ML20077F982
| ML20077F982 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 07/26/1983 |
| From: | Kammer D TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | Adensam E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8308030242 | |
| Download: ML20077F982 (3) | |
Text
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY CHATTANOOGA. TENNESSEE 374ol 400 Chestnut Street Tower II July 26, 1983 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention:
Ms. E. Adensam, Chief Licensing Branch No. 4 Division of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Ms. Adensam:
In the Matter of
)
Docket No.
50-327 Tennessee Valley Authority
)
50-328 In a recent telephone conversation with Carl Stahle of your staff, we learned that the NRC has not been able to complete the review of the proposed technical specification change to modify the surveillance requirements for testing of containraent penetration protective fbses (TVA-SQN-TS-35, Change No. 4). For Sequoyan Nuclear Plant unit 2 operations, interim relief from the surveillance requirement similar to that granted for unit 1 would be acceptable. Enclosed is a significant hazards consideration determination for the interim relief period in accordance with 10 CFR 50.92. Our evaluation has revealed that no.significant hazards considerations are involved.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please get in touch with J. E. Wills at FTS 858-2683 Very truly yours, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY os %
D. S. Kammer Nuclear Engineer Sworn d subscr bed before me this ay of 1983 Notary Public
~5dh My Commission Expires Enclosure oc:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Enclosure)
Region II Attn:
Mr. James P. O'Reilly Administrator 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 cc: Continued on page 2 8308030242 830726 PDR ADOCK 05000327 1963-TVA SOTH ANNIVERSARY An Equal Opportunity Employer
ut U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coimaission July 26, 1983 Mr. Michael H. Mobley, Director (Enclosure)
Division of Radiological Health T.E.R.R.A. Building 150 9th Avenue North Nashville, Tennessee 37203 M
i l
ENCLOSURE
- e SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATIONS DETERMINATION 1.
Is the probability of an occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the safety analysis report increased?
No.
The fuse manufacturer has provided information to TVA that current limiting fuses of the type used at Sequoyah will, under no condition, become less protective over the life of the fuse.
Therefore, an interim relief from the surveillance requirement does not involve an increase in the probbility of an accident previously evaluated.
2.
Is the possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than evaluated previously in the safety analysis report created?
No.
Performance of a visual inspection does not create any new failure modes. The possibility of damaging the fuses or fuse holders is eliminated preventing any possibility of deenergization of equipment from testing. Therefore, interim relief does not create the possibility of a different type of accident or malfunction than previously evaluated.
3 Is the margin of safety as defined in the basis of any technical speci-fication reduced?
No.
The possibility of damages to the fuses or fuse holders is eliminated, thus preventing deenergization of equipment from testing. Therefore; the interim relief will not reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for the technical specification.
l l
l I
j%SM W -
%W E+.-.
e'-
E%~. Ms4 w'h%F e
h-.84 - '
" E M9