ML20245L359
| ML20245L359 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 04/28/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245L348 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8905080012 | |
| Download: ML20245L359 (5) | |
Text
[
na m\\
UNITED STATES s
p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r,,
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666
...../
I ENCLOSURE 3 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.112 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-77 AND AMENDMENT NO.102 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 June 10, 1987, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) proposed changes to the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications (TS).
The changes would transfer requirements from Section 3/4.3.3.1,.
" Radiation Monitoring Instrumentation," to Section 3/4.3.3.7, " Accident Monitoring Instrumentation," of the TS.
This is to transfer requirements from Tables 3.3-6 and 4.3-3 to Tables 3.3-10 and 4.3-7.
These proposed changes would affect the post-accident containment area monitors and noble gas effluent l
monitors.
These high-range radiation monitors are Items II.F.1.3 and II.F.1.1, respectively, of NUREG-0737, "TMI Action Plan Requirements," dated November 1980.
For the post-accident noble gas effluent monitors, additional requirements would be added to the TS. A change would also correct a typographical error on page 3/4 3-42 for Unit 1:
" Moses" would be replaced by " Modes."
In a letter dated January 25, 1984. TVA submitted a requested change to the TS as required by NUREG-0737 and Generic Letter (GL) 83-37, "NUREG-0737 Technical Specifications," dated November 1,1983.
NRC requested additional information to complete the review of Table 3.3-6, " Radiation Monitoring Instrumentation."
TVA's efforts to provide the additional information resulted in the need for additional changes which were submitted in a letter dated December 9,1985.
TVA stated that, to avoid confusion, the changes involving Section 3/4.3.3.1,
" Radiation Monitoring Instrumentation," for these post-accident monitors in the letters dated January 25, 1984 and December 9,1985 were withdrawn and resubmitted as proposed changes in this application.
The post-accident containment radiation and noble gas effluent monitors provide information during and following an accident.
This infonnation is helpful to the operator in assessing the plant condition.
TVA stated that these monitors have been installed in the plant and, therefore, should be added to the list of accident instrumentation in Section 3/4.3.3.7 of the TS.
%0$00$
b P
/
i 2
2.0 EVALUATION 2.1 Introduction Item II.F.1.1 of NUREG-0737 required that noble gas effluent monitors be installed with an extended range to function during accident conditions as well as during normal operating conditions. TVA stated that it has installed Eber11ne Model Nos. SA-14 and SA-15 noble gas monitors for the shield building exhaustventand-thecondenservacuumexhaustvgntat{equoyah. The SA-14 to 10 mC1/cc and the SA-15 l
model is a mid-range monitor with a range of 10 i S
model is a high range monitor with a range of 10 to 10 mC1/cc. TVA also stated that the low-range noble gas monitors for these release paths are already included in TS 3/4.3.3.10," Radioactive Gaseous Effluent Monitoring Instrumentation."
Item II.F.1.3 of NUREG-0737 required that containment high-range radiation mo9 tors be installed with a maximum range of 10 rad /hr (total radiation) or 1
10 rad /hr (photon radiation only) to function during accident conditions inside containment.
TVA stated that it has installed General Atomic Model No. RD-23 mogitorsinthelowanduppercompartmentsofcontainmentwitharangeof1to 10 rad /hr.
By a telephone call on March 20, 1989, TVA explained that there are two monitors (90-271 and 90-272) for the upper compartment of the containment and two monitors (90-273 and 90-274) for the lower compartment.
TVA explained that the surveillance requirements for accident monitoring instruments require a monthly channel check ar.d a channel calibration every refueling outage.
TVA stated that because of the extended ranges of the noble gas and containment area monitors, a footnote will be added to allow electronic calibration of the upper ranges and a point calibration check of the lower ranges.
These requirements will ensure equipment operability.
TVA i
also stated that the proposed changes are consistent with the NRC Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactor Standard Technical Specifications (NUREG-0452 Revision 5).
Sequoyah, Units 1 and 2, are Westinghouse pressurized water reactors.
2.2 Evaluation In Section 11.3.7 of the Sequoyah Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), TVA states that gaseous radioactive wastes are released to the atmosphere from 1
Sequoyah through vents located on the shield building, auxiliary building, turbine building and service building.
The waste gases from containment purge and the gas decay tanks are discharged through the shield building exhaust vent. Waste gases in the auxiliary building are discharged through the auxiliary building exhaust vent except during accident conditions.
Under accident conditions, the auxiliary building is isolated and the auxiliary building gas treatment system discharges to the shield building exhaust vent.
The ventilation air from the turbine building is discharged from the turbine building exhaust vent.
The non-condensibles in the condenser are discharged through the condenser vacuum exhaust vent.
Therefore, the only vents that must be monitored for post-accident high range noble gas effluents (i.e.,
Item II.F.1.1) to meet the requirements for pressurized water reactors in NUREG-0737 are the shield building exhaust vent and the condenser vacuum
o
.Y 3
exhaust vent. These are the vents proposed by TVA for Tables 3.3-10 and 4.3-7 in Section 3/4.3.3.7 of the TS.
TVAstatedintheappliegtionthgttherangeforthepost-accidentnoblegas effluent monitors is 10' to 10~ mC1/cc. The units "mC1/cc" are not the correct units for gaseous effluent radiation monitors. TVA explained, in a telephone call on March 23, 1989, that the units in its application were a typographical error ~and the correct units are "uCi/cc." The units " uC1/cc" are the correct units for these monitors. With this clarification, the range for these monitors meets the requirements for post-accident noble gas effluent monitors in NUREG-0737.
