ML20205E500

Forwards Addl Technical Info Request on Proposed Interim Criteria,As Part of Restart Effort.Response Requested by 860820

ML20205E500
Person / Time
Site:	Sequoyah
Issue date:	08/07/1986
From:	Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	White S TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
References
NUDOCS 8608180380
Download: ML20205E500 (4)

Text

__ __

, , AUG 0 71986 Docket Nos. 50-327/328 Mr. Steven A. White Manager of Nuclear Power Tennessee Valley Authority 6N 38A Lookout Place 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2601

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE SEQUOYAH RESTART EFFORT On July 18, 1986, and during the week of July 21, 1986, members of the staff met with representatives from the Tennessee Valley Authority (T/A) and perfonned an inspection at the TVA Knoxville office. The reason for these efforts was to permit the staff with an cpportunity to review the interim criteria and alternate analysis which is part of the Sequoyah restart effort. As a result, the staff has identified several areas where additional information is required. The detailed requests are provided in the enclosure.

Because the majority of these questions were provided to your staff at the July 18, 1986 meeting and the remainder were identified at the July 24, 1986 exit meeting, TVA should provide its responses by August 20, 1986, in order to support the Sequoyah restart date. If you cannot meet this date with respect to some of the questions, please provide the schedule to which TVA will submit the responses.

There are several cuestions on cable tray supports which are generic in nature and applicable to Sequoyah that the staff will transmit to TVA in the near future.

If you have any questions, please contact the project manager for this area, Mr. Joseph Holonich, at FTS 492-7270.

Sincer ly, B. J. Youngblood, Director PWR Project Directorate #4 Division of PWR Licensing-A

Enclosure:

As stated cc: See Next Page DISTRIBUTION: See Other Page

• See Previous Concurrence [

1. 4/DPWR-A EB PWR'/'. -A JHolonich:lh *RBallard BJYourt od 08/ /86 08/ /86 08/ /86 8608180380 860807 PDR ADOCK 05000327 P PDR

I ., .. .

Mr. S. A. White Tennessee Valley Authority Sequoyah Nuclear Plant cc: '-

Herbert S. Sanger, Jr. , Esq. Tennessee Department of Public General Counsel Health Tennessee Valley Authority ATTN: Director, Bureau of 400 West Summit Hill Drive, E 11B 33 Environmental Health Services Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Cordell Hull Building Nashville, Tennessee 37219 Mr. K. W. Whitt Mr. Michael H. Mobley, Director Tennessee Valley Authority Division of Radiological Health 400 West Summit Hill Drive, E3A8 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. Jerry Wills Tennessee Valley Authority SN 133B Lookout Place Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801 Mr. Donald L. Williams, Jr.

Tennessee Valley Authority 400 West Sunnit Hill Drive, W10885 Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Resident Inspector /Sequoyah NPS c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2600 Igou Ferry Road

- Soddy Daisy, Tennessee 37379 l Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 101 Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 l

I I .. .. .

ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION RE0 VEST ON PROPOSED INIERIM CRIILKIA

1. Provide a description of the analysis procedures being used for interim criteria. Compare these to the original Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) analyses. Include the technical basis for the analyses based on the interim criteria. ,

2. Describe how the Design Basis Accident (DBA) response spectra for the cable trays within the reactor containment have been developed. How many supports are affected by the DBA spectra? l

3. Provide description of how anchor bolt load capacities were determined t,y TVA.

4. Are there any employee concerns which deal with the alternate analysis or

, interim criteria being used in the cable tray and piping program?

i. 5. Provide TVA's best estimate of its schedule for Post-Restart Phase II program implementation.

6. Provide a list of exceptions to FSAR commitments being taken during the interim period. Also, provide a complete discussion of technical basis for all interim criteria proposed.

7. What are the QA/QC procedures that will be applied to Phases I and II of the restart program? Describe any differences between these procedures and those used in the original cable tray design and construction.

8. Describe the walkdown procedures for data-gathering to ensure that the interim cable tray qualification program adequately reflects as built conditions.

9. Amplify justification for separating the secondary stresses for piping or l

provide alternate technical approaches for justifying the decoupling of the secondary stresses due to thermal and seismic induced anchor motions.

10. Provide additional justification for the 2 Sy stress level use in faulted primary stresses.

11. Provide a description of the background studies or evaluations which were l performed to demonstrate that the alternate analysis is equivalent to or more conservative than the rigorous analysis. If it is less conservative, provide the basis for the acceptability of the alternate analysis.

1

\

i ) *

!x_ ,_J. .

l DISTRIBUTION:

1 6 es2a NRC PDR Local PDR PRC System NSIC i PWRf4 Rdg. I MDuncan l BJYoungblood Rdg. I JHolonich TVA0G (3) S. Richardson AR 5029 i HDenton JTaylor BHayes GZech  !

NGrace  !

LSpessard SWeise, RII SAConnelly DMuller TNovak BJYoungblood CStable TKenyon WLong TAlexion BKSingh KHooks ACRS (10)

OELD JPartlow BGrimes EJordan DTerao FRinaldi RBallard l

l l

l l

__