ML20213H159

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of 870402 Meeting W/Util in Bethesda,Md Re Criteria Used for Restart.List of Attendees,Restart Requirement Criteria & Flow Chart Encl
ML20213H159
Person / Time
Site: Sequoyah  Tennessee Valley Authority icon.png
Issue date: 05/07/1987
From: Rotella T
NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS
To:
NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS
References
NUDOCS 8705190177
Download: ML20213H159 (11)


Text

-

May 7, 1987 Docket Nos. 50-327/328 LICENSEE: TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA)

FACILITY: Sequoyah Nuclear Plants, Units I and 2

SUBJECT:

APRIL 2, 1987 MINUTES OF MEETING WITH TVA TO DISCUSS THE CRITERIA USED FOR THE SE000YAH NUCLEAR PLANT RESTART On Thursday, April 2,1987, a meeting was held at NRC, Bethesda, Maryland with representatives from TVA to discuss the criteria used by TVA for determining whether an issue or problem would require resolution prior to the restart of either Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Unit.

Attachment 1 is the meeting summary which describes the significant items discussed and the actions taken or proposed. Attachment 2 is the list of participants that attended the meeting. Attachment 3 is the subject restart criteria discussed which was provided by TVA via memorandum from S. A. White to those listed, entitled, " Restart Requirement Criteria," dated March 13, 1987 and in Table 7 of Revision 1 to Volume II of the TVA Nuclear Performance Plan, dated April 1, 1987. Attachment 4 is a flow chart provided by NRC staff which was used for discussion during the meeting.

NRC staff requested that TVA submit to NRC a summary of the history regarding the original process of identifying issues which required resolution prior to restart. This submittal should include a description of how issues were brought to the Restart Task Force and how the Restart Task Force functioned to differentiate the issues requiring resolution prior to restart from those that did not. The NRC staff concluded that the subject restart criteria provided in Attachment 3 are acceptable; however, certain documentation with regard to the implementation of these criteria needs to be provided. NRC staff requested TVA submit a description of the development of the restart criteria, and an explanation of actions taken in the past which would prevent items from being excluded from the Sequoyah Activities List. During the meeting, TVA committed to provide the requested submittals discussed above.

Original signed by Thomas S. Rotella, Project Manager Division of TVA Projects Office of Special Projects

Attachment:

1. Summary
2. List of Atterdees
3. Restart Criteria ',
4. Flow Chart cc w/ attachments:

See next page TVA:0SP TVA:0SP TVA:0SP h TV : P A CJamersakl TR9 tel.la.cw JDonohev JwolinsEi C$/ob/87 06/ j /87 0 /87 r7 /87 0705190177 070507 PDR ADOCK 05000327 P PDR L________

  • ~ .

c Sequoyah Nuclear Plant CC:

Tennessee Department of Regional Administrator, Region II Public Health U.S'. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Director, Bureau of 101 Marietta Street, N.W.

Environmental Health Services Atlanta, Georgia 30323 l

)

Cordell Hull Building Nashville, Tennessee 37219 Mr. R. W. Cantrell Fr. Michael H. Mohley, Director ATTN: D.L. Williams Tennessee Valley Authority Division of Radiological Health 400 West Summit Hill Drive, W12 A12 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. R. L. Gridley Mr. Richard King Tennessee Valley Authority c/o U.S. GAO i

Efl 157B Lookout Place 1111 North Shore Drive l Suite 225, Box 194 Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801 Knoxville, Tennessee 37919 Mr. M. R. Harding Tennessee Valley Authority Mr. S. A. White Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Manager of Nuclear Power P.O. Box 2000 Tennessee Valley Authority Soddy Daisy, Tennessee 37379 6N 38A Lookout Place 1101 Market Place Resident Inspector /Sequoyah NP Chattanooga, Tennesseee 37402-2801 c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2600 Igou Ferry Road Soddy Daisy, Tennessee 37379

(

Mr. H.L. Abercromhie Tennessee Valley Authority Secuoyah Nuclear Plant P.O. Box 2000 Soddy Daisy, Tennessee 37379

Attachment 1 4

SUMMARY

OF APRIL 2, 1987 MEETING WITH TVA REGARDING RESTART CRITERIA The meeting began with NRC staff introductory remarks regarding the_ purpose of the meeting. A discussion of the restart criteria subsequently commenced.

