ML20141K148
| ML20141K148 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 01/14/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20141K136 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8601220267 | |
| Download: ML20141K148 (4) | |
Text
j[8 jo UNITED STATES g
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
- p CASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 42 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE DPR-77 AND AMENDMENT N0. 34 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE DPR-79 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY I.
INTRODUCTION These amendments address the following Technical Specification changes which were requested by the Tennessee Valley Authority (the licensee) for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2:
(1) By letter dated October 2, 1984, and revised September 27, and December 9, 1985, the licensee proposed modifications to portions of their Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications (RETS).
l Specifically these proposed changes for the Sequoyah 1 and 2 RETS occur on pages 1-4,1-6, and 1-6a of the Definitions; LCO Surveil-lance and Bases for TS 3/4.3.3.9, 3/4.3.3.10, 3/4.11 and 3/4.12; Figure 5.1-1; and portions of Section 6 including 6.5.2.7.n, 6.5.3.6, 6.8.1.h, 6.8.4.b, 6.9.1.6, 6.9.1.7, 6.9.1.8, 6.9.1.9, 6.13, 6.14 and 6.15.
(2) By a letter dated November 7, 1984 and revised December 9, 1985, the licensee requested a Technical Specification (TS) change which deletes Table 3.8-1 (pages 3/4 8-17 through 3/4 8-33) of the contain-ment penetration conductor overcurrent protective devices from TS Section 3/4 8.3 (Electrical Equipment Protective Devices) and its references throughout the TS. The table provides information regard-ing location of the protective device and the system powered along with trip setpoint and response time parameters for the device. As an alternative, the licensee proposed that the table be maintained and updated by appropriate plant procedures, i.e., surveillance instructions (SI).
TI.
EVALUATION (1) Most of the licensee's proposed changes are administrative in nature and incorporate clarifications in the wording of the TS development in NRC guidance during the years since the original Sequoyah RETS were issued. These changes do not affect the technical content or intent of the TS. Those TS in which there are changes in technical content, 3
rug such as the secondary system sampling requirements and the containment I'n.
venting sampling requirements, are in line with the increased operating flexibility with no accompanying reduction in safety provided by recent S
NRC RETS guidance. Subsequent to the original public notice of this
'80 proposed change, the licensee requested further modificatior.s to the g*
Technical Specifications which the staff has judged to be administra-d tive and insignificant in nature and hence no renoticing was deemed p
necessary.
The staff has reviewed these proposed changes as stated and found that om
$fo.
they meet the intent of the NRC model Radiological Effluent Technical i
l Specifications (RETS) for PWRs, NUREG-0472, Revision 2, February 1, 1980, and are acceptable.
Furthennore, they make these requirements l
g.
.. for Sequoyah Units 1 and 2 consistent with the most recent revision of NRC guidance and with the RETS proposed for the licensee's Watts Bar plant.
(2) The containment electrical penetration assemblies are designed to withstand, without loss of mechanical integrity, fault current for the time required for the backup circuit protection to operate, assuming a failure of the primary protection device.
The require-ment, therefore, 's for two protective oevices (a combination of circuit breakers or fuses) in series.
The licensee contends that deletion of the table provides the needed flexibility for changes without requiring a license amendment and allows them more expeditious implementation of required modification.
In order to ensure the integrity of the containment penetration, the licensee stated that any modification relative to the overcurrent
~
device will require an Unreviewed Safety Question Determination by the proposed SI procedures and the changes will be documented by the Workplan Control Form.
They, further, stated that the table has already been incorporated into appropriate SI groups where it belongs.
Subsequent to the criginal puolic notice of this proposed change, the licensee requested further modifications to the Technical Specifica-tions which the staff has judged to be administrative and insignificant in nature and hence no renoticing was deemed necessary.
The staff has reviewed the proposed TS change and finds the amendments only involve deletion of the Table 3.8-1 and affect neither the plant operation (TS 3.8.3.1) nor surveillance requirements (TS 4.8.3.1).
In view of the fact that the table will be maintained under the plant procedures (SI) and any modifications to the table will be documented and reviewed under an Unreviewed Safety Questions Detennination in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59, the staff finds that maintenance of the list in the appropriate plant procedures will not adversely affect or endanger the health of the general public in eliminating any future TS change request of this nature.
In a similar action, Generic Letter 84-13 dated May 3,1984, granted a similar change for administratively controlling the table for snubbers.
Therefore, the staff recomends that deletion of the Table 3.8-1 from the TS and the administrative changes be granted.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION These amendments involve changes in the use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has determined that the amendments involve 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 Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public coment on such finding.
's* '
s Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.22(b),
no environmental impact statement of environmental assessment need be pre-pared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
CONCLUSION The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register on December 31, 1984 (49 FR 50826) and consulted with the state of Tennessee.
No public comments were received, and the state of Tennessee did not have any comments.
We have 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, 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:
P. Kang, Power Systems Branch, DSI W. Meinke, Radiological Assessment Branch, DSI C. Stahle, Licensing Branch No. 4, DL J. Thompson, Licensing Branch No. 4,.0L Dated: January 14, 19P6 i
1
January 14, 1986 AMENDMENT N0. 42 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR Sequoyab Nuclear Plant AMENDMENT N0. 34 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR Sequoyab Nuclear Plant DISTRIBUTION w/ enclosures:
' Docket No. 50-327/328 NRC PDR Local PDR NSIC PRC System LB #4 r/f C. Stable M. Duncan OELD E. Adensam R. Diggs, ADM T. Barnbart (8)
E. L. Jordan, DE0A:I&E L. J. Harmon, I&E B. Grimes J. Partlow M. Virgilio W. Meinke, RAB P. Kang, PSB
+
./
l