ML20066D674
| ML20066D674 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 12/10/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20066D673 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9101150273 | |
| Download: ML20066D674 (2) | |
Text
_
/ p ate g.
l m [\\
UNITED STATES i.
NUCLE AR RFGULATORY COMMISSION s
l wAsstworoa. o. c. posss
\\...../
ENCLOSURE 2 SAFETYTVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION l
SUPPORTING AMENOMENT NO.137 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. OPR-79 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY l
SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-328
1.0 INTRODUCTION
ByletterdatedMay4,1990,theTennesseeValleyValleyAuthority(TVA) proposed changes to Section 3/4.3.3, Monitoring Instrumentation, of the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications (TSs). These changes would add two smoke detectors to Table 3.3-11. " Fire Detection Instru-ments." These smoke detectors were to be installed in the Cycle 4 refueling outage for eat.h unit. This is TVA Change Request 90-07.
The two smoke detectors have been installed at Unit 2 in the recent Unit 2 Cycle 4 refueling outage; therefore, the evaluation given below is on the proposed change to add these detectors to the Unit 2 TSs. The detectors for Unit I were installed in the Unit 1 Cycle 4 refueling outage which ended in June 1990.
The proposed changes for the Unit 1 TSs were issued by letter dated July 27,1990.
The evaluation below discusses the proposed changes to the Unit 2 TSs but applies to both units.
2.0 EVALUATION TVA proposed to revise Table 3.3-11 to reflect the addition of two smoke detec-tors in the volume control tank room during the Cycle 4 refueling outage for each unit.- TVA stated that it is installing the two photoelectric smoke detectors in the room entry labyrinth to provide redundant fire protection in the entry labyrinth. The modification will provide detectors cross-zoned in the same area so that the failure of one smoke detector will not result in a loss of fire detection capability in the room entry labyrinth. TVA stated that the TSs contain surveillance requirements for fire protection instrumenta-tion which protects safety-related equipment and, because the additional smoke detectors in the volume control tank-room meet this criteria, it proposed that these detectors be included in the TSs.
The staff reviewed the proposed changes to Table 3.3-11 and-agrees that the two additional smoke detectors should be included in'the table. This is an administrative change which does not revise any fire protection requirements in the TSs except to add the two additional detectors to. Table 3.3-11 because the detectors have been installed. Therefore, the staff concludes that the proposed change is acceptable.
9101150273 901210 PDR ADOCK 05000320 P
1 4
2 I
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change to a requirerent with respect to the install-ation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and-changes to the surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may-be _ released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding-that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accord.
ingly, the amendment meets the eligibility. criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement nor environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission made a proposed determination that the ' amendment involves no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Fedsral Register (55FR24004)onJune 13, 1990 and consulted with the State of Tennessee.
No public comments were received and the State of Tennessee did not have any comments.
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed:above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and.safet will not be endengered by operation in-the proposed manner,y of the public and(2)such activities will be conducted in coepliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendmer,ts will not be-inimical to the common defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
J. Donohew Dated:
December 10, 1990
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _. _