techniques and assumptions are equivalent for the steady state. However, this comparison requires verification of the steady state and transient response characteristics of the two computer programs. This test result failed to demonstrate the transient response and the steady state at 120/208 volt level. Therefore, the replacement of the old computer program with the new computer program appears to be verified for the steady state case only down to the 480 volt level.
II) CHANGE OUT OF 100 VALVE MOTORS:
We were concerned that the replacement of 100 valve motors with the motors of different electrical characteristics may affect the plant steady state load making it necessary for the new system loadings to be re-analyzed. However, TVA indicated that this change out will only affect the transient loading and voltage whereas the steady state load remains the same. Therefore, we find that this change out of 100 valve motors represents no overall load increase for the steady state condition.
III) ADDITION OF TWO START BUSES AND ONE COMMON STATION SERVICE TRANSFORMER:
TVA explained that the two additional start buses were not actually added, but instead the original two start buses were split into four buses, thus adding no new loads or impedances. Although the third common station service transformer
g has been added, the circuit breakers are normally open making the transformer available as a backup for either of the other station service transformers. TVA demonstrated that this change has little effect on the overall Sequoyah Auxiliary Power System configuration by performing a comparison of the voltage analyses (Item 2) between the 1980 (two start buses) and 1986 (four start buses) configu-rations. The comparison was performed using the July 12 & 16, 1980 test data and the new computer program. The results were shown in the Summary Table I and II (page 10) of the report. We summarize them as follows:
TEST I TEST II (July 12, 1980) (July 16, 1980)
CONFIGURATION CONFIGURATION BOARD 1980 1986 1980 1986 6.9kv Start BUS A 7154 7156 7045 7041 6.9kv Start BUS B 7051 7045 7067 7062 6.9kv Unit Bd IB 7051 7045 7067 7062 6.9kv Shutdown Bd 1A-A 7044 7038 7060 7055 480v Shutdown Bd 1Al-A 501 500 501 501 480v RX Vent Bd 1A-A 493 500 494 501 Start of ERCW pp (Term. V) Not Conducted 6705 6695 Start of Aux. BLG EXH FAN 1A Not Conducted 495 458 We find that the above analyses (I & II) show no appreciable voltage difference (max.
1.5%) between the 1980 and 1986 configurations. Therefore, this indicates that the new configuration has not changed the old electrical system configuration significantly.
I IV) REANALYSIS OF THE 1980 VERIFICATION TEST RESULTS As for the actual verification tests performed at Sequoyah in 1980, TVA, in their latest response, explained how the circuit breakers were aligned for each test' configuration (Item 3).
Our review of the test procedure found that a comparison was made between the calculated board voltages, based on load values derived from breaker alignment and the supply voltages, and the board voltages obtained from the tests. We found that this procedure deviated from our Branch Technical position PSB-1 t
. (Part B.4) which requires measurements of the loads and voltages for a given test configuration and then, using the measured load values on each board as input to the computer model to calculate the voltages. Subsequently, the analytically derived voltage values and the test results are compared. To be consistent with our present PSB-1 procedure, during our meeting on April 16, 1986, we requested new analyses be performed by using the load values obtained during the tests as input to the new computer program. The results are as follows:
TEST I TEST II (July 12, 1980) (July 16, 1980)
BOARD MEASURED ANALYSIS % MEASURED ANALYSIS %
6.9kv Start BUS A 7200 7154 0.6 7000 7045 0.6 6.9kv Start BUS B 7000 7051 0.7 7000 7067 1.0 6.9kv Unit Bd IB 7100 7051 0.7 7090 7067 0.3 6.9kv Shutdown Bd 1A-A 7000 7044 0.6 7100 7060 0.6 480v Shutdown Bd 1Al-A 495 501 1.2 500 501 0.2 480v RX Vent Bd 1A-A 484 493 1.9 489 494 1.0 Start of ERCW pp (Term V) Not Conducted 6787 6705 1.2 Start of AUX. BLG EXH FAN 1A Not Conducted 466 459 1.5
r TVA used board meters, test meters and brush recorders for taking test measurements. However, due to calibration problems the brush recorder failed to yield consistent results. As a result, TVA's latest response did not include the measured values obtained from the brush recorder. It is also indicated that CT and PT inaccuracies were present. Furthermore, the allowed accuracy limit was not specified in Position 4 of our FSAR Question 8.33. TVA stated that all measure-ments were taken by the board meters whose accuracy was limited to 5%. Therefore, a 5% tolerance was established as the maximum acceptable difference between the measured voltag'es and calculated vn1tages.
