ML20215B687

Forwards Supplemental Response to NRC Re Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-327/86-28 & 50-328/86-28. Corrective Actions:Future Commitments Will Be Closely Reviewed to Ensure Desired Results

ML20215B687
Person / Time
Site:	Sequoyah
Issue date:	06/12/1987
From:	Domer J TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
References
NUDOCS 8706170407
Download: ML20215B687 (3)

Text

- - _ _ _ - _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _

~

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY CH ATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE 37401 j

SN 157B Lookout Place AN 121987 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 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) - SUPPLEMEt!TAL RESPONSE TO VIOLATION EO-327, f

-328/86-28-01 i Enclosed is our supplemental response'to Gary G. Zech's April 28, 1987 letter l to S. A. White that requested a supplemental response to the subject violation. We do not recognize any items described herein as commitments. ]

If you have any questions, please call h. R. Harding at (615) 870-6422.

To the best cf my knowledge, I declare the statements contained herein are complete and true.

Very truly yours, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY J, A. Domer, Assistant Director Nuclear Safety and Licensing Enclosure cc: See page 2

$ \

8706170407 870612 7 PDR ADOCK 05000327

_G-- PDR An Equal Opportunity Employer

~

, , I g

z e-

?: .4.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission- W

,- .cc-(EnElosure):

Mr. G. G. Zech, Assistant Director for Inspection Programs

' Office of _ Special Projects.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. J. A. Zwolinski, 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 Soddy Daisy, Tennessee' 37379 1

l

1.j

' f..

ENCLOSURE SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO VIOLATION 50-327. -328/86-28-01 AS TRANSMITTED JULY 15, 1986, AND IN'ACCORDANCE WITH GARY G. ZECH'S LETTER TO S. A. WHITE DATED APRIL 28, 1987 NRC Concern Stated In April 28. 1987 Letter This concerns your July 15, 1986 response to the subject violation involving the requirement to conduct.a safety evaluation for system changes in the ,

condensate demineralizer waste evaporator system. Your response indicated  ;

that the Division of Nuclear Engineering (DNE) would prepare an evaluation which would address the requirements of Technical Specification 6.15, items d

' through g, by December 31, 1986. Subsequently, the evaluation would be  !

approved by the' Plant-Operations Review Committee (PORC) within two weeks of I the plant's acceptance of the report. Although the evaluation was forwarded to the Sequoyah site director from DNE, on January 1, 1987, it was not PORC reviewed until January 23, 1987. PORC approval did not occur until February 6,1987.-

Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SON) Supplemental Response la The portion of'the_ cited commitment that indicated DNE would prepare an evaluation to address the requirements of Technical Specification 6.15, I items d through g, by December 31,-1986, was met. The safety evaluation of the Condensate Demineralizer Waste Evaporator (CDWE) System (project identifier SQNAPS-7-008) and the safety evaluation of Radwaste Demineralizers (project identifier SQNAPS-7-009) were approved by DNE on December 30, 1986, j and.were subsequently transmitted to the SQN Site Director on January 1, 1987. i Further processing of the safety evaluations resulted in the plant's acceptance on' January 12, 1987, following the Plant Operations Keview Staff (PORS) review and determination of the acceptability of the safety evaluations i for PORC review. PORC reviewed the evaluations on January 23, 1987, but did I not provide their approval pending resolution of comments generated during their review. Following resolution of the comments, the safety evaluations were resubmitted to PORC for review and were approved on February 6,1987.

TVA admits the specific commitment'for PORC approval of the safety evaluations did not occur within two weeks of the plant's acceptance. However, the intent j of the commitment was achieved in that initial PORC review occurred within the committed timeframe. TVA does not believe that PORC approval of any document solely to support schedular aspects should be paramount to ensuring safety and accuracy are maintained. 'There was no safety impact due to missing this conmitment. )

l In summary, TVA admits the stated commitment was not met. The cited q commitment should have been more properly worded such that a schedule-driven 1 PORC approval was not a commitment. Future commitments will be closely reviewed to ensure the desired results may be achieved consistent with l timeliness and prudence, and NRC will be notified in a timely manner if commitments cannot be met.

l 1

4

'+  % n +.w b w k.' Ai :h h .& g y'& &C * -