TVA presented an overall history of the direction taken to identify problems which might affect the restart of the Sequoyah Units. A description of this history was deemed important by the NRC staff and a request for submittal describing such was made.

The TVA explained how the list of restart items for Sequoyah was developed. TVA formed the Sequoyah Restart Task Force at the site with TVA upper managcment individuals. The Task Force requested that all individuals at the site present to it all lists of items that should be fixed at Sequoyah. From these lists, the Task Force identified 702 items at Sequoyah requiring resolution prior to restart. At this stage of the problem identification, no delineated or formal i

restart criteria existed; however, the Task Force members were stated as being experienced in the various disciplines to understand the specific issues and their impact on startup. Certain problems identified only required analysis for resolution while others required facility modifications.

' Sequoyah procedure, SOA-190, is the controlling procedure used for determination of whether a newly identified item requires resolution prior to restart.

TVA stated that on February 23, 1987, the Condition Adverse to Quality (CAQ)

, reporting process was implemented. This process provides a mechanism for anyone in TVA to raise a , safety issue or a particular problem to his/her supervisor to ascertain whether the issues needs to be fixed. All CAO reports get a restart determination. This determination is conducted using the restart x criteria in Attachment 3. TVA presented details of the actual process an individual would go through to resolve an issue thought to warrant restart consideration.

TVA stated that the Design Baseline Verification Program issues, which were found to require resolution prior to restart, are put or the Sequoyah Activities List t

(SAL). The decision that it is a restart item is based on the restart criteria.

The SAL is the controlling activities list used to track restart activities.

.The staff requested that TVA provide documentation regarding the development of the restart criteria, the SAL and the Sequoyah Restart Task Force. The staff requested that TVA explain any differences between how the SAL was developed for Sequoyah and how a similar list would be developed for Browns Ferry, t

i After consideration of the information presented by TVA and previous NRC staff

! review, NRC staff determined that the subject restart criteria were acceptable.

NRC staff expressed concern, bokever, regarding the effective implementation of these criteria. As a result, NRC staff requested that TVA submit to NRC an explanation of how the restart criteria have been developed and implemented and J

--~,-,,,-,,.,,,--.--.,--n,- .,,,,.,_,en.. - --

.n . : :.. .

' - 2 who is currently making decisions regarding restart issues since the Restart Task Force had been officially dissolved on March 5,1987. NRC staff also suggested.TVA take a sample of the issues currently listed on the SAL and redetermine their requirement for completion prior to restart using the subject restart criteria.

NRC staff expressed some concern, due to a lack of docketed information, with regard to the consistency of application / interpretation of the restart criteria. The flow chart, see Attachment 4, was developed by NRC staff in an attempt to achieve consistency in applying the restart criteria. TVA stated that the CAQ reporting process provides the consistency the NRC stOff desired.

TVA stated that a planned revision to the CAQ program will include 6 procedural change to require an evaluation of individual CAQ's against the restart criteria.

The CAO definition stated by TVA was: Adverse conditions including nonconforming materials, parts, or components; failures; malfunctions; deficiencies; deviations; hardware problems involving system which do not comply with licensing, codes, specifications, or drawing requirements; and nonhardware problems such as failure to comply with the operating licensing, Technical Specifications, procedures, instructions, or regulations.

TVA committed to send to NRC a letter describing the CAQ program process of assuring quality as it relates to restart.

i

.4

. _ , , _ _ . _ , _ , _ . , , - _.m., __

, . -m, . - - _ _, -.. _ _ _ . -.

. - , - .- . . - . . . . =. ..- .

- Attachment 2 s

Attendees.

April 2, 1987 Affiliation Name TVA Projects /NRC Thomas S. Rotella Office of Investigation, NRC Ben B. Hayes R. Gridley TVA - Licensing Mike Harding TVA - Site Licensing Mgr.

T. A. Ippolito TVA - Consultant TVA Projects /NRC John A. Zwolinski TVA Projects /NRC Jack N. Donohew TVA Projects /NRC B. D. Liaw ,

TVA Projects /NRC s.

John F. Stang Robert Hermann OSP/TVA/EB Jane A. Axelrad OSP/NRC G. Gears OSP/NRC i

s e

%q_

g

.0

z : .

a..~..

