ML20247C208

Responds to 890508 Questions Re Status of TMI Action Plan Requirements at Plant.Nrc Determined That Operation of Control Room,W/O Mods to Control Room Ventilation Sys, Adequate for Operation Up to 5% Rated Power

ML20247C208
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	05/12/1989
From:	Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Markey E HOUSE OF REP.
Shared Package
ML20247C215	List: ML20247C208 ML20247C221
References
NUDOCS 8905240370
Download: ML20247C208 (4)

Text

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

i a dou,#'o UNITED STATES

.s# *g

[f) d-

' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ~

[4

'. g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20S55 y p N* *** */ May 12,_1989 CHAIRMAN

'The Honorable Edward J. Markey United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515

Dear Congressman Markey:

At your_ request. I'am enclosing the NRC staff's response to the questions contained in your letter of May 8th, 1989, concerning the status of Three Mile Island action items at the Seabrook-Station.

Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please call me.

Sincerely, W, N, Lando W. h, .

Enclosure:

As stated I

l l l l'

l l

8905240370 890512 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDC 1- - _ - - _ _ - - _ _ _ . . - _ _ _ - - - -

j

ENCLOSURE Questions and Answers Concernina the Status of TMI Action-Plan Requirements at Seabrook Question 1 According to your respons9, two of the three outstanding TMI Action Plan items must be completed befor- the issuance of a full-power license. Why shouldn't the third, changes to the SPDS system software, be completed before full power' operation as well?

Response

-Several SPDS system software changes are required before exceeding 5% of rated power. However, as indicated in Chairman Zech's May 4, 1989 letter, system availability calculations and a load test must be conducted and reported to the NRC staff. These activities require plant conditions encountered during power operation and thus cannot be completed until power operation.

Question 2 No deadlines are given for outstanding items one and two, yet there is a j target cate of May 31, 1989 for implementation of changes to the SPOS system software. Why are there no deadlines or target dates for implementation of the other two outstanding items? What action will the NRC take if the May 31, 1989 target date is not met?

Response

One of the two outstanding items, III. A.2.1 (upgrade emergency plans), which is currently involved in litigation, is dependent on the date the hearing board will issue a decision and on what actions are required by the decision; therefore, completion cannot be readily forocasted. The other outstanding item, III.

D.3.4.3 (control room habitability), must be completed before exceeding 5% of rated power.

The ASLB partial initial decision of March 25, 1987, required that several system Therefore, if software upgrades be made before exceeding 5% of rated power.

the May 31, 1989 target date is not met and if the plant has a low power license, the plant may operate up to 5% of rated power but may not exceed this rating until the requirement is met.

Question 3 Please explain how items one and two can be incomplete, yet adecuate, for low-power operation but not for full-power operation. Why is it not appropriate to complete them, as well as the software requirements or item three, before the issuance of a low-power license?

Response

Item one, III. A.2.1 (upgrade emergency plans), is not an issue for low power operation. When the Commission amended its regulation on emergency planning and preparedness on October 24, 1988, the requirement for a public alerting and notification system for issuance of a license authorizing low power operation was: eliminated by this rule change.

l 2

Regarding item two III. D.3.4.3 (control room habitability), the staff detemined that with reactor power level maintained at or less than 5% of rated power, the applicants could maintain doses to the control room operators that meet General Design Criterion 19; therefore, the staff found the operation of the control room, without the modifications to the control room ventilation system, adequate for cperation up to 5% of rated power.

The staff considers the actions taken by the applicants and the schedules for completion of these actions to be appropriate.

Question 4 The second outstanding TMI Action Plan item, modifications for control roon habitability, was approved by the NRC staff on August 24, 1988. Please describe the modifications which remain to be made and why they have not yet been fully implemented. What is the significance of having the modifications made as the plant begins start-up? Should not all major modifications be completed before start-up?

Response

Most of the modifications have been completed. The major items remaining to be done include removing some existing duct work, installing new ducting and dampers, installing new instruments and associated cabling, and testing the system.

The staff's analyses support operations up to 5% of rated power. Therefore, before exceeding 5% of rated power all modifications must be complete.

Question 5 As indicated in New Hampshire Yankee's April 18, 1989 response to the Commission's TMI Action Plan Status questionnaire, item II.D.1--Relief and Safety Valve Test Requirements--is considered to be completed. Other than New Hampshire Yankee's assurances, does the Comission have cause to remove this from the list of outstanding items? Have confirmatory actions been taken?

Please explain why this item is considered to be completed.

I Response As part of its review of TMI Action Plan Item II.D.1, Relief and Safety Valve Test requirements, the staff contracted with EG&G Idaho, Inc. to perform a technical evaluation of New Hampshire Yankee's (NHY) November 23, 1967 submittal that provided a basis for closure of this item. The contractor's technical evaluation, dated March 29, 1989, of the NHY submittal concluded that NHY partially met the requirements of TMI Item II.D.I. For the

. . \

i contractor and staff to conclude that all the requirements were met, informa-tion from NHY was required to confirm / clarify certain matters. This

information was obtained 'n a telephone conversation between members of the NRC staff and NHY on April 24, 1989. . NHY supplied information, which was subse-quently confirmed in writing, that provided sufficient basis for the NRC staff's closure of this item. The documentation of this closure will appear in a safety evaluation report targeted to be issued by May 31, 1989. j l

NRC's program for inspection of TMI Action Plan items does not require inspec- l tions for closure of this item. The safety valves, PORVs, and PORV block valves at Seabrook are the same size and model that performed satisfactorily for test sequences considered representative of, or that c ind, conditions to which the valves could be exposed. This testing was conducced by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and was found acceptable by the NRC staff to demonstrate operability of the valves. Therefore, based upon the EPRI testing program and the NRC staff's detailed review of the NHY submittals, NHY was found to have met the requirements for this item.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _