ML20246B581
| ML20246B581 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 08/14/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20246B575 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8908230401 | |
| Download: ML20246B581 (3) | |
Text
- _ _ - _ ___
@f **%
f,i UNITED STATES
- e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
/
ENCLOSURE 3 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.125 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-77 AND AMENDMENT NO. 114 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-79 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SE0UOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-327 AND 50-328
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated December 2, 1988, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) propospd to modify the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN), Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifig-tions (TS).
The proposed changes are to revise Table 3.3-12. " Radioactive j:
Liquid Effluent Monitoring Instrumentation." These changes will clearly stam the minimum radiation monitor channels required to be operable for each header for the effluent from the essential raw cooling water (ERCW) system.
TVA stated that it was requesting this change to avoid misinte;pretations of the limiting condition for operation (LCO) 3.3.3.9 and Table 3.3-12 with regard to the minimum number of liquid effluent radiation monitor channels required to be operable for the ERCW effluent headers.
On June 5, 1988, TVA ciscovered that it was in noncompliance with LCO 3.3.3.9 because of an incor-rect interpretation of the minimum number of operable radiation monitor chan-nels required for the ERCW effluent headers.
This noncompliance is discussed in Licensee Event Report 327/88-002.
Table 3.3-12 lists the required monitoring instrumentation for the ERCW effluent "line" end gives the minimum number of monitor channels required to be operable as one Because there are "A" and "B" trains of the ERCW, each with two radiation monitors for each discharge header, one monitor for each train must be operable. On January 4, 1988 TVA had both the liquid effluent monitors on train "B" inoperable and did not comply with LC0 3.3.3.9.
TVA concluded that a sufficient description to determine the minimum number of monitor channels required to meet LCO 3.3.3.9 did not exist in Table 3.3-12.
This insufficient description resulted in operations personnel incorrectly interpreting the requirements for compliance with LCO 3.3.3.9 for the ERCW headers.
Therefore, TVA proposed the TS changes in its submittal dated December 2, 1988 to correct Table 3.3-12.
8908230401 890814 ADOCK0500g{:j7 PDR P
. i i
2.0 EVALUATION The ERCW system is described.in Section '9.2.2 'of the Sequoyah Final Safety -
. Analysis Report -(FSAR)., It.is designed to supply cooling water to various components within both the primary and secondary sections of each_ unit.
Sufficient redundancy of piping and components _ is provided to ensure that cooling water is maintained to vital loads.at all.. times.
The ERCW system draws water from the Tennessee: River at'the ERCW intake structure and dis-charges back to the river through two 36-inch discharge lines which TVA refers to as two headers.
The two lines or headers join into a'causen 48 inch line to discharge the.ERCW effluent. The ERCW effluut headers consists of an A train and B train discharge header on which radiation monitors 0-RM-90-133 and 0-RM-90-140 (A train)'and 0-RM-90-134 and'0-RM~90-141-(8 train)arelocated..
There are two radiation monitors _ on each of the two ERCW discharge headers.
1 General Design Criteria (GDC) 64 requires that all effluent discharge' paths be monitored for-radioactive releases under normal operations.
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.21 which'provides guidance on complyfog with GDC 64 states that' con- -
tinuous monitoring should be provided for liquid effluent releases.
Sec-i tion 11.4.2.1.2 of the FSAR states that continuous monitoring is.done at y
Sequoyah with two radiation monitors on each of the two discharge headers fra 1
the ERCW system.
These monitors, which were listed above, have high radio-l activity setpoints so that count rates above background are alarmed..-This is to prevent the release of radioactive materials into the environment and to-detect tube leakage from heat exchanges served by the ERCW.
These monitors meet GDC 4 and RG 1.21.
TVA stated that the proposed change will clearly distinguish the A and B' train headers and the minimum number of radiation monitors lines required to be operable.
1 There must be a minimum of. one monitor operable on each of the two ERCW discharge headers.
If one of.the two headers does not have an operable monitor, TVA must follow Action 32 of Table 3.3-12 for that header..
TVA has proposed for-Table 3.3-12 to (1) replace the word "line," in'the phrase
" Essential Raw Cooling Water Effluent Line," by the word " header" and,(2)-add the footnote, " requires a minimum of one channel per header to be operable."..
The number of minimum channels required to be operable and the action if this.
j is not met are not being changed by the proposed TS changes. _ These. changes will make it clear that both of the ERCW discharge headers must have a minimum of one operable radiation monitor. Therefore, the staff concludes-that the -
proposed changes are acceptable, i.
3.0 _ ENVIRONMENTAL-CONSIDERATION These amendments involve a change to a requirement with respect to the.
i installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area j
as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has deter lined that the-amendments involve no significant. increase in the amounts,- and no significant. change in 4
the types, of any e_ffluents-that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational = radiation expo-The Connission has previously issued a proposed finding that these sure.
amendments. involve no significant hazards consideration and there has.been no l
1
_ - _ =
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.
l (53 FR 53098) on December 30, 1988 and consulted with the State of Tennessee.
No public comments were received and the State of Tennessee 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. Donohew Da ted:
August 14, 1989 c
l
_ _ _ _. _. _ _ _. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -. -. _ _. _ _ - - - - - - _ _