ML20211C071
| ML20211C071 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 02/17/1987 |
| From: | Mcdonald J TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | Harold Denton NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211C076 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8702200006 | |
| Download: ML20211C071 (11) | |
Text
,
',a
~
w TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Watts Bar Nuclear Plant P. O. Box 800 February 17, 1987 Sprins City Tennessee 37381 Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Mr. Harold Denton, Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation In the Matter of the Application of
)
Docket Nos.
50-327 Tennessee Valley Authority
-)
50-328 ENPLOYEE CONCERNS TASK GROUP (ECTG) provides a listing of the report numbers, the related employee concerns, and the previous submittal dates if applicable. To assist you in your review of these reports, Enclosure 2 provides a comparison between the ECTG Writer's Guide recommended report format and the transmitted reports. transmits the final element reports for 4 elements addressing Sequoyah Nuclear Plant employee concerns in the following categories:
Operations
- 1 report Engineering
- 2 reports Material Control - 1 report As indicated by the report cover sheets, these reports have completed final review by the Senior Review Panel and the Employee Concern Task Group management. With these final reports, all employee concerns related to Sequoyah have been addressed for Engineering Subcategory 21500, Civil / Structural Design; Engineering Subcategory 24100, Cable Terminations and Splices; and Naterial Control Subcategory 40400, Storage and Handling.
Please telephone Martha Martin at (615) 365-3537 (Watts Bar) if you have any questions.
l Very truly yours, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY hh
/J. A. Mcdonald Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Site Licensing Manager cc (See page 2.):
Of 8702200006 870217 ADOCK050g7 PDR P
An Equal Opportunity Employer
j-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission cc (Rnclosures):
Mr. James N. Taylor, Director Office of Inspection and Rnforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II Attn:
Mr. Gary Zech 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Nr. B. J. Youngblood, Project Director PWR Project Directorate #4 Division of PWR Licensing - A U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j
7920 Norfolk Avenue Room 440, 5 Story Phillips Bethesda, Maryland 20814 3731T
{
a e
Enclosure I
---n,--
ENCLOSURE 1 Page 1 of 1 SEQUOYAH EMPLOYEE ELEMENT REPORT CONCERN NUMBER ISSUE Engineering 21501 00-85-005-009 Seismic Criteria (Final)
OW-85-007-007 NOTE: Engineering 21501 was submitted final 11/17/86. Concern OW-85-007-007 was inadvertently omitted from sheets 3 and 4 of the element report. This resubmittal corrects that omission.
Engineering 24105*
- ECTG-6 Wire Corrosion of (Final)
Deterioration of Sealant Naterial
- Element 24105 and Concern ECTG-6 added after 9/26/86.
NOTE: An initial report was not necessary. This will be the only submittal for 24105.
Operation 30105 NAS-86-002 Questionable Design and (Final)
RCN-85-001 Construction Practices I-86-233-SQN NOTE: OP 30105 was submitted final 11/05/86.
It is being revised to incorporate SRP comments.
Material Control 40400 IN-85-443-002 Storage and Handling As (Final)
WI-85-100-040 Related to Material Control XX-85-122-045 XX-85-122-046 XX-85-122-047
- WI-85-091-014
- Concern addressed by NC 40307.
NOTE: Initial report transmitted 10/20/86.
3731T l
O e
I Enclosure y
?
ENGINEERING CATEGORY Page 1 of 2 ECTG WRITER'S GUIDE ELEMENT REPORT FORMAT 1.0 Issue 1.
Characterization of Issue (s)
Characterization 9.
Discussion, Findings and 2.0 Summary Conclusions Cover Sheet Information 3.0 Evaluators 4.0 Evaluation 8.
Evaluation Process Process 9.
Discussion, Findings, and
5.0 Findings
Conclusions 6,0 Root Cause
- Overall Root Cause will (Collective Significance)X*
not be considered at this report level.
Attachments as required 7.0 Attachments /
+
List of Concerns 2.
Have issue (s) been identified Other items included in another systematic in Engineering Element analysis?
Reports 3.
Document nos., tag nos.,
locations or other specific descriptive identifications stated in element.
4.
