ML20214F834
| ML20214F834 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 05/15/1987 |
| From: | Gridley R TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8705260310 | |
| Download: ML20214F834 (2) | |
Text
.
. - ~ _..
l.
TENNESSEE VALLEY ' AUTHORITY CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE 37401 i'
SN 1575 Lookout Place-
[.
L
-MAY-151987 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comunission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555-Centlemen:'
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-327 Tennessee Valley Authority
)
50-328
'SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT (SQN) UNITS 1 AND 2 - NBC-0IE INSPECTION REPORT NOS.
50-327/87-19 AND 50-328/87 CONFIRMATION OF ORAL ColeIITNENTS
Reference:
NRC letter from G. G. Zech to S. A. White dated March 24, 1987 The subject inspection report, which was transmitted to TVA by the referenced letter, documented oral comaitments made during the February 13, 1987 exit interview. TVA agrees with the three comualtments as stated in the report and restated below.
[
1.
Paragraph 5.b.5 states, "The inspectors' obtained a connaitment from the.
Licensee to perform a test of the chlorine detection system to deterinine if the system would perform its intended function,'i.e., isolate the j
control room in the event of chlorine concentrations in excess of 5 ppm within the time frames assumed in the analysis in FSAR sections 6.4.3.2.
and 6.4.2.1."
2.
Paragraph 5.c states, "At the exit interview, the inspectors expressed concern that it did not appear in all cases that the licensee staff was intending to re-review, using the revised SI-1 appendix F checklist issued subsequent to a quality assurance _ CAR, those priority 3 procedures which had been initially reviewed before issue of the CAR. The, inspector noted that this would not assure satisfactory resolution of the progransnatic deficiencies associated with the CAR.~
The plant manager acknowledged this concern and stated that all surveillance instructions, including priority 3 procedures, would be reviewed to the post CAR revised SI-1 appendix F checklist, even if they had.been previously reviewed before the issue of CAR."
3.
"With regard to revision and performance of priority 3 procedures the licensee stated that if the review reflected technical problems associated with adequate surveillance requirement implementation, the procedure would be revised and the test reperforined.
If the review did not reflect-technical problems with the procedure, a revision would not be issued before restart and if review of previous test data reflected
\\
/O 8705260310 870515 P
dY n
i PDR ADOCK 05000327 U
/
0 0
An Equal Opportunity Employer j
i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 15 W that an acceptable test had been previously performed, the licensee did not intend to reperform the test.
In a subsequent meeting on February 20, 1987, the inspector informed the licensee that there was concern that performance of priority 3 tests should be considered necessary since tabletop reviews would not capture problems such as the ERCW valve throttling issue identified in NRC Inspection Report 50-327, 328/86-32. The licensee acknowledged this concern and stated that their intentions, and basis thereof, for surveillance. test performance would be included in their surveillance instruction review program submittal."
If you have any questions, please call M. R. Harding at (615) 870-6422.
Very truly yours.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
/
R. Gridley, 1 rector Nuclear Safety and Licensing ec:
Mr. C. C. Zech, Assistant Director for Inspection Programs Division of TVA Projects Office of Special Projects U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 i
Mr. J. A. Zwo11nski, Assistant Director for Projects Division of TVA Projects Office of Special Projects U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East West Highway EWW 322 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Sequoyah Resident Inspector Sequoyah Nuclear Plant 2600'Igou Ferry Road
'l Soddy Daisy, Tennessee 37379 l
t-
-.