ML20236B549
| ML20236B549 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 03/09/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236B548 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8903210153 | |
| Download: ML20236B549 (3) | |
Text
._
' 8[
%O UNITED STATES i,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h.
g W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 e
r ENCLOSURE 3 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 104 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-77 AND AMENDMENT NO. 93 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-79 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-327 AND 50-328
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated December 6, 1988, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) proposed to modify the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN) Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications (TS). The proposed changes were to TS Section 3/4.4.2 to allow all three pressurizer code safety valves to be removed from the pressurizer and tested at the same time. TVA proposed to modify TS 3.4.2, Reactor Coolant System Limiting Conditions for Operation for Safety Valves - Shutdown, by adding a footnote:
"A safety valve is not required OPERABLE provided at least one safety valve is removed from the pressurizer and the associated RCS breech l
1s not covered by a pressure retaining membrane."
2.0 EVALUATION The staff sees no useful function for an operable code safety valve during shutdown (i.e., Modes 4 and 5) when the reactor coolant system (RCS) is open and adequately vented. The staft recognizes that, as written, Section 3/4.4.2 may be interpreted as requiring an operable code safety valve on the pressurizer even though the RCS is open to containment.
In the interest of avoiding such an interpretation, the staff accepts the proposed addition of a footnote eliminating the need for an operable code safety valve when at least one valve has been removed and the resulting RCS breech is not covered by a pressure retaining membrane.
This change has no effect on the intended protection of the primary coolant boundary from over pressure events by the code safety valves.
Some safety enhancement should result from more effecti,ve service and calibration practices on these valves.
The staff concludes that the proposed change is acceptable.
The change makes an explicit statement to avoid misapplication of the limiting Condition for Operation for the RCS code safety valves.
By allowing concurrent removal of all three code safety valves an unintended constraint to effective maintenance and calibration of the safety valves is removed from the TS.
%Nb P
'4
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
These amendments involve a change 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. 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 Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendments meet 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 these amendments.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (54 FR 1025) on January 11, 1989 and consulted with the State of Tennessee.
No public comments were received and the State of Tenn'essee 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, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and 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. Watt Dated: March 9, 1989 i
.e.
- f.. ):
Mr.Idliver D. Kingsley, Jr.: Sequoyah Nuclear Plant.
.cC:
General Counsel Regional Administrator, Region'II Tennessee Valley Authority
.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 400 West Summit Hill Drive 101 Marietta Street, N.W.
l Eli B33.
Atlanta, Georgia 30323 l'
Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Resident Inspector /Sequoyah NP Mr. R. L. Gridley c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission L
Tennessee' Valley Authority 2600 Igou Ferry Road SN 1578 Lookout Place Soddy Daisy, Tennessee 37379 Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801 Mr.. John.T. LaPoint Mr. Michael H.- Mobley, Director Tennessee Valley Authority Division of Radiological Health Sequoyah Nuclear Plant
.T.E.R.R. A. Building, 6th Floor P.O. Box 2000 150 9th Avenue North Soddy Daisy, Tennessee. 37379 Nashville, Tennessee 37219-5404 Mr. M. Ray Dr. Henry Myers, Science Advisor Tennessee Valley' Authority Committee on Interior Sequoyah Nuclear Plant and Insular Affairs P.O. Box 2000 U.S. House of Representatives Soddy Daisy, Tennessee 37379' Wr.shington, D.C._ 20515 Mr. D. L. Williams Ter.nessee Valley Authority Tennessee Valley Authority
-Rockville Office 400 West Summit Hill Drive 11921 Rockville Pike W10 B85 Suite 402 Knoxville, Tennessee -37902-Rockville, Maryland 20852 County Judge Hamilton County Courthouse Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402 i
i
- - -