ML20028C688
| ML20028C688 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 12/29/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20028C687 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8301130218 | |
| Download: ML20028C688 (2) | |
Text
_
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENOMENT NO. 25TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE OPR-77 AND AMENDMENT NO.13 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE DPR-79 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY INTRODUCTION By letter dated August 12, 1982, the licensee proposed a change to the Technical Specifications concerning the surveillance requirements for the ice condenser intermediate deck doors and inlet doors. The chcage would clarify present wording and decrease surveillance frequency from every 6 nonths to every year.
EVALUATION Technical Specifications 4.6.5.3.1.6 and 4.6.5.3.2.6 presently require certain surveillance (demonstration of door operability) be performed "at least once per 3 months during the first year after the ice bed is fully loaded," and at a lower frequency thereafter, for the ice condenser inlet doors and intermediate deck doors.
The licensee proposes to change the words "... after the ice bed is fully loaded" to "... after the initial ice bed loading."
The reason for the proposed change is to clarify the intent of the surveillance requi rement.
The 3-month cycles were intended to ensure that there were no struc-tural, design, or freezing problems associated with the new doors.
The surveil-lance conducted during the 3-month intervals and operating experience indicate that no design problems exist and that freezing problems have been minimal.
As presently stated in the Technical Specifications, the 3-month surveillance interval could be imposed following ice bed meltout and reload.
The proposed change removes that ambiguity.
The staff concludes that this change to the Technical Specifica-tions is acceptable.
Technical Specification 4.6.5.3.1.6 also presently requires that once the ice bed is fully loaded, the surveillance frequency be at least once per 6 months.
The licensee proposes to change this frequency to at least once per year.
The surveil-lance itself involves measuring the torque required to open and hold open the inlet doors.
The Unit I doors have been tested ten times and the Unit 2 doors have been tested three times; only one test failure has occurred, and this failed by less than a 1 % margin. Since inlet door surveillance necessitates unit shutdown, the pro-posed yearly surveillance following the initial year of operation could then be coordinated with the required yearly ice weighing outage.
8301130218 821229 PDR ADOCK 05000327 P
PDR orrice >
sua m e>
om)
Nac ronu m oo4omacu cao OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usaco: mi-mmo
L
. The staff, therefore, concludes that based on the excellent perfomance to date of the ice condenser inlet doors, the test frequency may be decreased to at least once per year without significant increase in the associated risk to the health and safety of the public, and that the proposed changes to the Technical Specifications are acceptable.
Also included in the August 12, 1982, transmittal was a request to change notation for Table 4.3-9.
The change is necessary to reflect the installation of downscale failure alams as required by Unit 1 operating license (0/L) condition 2.C(18).a and Unit 2 0/L condition 2.C(11).a.
The staff finds the proposed change acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any signif-icant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further con-cluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the stand-point of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4), that an environ-nental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
CONCLUSION We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that. (1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or con-sequences of accidents previously considered, does not create the possibility of an accident of a type different from any evaluated previously, and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regu-lations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the cornaon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: December 29, 1982 Principal Contributors: James Pulsipher, Containment Systems Branch, DSI Melanie Miller, Licensing Branch No. 4,DL Carl Stahle, Licensing Branch No. 4 DL
)
A,
.5S..
"dA omerp
..i.
SURNAME)
."..~...m.m.m.
m="-""=..
" ~ ~ ""==" -
~ " " " *
- * ~ ~ * " " " ~ " " *
......d.................
12/ T/82
" """"g~"""
- 12
/82 12/ /82 1."2./ /82 12
/82
""""]~~**""~~
CATe)
" ~ ~ " " ~ -
" * ~ * " =
unc ronu ms o0-8Q NRCM MO OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usam mi-us-=