,L - . .. ,,.e...,.,....,._-....,...__,,,.,_.,,,,.,,,,,,,_, _ ,, ,

, ATTACHMEi1T 3

- - l 2 d 10:C1 48/P!/C0 Nd DON 030 SMSW Wogg  ;

l vva ss ecs,.resi r.v.* s et), A02_870313 001 l

4* .

UNJTCD $7ATEb COVERNMENT

", Memorand um Qi TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORIT[!

r i  ;

I, 20  : Those listed i FROM  : 5. A. White. Manager of Nuclear Power. LP 6N 38A-C DATI  : March 13. 1987

SUBJECT:

RESTART REQUIREMENT CRITERIA

References:

(1) C. C. Mason's memorandum to Those listed dated November 26, 1986 (102 861126 013)

(2) R. W. Cantroll's memorandum to Those listed dated December 23. 1986 (L44 861224 108)

This memorandum supersedes references 1 and 2 and any other previous instructions relative to restart requirement criteria. The criteria in the attached table have evolved from the original Yolume 2 criteria. .

Though the requirements are in essence the same se the earlier.' criteria.

these include the lessons learned through implementation at Sequoyah and Browns Ferry. Use of these refined criteria on Sequoyah and Browns Ferry activities has shown that these criteria do meet the test of being easily understood and easily applied.

These critoria are in effect for all plants until we revise Volumes 2 and 3. After the units have been restored for normal operations the respective site directors will make a recommendation to me regarding a transition to sole reliance on plant technical specification requirements. ,

,h. ,

70: See list on page 2 l ,

l I

.____,,,,,2,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

~ .'h .. , ,- .. ., u ,. ...a.. . c 1 . ,". . ..s . . y. , A. _,

  • C .*id EO*CI L8/P1/CO , Md.3CH OdO.SW9W WOMd

. e * -

)

f v 2 .

Those listed ,

March 13, 1987 t RESIAWT. REQUIREMENT CRITERIA 70: H. L. Ahv crombie, ONP, Sequoyah

  • W. R. Bro... Jr.. EC70. ONP, Watts Bar ,

C. H. Crowell, LP 6N 38A-C J. P. Darling ONP, Bellefonte S. B. Fisher. LP SN 38A-C C. H. Fox, Jr., LP 6N 38A-C R. L. Gridley, LP $N 1575-C ,

W. H. Hannum, BR IN 768-C L. L. Jackson. LP 4N 38A-C T. 3. Jenkins, LP 6N 38A-C R. J. Johnson. POTC-C .

J. A. Kirkebo, W12 A12 C-R C. C. Mason. LP 6N 38A-C D. E. Nichols, 210 A14 C-K R. C. Parker, LP 4N 45A-C '

R. A. Pedde,11-127 SB-K R. A. Pedde. 101 PRO Bidt., Watts Bar .

H. P. Pomrehn. Browns Ferry C. G. Robertson, LF 55 83E-C R. K. Seiberling, 716C EB-C R. K. Sliger, LP 2N 978-C M. E. Taylor. LP 6N 38A-C G. Toto. ONP, Watts Sar

~

! CHF:MLG '

Attachment cc: EIES._Mt 4N 721-C J ,tt,achme1 Int)  %

c be: Mr. S. D. Ebnater Director TVA Projects Division U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l

l Washington, D.C. 20555 l

l l

i l

- . - . . _ . _m.-. _ - . _ - , . - - , _ . - . - , . . . - _ . - , . . - - __or .,._ , . . _ _-_.m _..- _ ,-_,.--. c

._ .. . , . . , a. . m , , _ , , , , , , , , , ,

~ dt 2 . ;. .o . . .. . .

/-

  • t *d 20 tc. sB4 UC0 . Hd Da.N O f. SM9W WOWd 1.; .... -

J.

RESTART REQUIREME.17 CRITERIA 1

The following criteria shall be used in evaluating whether a particulac * .

item must be resolved prior to startup. -

1.

The 1~ tem identifies a specific deficiency which has significant

  • probability of leading to the inoperability of a system required for startup or operation by the appropria'te Technical Specifications.

The item identifies a progrannatic deficier.cy which has a high 2.

probability of causing or has caused a specific deficiency which ,

meets No. I above. .