V) BRANCH TECHNICAL POSITION PSB-1 (PART B.4)
TVA performed the 1980 verification tests at Sequoyah in response to FSAR Question 8.33. This question was a precursor to Branch Technical Position PSB-1 (Part B.4) which was issued as part of the SRP in July 1981. Part B.4 of PSB-1 provides detailed guidance for performance of their verification tests. Although Question 8.33 does not explicitly include all of the guidance of Part B.4 of PSB-1, it does so by clear implication. Therefore, our evaluation of the 1980 tests was based on establishing a correlation between these tests and the testing and expected test results specified in Part B.4 of PSB-1. In our April 16, 1986 meeting, TVA i concurred that the intent of position 4 of Question 8.33 requirement is the same as Part B.4 of PSB-1 requirements, even though the PSB-1 requirements are more specific.
t Part B.4 of PSB-1 states the following:
a) loading the station distribution buses, including all Class IE buses down to the 120/208 y level, to at least 30%;
b) recording the existing grid and Class 1E bus voltages and bus loading down to the 120/208 volt level at steady state conditions and during the starting of both a large Class IE and non-Class IE motor (not concurrently);
~
Note: to minimize the number of instrumented locations, (recorders) during the motor starting transient tests, the bus voltages and loading need only be recorded on that string of buses which previously showed the lowest analyzed voltages.
c) using the analytical techniques and assumptions of the previous voltage analyses and the measured existing grid voltage and bus loading conditions recorded during conduct of the test, calculate new set of voltages for all the Class 1E buses down to the 120/208 volt level; d) compare the analytically derived voltage values against the test resul ts .
, _ _ . - - _ ., .r.
_9 With good correlation (within 30 between the analytical results and the test results, the validity of the mathematical model used in the voltage analysis is established.
However, the above procedure involves testing of both the steady state and transient response characteristics. The transient testing requires starting both a large class IE and non-class IE motor. TVA stated that " Voltages were measured over the same path and at the motor terminals of an emergency raw cooling water (ERCW) pump motor (700hp) while it was started and at the terminals of an auxiliary building general exhaust fan motor (150hp) while it was started." TVA, further, stated that " Starting
_ motor voltage dip values are not reliably established by test because of limitations
~
in the instrument capabilities. In both cases, the dip was only for approximately one cycle."
The intent of such a transient test requirement is to detect potential spurious load shedding or separation of class 1E system from offsite power when a large motor is started. The ability of the computer model to predict the effects of the motor transient in the system is verified by comparing the data measured during the transient test with the computer predicted transient values. Upon completion of both the steady state and transient analyses, the validity of the mathematical model is verified. ,
-- - _ _ , - -____,__,,__.___m _ _ , , . _ _ __,_,,._,_,,__7 _ , , _ _ _ ,_ _ . _ , ,
, FINDINGS For the steady state aspect of the test, EICSB finds that:
- 1. The new configuration has not affected the overall voltage profile of the 6.9kv boards.
- 2. The change out of 100 valve motors represent no overall load increase.
- 3. The replacement of the old computer program with the new computer program appears to be acceptable.
- 4. Despite the fact that our Position 4 of Question 8.33 contained no specific accuracy requirement (applies to Sequoyah) and the measure-ment accuracy of Sequoyah metering was 5%, the consistency of the results between the analyses and test values (within 2%) show that the model consistently predicts steady state system performance.
- 5. No test and analyses were performed down to 120/208 volt level where the ability of the class IE control circuit to pick up the control devices such as starter, relay, and solenoid is determined.
With exception of item 5, there is reasonable assurance that TVA's new computer program can adequately predict Sequoyah electrical system steady state response characteristics.
l As for the transient aspect of the test, TVA started one ERCW pump motor (700hp) l and an auxiliary building exhaust fan motor (150hp); we find that:
f ' ~
o ^ - ,
- ~
>, 1. The test report indicated instrument recording problems such that starting motor dip values were not reliably established (i.e., no transient data for the motor and the class IE buses). -
- 2. The selected motor sizes (700hp & 150hp) were not large enough to show any significant transient effect (the dip was only for one cycle).
The Branch Technical position PSB-1 (part B.4) requires starting of both a large class 1E and a large non-class IE motor (not concurrently)
- 3. No transient voltage analysis was performed by comparing results of calculations performed by the new computer program with the data obtained during the starting of large motors.
In the absence of the transient analysis, we cannot determine that TVA's new computer program can adequately predict Sequoyah's electrical system transient response characteristics.
CONCLUSION Based on our findings, we conclude ~ that: (1) TVA's new computer program can adequately predict the steady state aspect of the Sequoyah electrical system.
However, this is conditioned on either additional testing and analyses being performed to demonstrate acceptable system response down to the 120/208 volt level or providing proper justification. (2) There is insufficient bases to conclude that the computer model can accurately predict the electrical system response during transients such as starting large motors. (3)TVAshould demonstrate new computer program's capability to predict the transient response of the Sequoyah electrical system.
Therefore, EICSB reconsnends that TVA perform additional testing in accordance with Branch Technical Position PSB-1 (part B.4) as described above.
__ .