ML20128B891
| ML20128B891 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 06/25/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128B826 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8507030375 | |
| Download: ML20128B891 (3) | |
Text
-.
~
[f[
+
UNITED STATES g,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM',11SSION j
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
[,,,.*
SAFETY EVALUATION RY THE OFrICE OF NilCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMEllT NO. 40 TO FACILITY OPERATINn LTCENSE DPR-77 AND AMENDMENT NO. 32 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICCNSE DDR 79 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY INTRODUCTION These amendments address Technical Specificatien chances that ware requested by 4
Tennessee Valley Authority (the licensee) for SecuoYah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, which are as follows:
(1)
Section 3.3.3.7 of the Sequoyah Unit 1 and 2 Technical Specifications set forth the limiting conditions for operation for accident monitoring instrumentation. The ACTION statemants limit centinued clant operation in Modes 1, 2, or 3 to 7 days when one channel of accident monitoring instrumentation is inoperable and to 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> when redundant channels are inoperable..Since only one channel is provided for the reactor coolant system subcoolino trargin monitor, its out-of-service limit was l'
specified as 7 days.
By letters dated Aucust 19 and October 24, 19P3, I
the licensee requested a change in the limiting conditions for operation which are applicable to the subcooling margin monitor. The proposed change would limit the.out-of-service time of the subcooling margin monitor to 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> instead of 7 days.
Further, the proposed chance would permit the licensee to increase the minimum shift crew by one member who would be dedicated to and capable of determining the sub-cooling margin during an accident using existina-instrumentation if the subcooling monitor is not restored to operable status in 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />.
(2)
On December 10, 1981, the licensee proposed charges for Units 1 and ? on fire hose hydrostatic test pressure requirements'that would make them consistent with NRC requirements.
(3)
On February 22, 1984, the licensee stated that changes to the BASES to make them consistent with the requested changes on 90erational limits associated with the pressurizer nozzle were omitted from their letter of July 21, 1983. Amendments 25 and 36 on pressurizer sprav nozzle were not affected by the omission since the BASES statements are not part of the Technical Specifications, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.36.
EVALUATION (1)
The licensee's proposti to limit the out-of-ser rice limit off the single channel subcooling margin monitor from 7 days to 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> is consistent with the limitation est1blished for redundant channels i.e., the out-o#-
service limit for a par 6 meter of accident monitoring instruqentation.
Therefore, the staff finds that this change is acceptable.
8507030375 850e.25 PDR ADOCK 05000327 g
PDR c-
-?.
In the event that the subcooling margin monitor is out-of-service and cannot be restored to operable status within the 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> limit, the proposed change would also permit the dedication of an individual to the task of determining the subcooling margin based on indications of reactor coolant system temperature and pressure. Since this individual would be in addition to the minimum shift crew requirements, this would not place an additional burden on the plant staff during an accident and is, therefore, an acceptable alternative.
(2)
The revision to the fire hose hydrostatic test pressure requirements was made on Unit 1 ( Amendment No.13) but inadvertently omitted for Unit 2.
Fire hose hydrostatic testing for nuclear plants was changed by the NRC to be conducted at a pressure of 150 psig, instead of 300 psig, or at least 50 psig above maximum fire main operating, pressure, whichever is greater.
(3)
The Technical Specification chances for operational limits for the pres-surizer sprav nozzle were issued on November 23, 1983 (Amendments 28, 361 The proposed BASES changes are consistent with the operational limits identified in the technical specification. Therefore, the revision is acceptable.
ENVIRONMENT 4L CONSIDERATION These amendments involve changes in the installation of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has determined that the amendments involve no sionificant 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 Ccmission has previously issued a pro-posed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, the amend-ments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Section 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.?2(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
CONCLUSION The Commission made proposed determinations that the anendments involve no significant hazards consideration which were published in the Federal Reaister on January 26, 1984 (49 FR 3357), September 28, 1984 (49 FR 38410), and December 31, 1984 (49 FR 508261 and consulted with the state of Tennessee. Ne public comments were received, and the state of Tennessee did not have any comments.
4
_,-.m,_..-.-._
_.__---_y
- We have concludod, 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, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors: Carl R. Stahle, Licensing Branch No. 4 DL T. Dunning, Instrumentation and Control Systems Branch, DSI Dated: June 25, 1985 6
9 9
9 9
I
.