ML20070B555
| ML20070B555 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 01/29/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20070B553 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9101310237 | |
| Download: ML20070B555 (3) | |
Text
_ _..
d
~q'g UNITED STATES
["
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
wAsmNGTON, o. C. 20555
\\,....+/
ENCLOSURE 2 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.139 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. OPR-79 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SE000YAH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT 2 000KET NO.,50-328
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated August 31, 1990, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) proposed a change to Section 3/4.6.1, Primary Containment, of the Sequoyah Unit 2 TechnicalSpecifications(TSs). This change would revise the Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.6.1.2.a on the containment integrated leak rate test (ILRT),
or Appendix J Type A, test. This change would delete the requirement that the third ILRT of each 10-year period must be conducted during the 10-year unit inservice inspection. This would allow the third ILRT for Unit 2 to be con-ducted in the Unit 2 Cycle 5 refueling outage and the 10-year unit inservice inspection to be conducted in the Unit 2 Cycle 6 refueling outage.
In addi-tion, the TS Bases for this SR would be revised to add the statement that the third ILRT of each 10-year period dces.not have to be conducted during the unit shutdown for the 10-year inservice inspection. This is TVA TS Change Request 90-11.
This proposed change to the Unit 1 TSs was issued in'the staff's letter dated September 29, 1989. The TVA application for the change to the Unit 1 TSs is dated May 5,1989.
2.0. EVALUATION.
Appendix J requires that a set of three Type A tests be performed during each 10-year service period with the third test being conducted when the plant is shut down for the 10-year plant inservice inspection. The proposed TS change would eliminate the requirement of conducting the third Type A test of a 10-year service pericd during the shutdown for the 10-year unit inservice inspection.
The purpose for requiring the third Type A test during shutdown for the 10-year plant inservice inspection is to assure that the three Type A tests are not bunched together during the first 90 months of the 10-year operation cycle. P.equiring the third Type A test during the 10-year plant inservice inspection assures that the three Type A tests are evenly spaced over the 10-year' interval.
TVA stated that the third Type A test of the first 10-year service period for Unit 2 is presently scheduled to commence toward the end of the Unit 2 Cycle S 9101310237 910129 PDR ADOCK 05000320 P
.- refuelingoutage(i.e., Pay,1992).
It intends to conduct the Unit 2 10-year inservice inspection during the t' nit 2 Cycle 6 refueling outage (i.e., October-November,1993).
Unit 2 was shut down from August 1985 to May 1988. The extension of the 10-year plant inservice inspection is required because the extended 33-month shutdown outage for Unit 2 in 1985 to 1988 necessit6tes this extension in order for the plant to accumulate sufficient uperating time to conduct the 10-year plant inservice inspection.
In accordance with the provisions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASPE) Code Section XI, Article IWA-2400(c),
TVA extended the Unit 2 10-year plant inscrvice inspection until the Unit 2 Cycle 6 refueling outage. AS!!ECodeSectionXI,ArticleIWA-2499(c)allowsthe 10-year plant inservice inspection to be postponed if the time the plant has operated is significantly less than the 10-year inspection cycle.
Additionally, not extending the inservice inspection would impose hardship on the licensee with little or no increase in the level of quality or safety at Unit 2.
This inspection is not related to containment integrity requirements of Appendix J.
The purpose of the Appendix J test program is to ensure that leakage through the primary reactor contaircent and systems and the components penetratir.g primary containment does not exceed allowable leakage rate values.
The purpose of the ASlit Code Section XI inservice inspection program is to ensure that structural integrity of Class 1, 2, and 3 components is maintained in accordance with ASME Code requirements. Therefore, the proposed separation has to safety consequences because the rcquirements on containment integrity in Appendix 0 ano the TSs, and on structural integrity of Class 1, 2, and 3 comptr.ents in the ASME Code are not being changed by the proposed change to SR 4.6.1.2.s.
Since the 10-year unit inservice inspection will be conducted at Sequoyah in the twelf th year af ter initial plant startup, the third Type A test will be uncoupled from the unit inservice inspection in order for the three Type A tests over the 10-year service period to be evenly spaced.
By uncouplirig the third Type A test from the 10-year unit inservice inspection, the third Type A test will ccntinue to be conducted at the end of the 10-year service period in accordance with the requirements of Appendix J and the 10-year unit inservice inspection will continue to be conducted in accordance with the ASi1E Code.
Based on the above, the staff concludes that the prcposed changes in TVA's application dated August 31, 1990 are acceptable.
3.0 ENJ,RONMENTALCONSIDERATI0M This amendment involves a char.ge to a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes to the surveillance requircrents.
The staff has detcrmined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and nc significant change in the types, of er,y 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 haz "ds
o.
, 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 Federal' Register (55 FR 42101) on October 17, 1990 and consulted with the State of Tenliessee.
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 safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities
.will be conducted-in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
J. Donohew Dated: January 29, 1991 l.
i l.
l l
.