Interview files reviewed 5.
Documents reviewed related to the element 1992f J
ENGINEERING CATEGORY Enclosura 2 Page 2 of 2 ECTG WRITER'S GUIDE ELEMENT REPORT FORMAT Other items included in Engineering Element 6.
What regulations, licensing Reports commitments, design require-(cont'd) ments, or other apply or control in this area?
7.
List requests for information, meetings, telephone calls, and other discussions related to element.
I l
t l
l
OPERATIONS CATEGORY Enc 1csura 2
~
ECTG WRITER'S GUIDE OPERATIONS (OP) ELEMENT REPORTS NOTES / COMMENTS 1.0 Issue I.
Title The brief introduction Characterization Very brief introduction touches on the source of the concerns.
2.0 Summary I.
Title
- 1. The Conclusions are Very brief introduction towards the end of the findings.
III. Finding (Conclusions)
- 2. The Conclusions services as a summary of the findings.
3.0 Evaluators Cover Sheet
- 1. The printed name of the original evaluator (s) appears on the cover sheet.
- 2. The peer reviewer and CEG-H approval signa-tures are also on the cover sheet.
4.0 Evaluation II. Specific Evaluation l
Process Methodology 1
5.0 Findings
III. Findings 1880T
Exc1csura 2 ECTG WRITER'S GUIDE OPERATIONS (OP) ELMENT REPORTS NOTES /CONMENTS 6.0 Root Cause IV. Root Cause
- 1. At the element level (Collective Significance) the Root Cause is.often not identifible.
- 2. Collective significance i
is not addressed at the element report level.
7.0 Attachments /
II. Specific Evaluation
- 1. A list of the concerns List of Concerns Methodology with text are included within this section.
- 2. Other reports are sometimes attached.
1
!)
3
. i
{
2 6
4 i
t c
A i
, 1 l
4 l
i
~
l
~. -
MATERIALS CONTROL Enclcsure 2 ECTG WRITER'S GUIDE ELEMENT REPORT FORMAT 1.0 Issue I.
Introduction Characterization II.
Summary of Perceived Problem 2.0 Summary IV.
Summary of Findings Conclusions (Portion) 3.0 Evaluators Cover Sheet Information 4.0 Evaluation III. Evaluation Process Methodology
5.0 Findings
IV.
Summary of Findings 6.0 Root Cause V.
Root Cause
- Overall Root Cause will (Collective Significance)**
not be considered at this report level.
7.0 Attachments /
VIII. Attachments List of Concerns Other items included VI.
Corrective Actions in Element (To be provided by Reports line organizations)
VII. Generic Applicability 190ST
a 0
i i
I l
I t
.~
T~'-
"'N ry-
__,w___
-~-
r.
ma TVA EMPIAYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 215.1 SPECIAL PROGRAN REPORT TYPE: Rationale For Non-Includion REVISION NUMBER:
O as Restart Item TITLE: Seismic Criteria PAGE 1 0F 3 l
REASON FOR REVISION:
l l
l PREPARATION PREPARED BY:
J. W. Bentert (see Sheet 2 for signature) 9-11-86 SIGNATURE DATE C. W. Jordan (see Sheet 2 for signature) 9-11-86 l
RETInwS PEER:
SIGNATURE DATE TAS:
2k?Aa-/
deits ay SIGNATURE DATE CONCURRENCES
^
/M(W CEG-H:
G. R. McNutt 9-11-86 Q m h N ll-I2-8t.
SRP:
SIGNATURE DATE SIGNATURE
- DATE APPROVED 7
//-6-f6 m/A l
ECSP RDKGER DATE MANAGER OF NUCLEAR POWER DATE CONCURRENCE (FINAL REPORT ONLY)
- S P Secretary's signature denotes SRP concurrences are in files.
2085T Ce ? n An
- a n
-m 19WI4/
,y
=
's SEQU0YAH NUCLEAR PLANT ENGINEERING RELATED EW LOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM RATIONALE FOR NON-INCLUSION AS RESTART ITEM SUBCATEGORY / ELEMENT 215.1 (b)
Seismic Criteria These issues are not SQN restart issues based on TVA geological and seismicity investigations presented in FSAR Section 2.5 and NRC review and acceptance given in SER Section 2.5.