NOTE: To assist in the determination of required for restart reistive to Technical Specificaticas as in criteria No.1 and No. 2 above. an affirmative answer to any of the following questions requires consideration of the item for restart based on Technical '

' specification requirements. ,

a. Does the item directly and ad'versely affect safety-related .

i equipment function. performance, reliability, or resp,onse timet

b. Does the item indirectly and adversely affect safety-related

- equipment power supply, air supply, cooling. lubrication, or ventilation?

c. Dces the item adversely affect primary cor.tainment intcarityf
d. Dces the item adversely affect secondary containment integrity!
e. Does the ltts adversely affect c'ontrol room habitability! . .
f. Does the item adversely affect systems used to process ,

. radioactive wastaf ,

- a. . g. Does the stesi adversely affect fire protection or fire leadst ,

. .. l

h. Does the item adversely affect the ability of a system or ,

component to meet its safety function during a design basis event by impacting the seismic analysis, single failure criteria, separation criteria, hign energy line break assumptions, or equipment qualificatient

1. Are the programs such as Radiological Health. Security. '

I Radiological Emergency preparedness, or quality Assurance which are necessary for safe conduct of operation of the plant adversely affectedt

j. If not corrected prior to rotart, could it lead to an uncontrolled release or spread of radioactive contamination .

beyond the regulated area.

6

~ ,.-r- --n_-----,.----ne, ,, , , , , , , _ . , - - _ . - _ . . , - . _ _ _ , . - , ,-- -..- _ _. .-_ ,, -.. - _ _ ~.- - ---

. .14  ;. . . .... .. . . r.a u

. . . .: . ..... _ i  ;"_ h.m t.. -

..........&..u.......a... ,,

I

, E *d 7W101 S 'd C01C1 19/Pl/C0 Nd onH 340 SW9W WOWd V ~~~ M_ w..'

,, * + w .r.m. .  ;

,,; , 1 % I7 -

y. . . . .. . .
f. 6,* '

2-e

'~ .

The item identifies a specific deficiency that results in a failure 3.

to semply'With NRC regulations and ho variance has been approved by * ' .,

NAC; . . . . . .

4. TTA has conreitted to NRC to comp'lete the item prior to restatt. .

S. The item identifies a specific deficioney which has a significant .

probability of. leading to a persoral injury during plant operaties.

4. The item identifies a specific condition which has a forced estate **

risk (probability X outage length) during the next cycle in excess of ,

the critical path time to correct the condition prior to restart.

I

~ .

.- , e

'  :. .: . . ;o m . .. .

V% ~ ~ ' ...s -*

,, .. ~. . : : -

  • j  : .

i l ..

g,, ,

l

  • l

\

^

. _ _ .-_-.---__-.l-.__-_,_-_-_,.--__-_____.__

  • ATTACHMENT 4

?RESTARI? II B ANALYZER INPUIIIEM

--YES--dAFE OPERATIpH MAYlPACI

.N0 >

'# tkREQUIREMENT M 0-(D s s 9./ ,- ._

\,,? 'e, VESA.

Af0iN N0 .AC8 DENT ACH,N

./SHUIDOWN%::' h lIIGATION- <1XIENSION>+VES-s N IMPA.CI- 's.IMPACI'(B) s,(Q 9. '

.,7.(g) .g .-

nr \

Y ES 1F VES J

N 1r V

NOT RESIARI RESIARI -

ISSUE ISSUE (A) Safe Shutdown Systems / Equipment as define' in the FSAR (B) Accident Mitigation Svstems/ Equipment as described in the FSAR (C) NRC Approved Extension (i.e., Schedular Exemptions OSP Approved Completion Date)

(0) Regulations, Orders, License Conditiois, Technica Specifica ions l

  • o

l, _n Distribution for Meeting Summary Dated: May 7, 1987 Facility: Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 WW???kYN!WD NRC PDR Local PDR J. Axelrad S. Ebneter S. Richardson J. Zwolinski B. D. Liaw G. Zech, RII S. R. Connelly, 01A B. Hayes 01 J. Donohew T. Rotella J. Holonich J. Kelly C. Jamerson F. Miraglia ACRS(10)

OGC-BETH TVA-Bethesda Projects Rdg SE0 File J. Stang J. Partlow R. Hermann G. Gears E. Jordan

  • Copy sent to persons on facility service list I

. _ _ _ _ _ _