In Supplement No. 2 to the Safety Evaluation Report (S2SER) dated August 1980, issued by the staff. to license Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, the staff evaluated j
the accident monitoring instrumentation for containment radiation (i.e.,
Item II.F.1.3). TVA's description of the containment monitors given above was accepted by the staff in the SER. Therefore, these monitors are acceptable to meet the requirements of Item II.F.1.3 of NUREG-0737.
The S2SER required two containment high-range monitors and TVA has four at Sequoyah:
two in the upper compartment and two in the lower compartment.
TVA is proposing to transfer the requirements on the containment high-range radiation monitors and the high-range noble gas effluent monitors from the TS Section 3/4.3.3.1, " Radiation Monitoring Instrumentation," to TS Section 3/4.3.3.7, " Accident Monitoring Instrumentation." This is transferring requirements from Table 3.3-6 and 4.3-3 to Tables 3.3-10 and 4.3-7.
TVA is also adding additional requirements on the noble gas effluent monitors to Tables 3.3-10 and 4.3-7.
The TS Section 3/4.3.3.1 is for nonnal plant radiation monitoring instrumentation and TS Section 3/4.3.3.7 is for post-accident plant radiation monitoring instrumentation. TVA stated that the containment radiation monitors and noble l
gas effluent monitors currently listed in Tables 3.3-6 and 4.3-3 are to j
provide information during and following an accident to assess the condition I
of the plant.
As such, the staff agrees that this radiation monitoring instrumentation should be listed instead, in TS Section 3/4.3.3.7, as accident monitoring instrumentation.
]
The TS requirements for this radiation monitoring have been reviewed against the staff's requirements in the following documents :
(1) S2SER; (2) GL 83-37, November 1, 1983; and (specifications," for pressurized water reactors, dated "NUREG-0737 Technical S
- 3) Standard Technical Specifications for Westinghouse l
Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRSTS), NUREG-0452, Revision 4a, dated September 1987.
The requirements for the containment high-range radiation monitors and the high-range noble gas effluent monitors proposed for Tables 3.3-10 and 4.3-7 l
are consistent with the PWRSTS except for one minor item.
There are i
differences between these requirements and those listed in GL 83-37.
The tables in GL 83-37 were for the post-accident radiation monitors to be listed among the normal plant radiation monitoring instrumentation and the tables in the PWRSTS were for the post-accident radiations monitors to be listed separately with other accident monitoring instrumentation.
The current radiation monitoring
f.'
.~
4 tables in the Sequoyah TS are consistent with the format of PWRSTS.
Therefore, the staff concludes that the differences from the guidance of GL 83-37 are not important because the proposed requirements are consistent with the requirements for post accident radiation monitors in PWRSTS Section 3.3.3.6, " Accident Monitoring Instrumentation." This includes the proposed Action Statements d and e for Sequoyah TS Section 3.3.3.6 and the proposed footnote "*" for Table 4.3-7.
The footnote is applied to the noble gas effluent monitors because electronic calibration of these channels is needed for the high range.
The only difference between the proposed requirements for the Sequoyah high range radiation monitors and the requirements in the PWRSTS is that TVA's proposal lists N.A. (not applicable) for the total number of channels for the 1
l containment high range radiation monitors whereas the PWRSTS lists "2."
The staff's 52SER states that the plant must have at least two such monitors, however, the Action Statements for the number of operable monitors apply only if both monitors in either the upper or lower compartments are inoperable.
This is in the TVA proposed requirements and in the PWRSTS. Also, TS 3.0.4 is not applicable for accident monitoring instrumentation in the TVA proposed.
requirements and in the PWRSTS, so that the plant may change modes while the plant is in an Action Statement for this post-accident monitoring instrumentation.
The plant is required to have at least two containment high-range radiation monitors because the proposed TS require that at least two containment high-range radiation monitors must be operable, one in the containment upper compartment and one in the lower compartment, or Action Statement d must be followed. Therefore, the TVA proposal to not state the total number of channels of these radiation monitors is acceptable.
In fact, TVA has two high-range radiation monitors in the upper compartment and two in the lower compartment.
For the proposed change for Unit 1 only to replace the word " Moses" by the word
" Modes" on page 3/4 3-42, the staff agrees that the correct word is " Modes."
Therefore, this proposed change is acceptable.
The containment high-range radiation monitor, are referred to as the containment area monitors by TVA. The high-range noble gas effluent monitors are referred to as the shield building exhaust vent monitors and :ondenser vacuum exhaust vent monitors by TVA.
The references to the containment area and shield building exhaust vent monitors in the proposed TS for the Action Statement for TS 3.3.3.7 are different from the references to these monitors in Table 3.3-10.
For example proposed Action Statement d refers to the containment atmosphere monitor and Table 3.3-10 refers to the containment area monitor.
This was discussed with TVA by telephone on April 10, 1989 and TVA agreed to have the references in both the Action Statement d and Table 3.3-10 the same:
containment area monitor and shield building exhaust vent monitor.
2.3 Conclusion Based on the above, the staff concludes that the changes proposed by TVA in its application dated June 10, 1987 are acceptable.
l
~'
5
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 and changes to the surveillance requirements.
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 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 to be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
I
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Comission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (52 FR 39308) on October 21, 1987 and consulted with the State of Tennessee.
No public coments were received and the State of Tennessee did not have any coments.
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
1 (1)thereisreasonableassurancethatthehealthandsafetyofthepublic will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission;s regulations, and the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense i
and security nor to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
J. Donohew Dated:
April 28, 1989 l
- - -. _ _..