Both documents indicate that although the site is adjacent to the Kingston thrust fault and a major overturned anticline, no geologic evidence indicates that any of these features are active (earthquake) faults. Furthermore, TVA Investigation Report I-86-110-SQN dated March 5, 1986 concludes that:
1.
"The SQN is not located directly on the earthquake fault.
2.
The seismic analysis performed by TVA and accepted by the NRC concluded that adequate design margins exist for all critical components and structures to withstand the anticipated earthquake loads without losing their capability to perform their required safety functions."
c L
2 15.1 ATTACHENT: List of Issues for Civil ELEE NT NO.
4%O (b)
Date:
09/08/86 Evaluator 4%Ad Date Ab\\SG Resp. Mgr._
/!8d Date ECEG-H t
a Date h M -M 0976d
SQN RESTART - NO SUBCATEGORY 215 ELEENT IMWER 215.1 CIVIL /STituCTURAL Ga00P COIICEINIS CIVIL / STRUCTURAL DESIGN SEISMIC CRITERIA ELEMENT WHERE RESPON-CONCERN IM WER(S)
ISSUES ADDRESSED SIBLE GENERAL APPROACH /E TH000 LOGY FOR ELEE NT llEPORT 00-85-005-009 1.
SQN is on an earthquake fault that 215.1 JWB 1.
Review Section 2.5 of both the FSAR and SER.
"Sequoyah Nuclear Plant is runs from Chattanooga to Knoxville.
2.
Compare geological settings of SQIf and IGNI for sited on an earthquake fault that runs from around 2.
Plant structures could fail in an 215.1 JWB which a detail review has been completed and Chattanooga to north of earthquake.
seek significant differences.
Knoxville. If there were an 3.
Review TVA NSRS report I-86-110-SQ11.
earthquake power plant structures could fail."
0W-85-007-007 (WBII)
Identical concern for WBN.
/
g-e c
4a 82 REFERENCE
- ECPS120J-ECPS121C TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY PAGE FREQUENCY
- REQUEST OFFICE OF NUCLEAR POWER RUN TIME - 12:57:19
.I.
ONP - ISSS - RHM EMPLOYEE CONCERN PROGRAM SYSTEM (ECPS)
RUN DATE - 12/02/86 LIST OF EMPLOYEE CONCERN INFORMATION CATEGORY: EN DES PROCESS a OUTPUT SUBCATEGORY: 21501 SEISMIC CRITERIA
)
S GENERIC KEYHORD A H
APPL QTC/NSRS P
KEYHORD B CONCERN SUB R PLT BBSH INVESTIGATION S
CONCERN KEYWORD C NUMBER CAT CAT D LOC FLQB REPORT R
DESCRIPTION KEYHORD D 00 005-009 EN 21501 N SQN NNYY SS SEQUOYAH SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT IS PUBLIC RELATIONS T50224 REPORT SITED ON AN EARTHQUAKE FAULT THAT RU PERSONNEL FEELINGS NS FROM AROUND CHATTANOOGA TO NORTH GENERAL
)
0F KNOXVILLE. IF THERE HERE AN EART GENERAL
)
HQUAKE POWER PLANT STRUCTilRES COULD FAIL. CI HAS NO FURTHER INFORMATION l
6F H
U OH 007-007 EN 21501 N HBN NNYY SR WATTS BAR IS LOCATED ON AN EARTHOUAK PUBLIC RELATIONS T50224 K-FORM E FAULT THAT RUNS FROM CHATTANDOGA T PERSONNEL FEELINGS O
O NORTH OF KNOXVILLE. IF THERE HERE GENERAL TO BE AN EARTHQUAKE, THE PLANT'S ST GENERAL RUCTURAL INTEGRITY HOULD BE SERIOUSL Y DAMAGED. CI HAS NO FURTHER INFORM
)
ATION. CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT CONC ERN NO FOLLOW UP REQUIRED.
2 CONCERNS FOR CATEGORY EN SUBCATEGORY 21501
.)
)
a
-)
)
i