ML20085G509
| ML20085G509 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 06/13/1995 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20085G497 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9506200240 | |
| Download: ML20085G509 (3) | |
Text
. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ -. -- _ - _-_ _ _ _-__ _ _ _____ _ _
ea"c og?*
p UNITED STATES
'l p.-
E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2056MW1 k... +,o8 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NVg EAR REACTOR REGULATION
+
RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 202 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-77 AND AMENDMENT NO. 192 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-79 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SE000YAH NUCLEAR PLANT. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-327 AND 50-328
1.0 INTRODUCTION
{
By application dated April 6, 1995, the Tennessee Valley Authority (the licensee) proposed an amendment to the Technical Specifications (TS) for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN) Units 1 and 2.
The requested changes would add a limiting condition for operation that would allow equipment to be returned to service under administrative control to perform operability testing.
Related Bases changes would also be incorporated. Another proposed change would establish the time interval to place an inoperable channel in the bypass condition.
The first change would be accomplished by incorporating Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.6, which would state:
Equipment removed from service or declared inoperable to comply with ACTIONS may be returned to service under administrative control solely to perform testing required to demonstrate its OPERABILITY or the OPERABILITY of other equipment.
This is an exception to LC0 3.0.1 and 3.0.2 for the system returned to service under administrative control to perform the testing required to demonstrate OPERABILITY.
The change to the Bases would provide amplifying information and explanation related to this LCO.
The second proposed change would modify Table 3.3-3, Action Statement 18, by specifying that the applicable channel must be placed in the bypass condition "within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />" of it becoming inoperable.
l 2.0 EVALUATION 2.1 Operability LCO TS 3.0.1 requires compliance with the LCOs during the operational modes or other conditions specified in the TS except upon failure to meet the LCO, the i
l applicable action requirements must be met.
TS 3.0.2 specifies that noncompliance with a specification shall exist when the requirements of the i
LCO and associated action statements are not met within the specified time interval.
In addition, if the LC0 is restored prior to expiration of the 9506200240 950613 PDR ADOCK 05000327 P
/
PDR b
t=
.' specified time interval, completion of the action statement is not required.
Neither of these specifications address placing equipment in service to verify its operability. Therefore, it could be interpreted that such action is not allowed, which could create problems in performing some operability surveillances necessary to return equipment to service.
In the past, however, such surveillance tests have been performed with the understanding that the intent of TS 3.0.1 and 3.0.2 is consistent with this position.
To clarify this condition, the licensee submitted an amendment to add LC0 3.0.6 that will clearly allow such tests to oe performed prior to declaring the equipment or other related equipment operable.
The purpose of performing surveillance tests following a period when equipment was not operable, is to ensure that the equipment is capable of performing its intended safety function prior to it being declared operable. At times it is necessary to return the equipment to service for a short period of time under administrative controls in order to perform a valid test. Thus, the benefit of allowing this condition to be established under adequate controls is important from an operable safety consideration.
In addition, the proposed change is consistent with the Westinghouse Standard TS (STS), NUREG-1431.
Based on this analysis, the staff has determined that the proposed change h acceptable.
The staff also finds the related change to add Bases 3.0.6 acceptable since it contains information to explain how the LC0 will be used that is consistent with the STS.
2.2 Channel To Bypass Table 3.3-3, " Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System Instrumentation,"
Action 18 is applicable to the following Functional Units:
a.
Containment Spray System, Containment Pressure High-High b.
Phase "B" Isolation, Containment Pressure High-High c.
Steam Line Isolation, Containment Pressure High-High d.
Automatic Switchover to Containment Sump on RWST level low coincident with Containment Sump level high and Safety Injection.
Action 18 contains the allowable conditions fcr continued unit operation if one of these instruments is inoperable provided that the instrument channel is placed in the bypass condition.
It does not, however, specify a time interval for placing the inoperable channel into the bypass condition.
Therefore, the licensee has proposed to specify that this must be accomplished within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> in order to eliminate any potential confusion caused by this lack of a defined duration.
Plt.cing the inoperable instrument into the bypass condition reduces the potential for equipment damage that could result from unnecessary containment spraydown or premature containment sump swapover that may occur due to an inoperable instrument.
Even though this action results in a reduction in the safety system function actuation afforded by the instrument, this is offset by 4
m i
1 cf I the ability to maintain the integrity of the safety equipment, prevention of equipment damage caused by premature actuation, and the redundancy built into the design of the safety systems.
The requirement in Action 18 to place an inoperable instrument listed above into the bypass condition is already contained in the present TS, only the time interval of 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> would be added.
This change does not result in a decrease in nuclear safety and is consistent with the Westinghouse Standard Technical Specifications, NUREG-1431.
Therefore, the staff finds the proposed change satisfactory.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Tennessee State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant inerease 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 the i
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (60 FR 20530).
Accordingly, 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 or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission 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 amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: David E. LaBarge Dated:
June 13, 1995