ML20248K391
| ML20248K391 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 04/03/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20248K389 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8904170321 | |
| Download: ML20248K391 (3) | |
Text
.
~*'
..; j m
./[
UNITED STATES
- e g_
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION
_y 3
l WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655
/
ENCLOSURE 3 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 109 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-77 AND AMENDMENT NO. 99 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 of September 14, 1987, the Tennessee Valley Authority (the licensee) proposed changes to the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant. Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications (TS). The proposed changes would correct minor discrepancies in the TS. The changes correct (1) an action statement of Table 3.3-1, Reactor Trip System Instrumentation, for Unit 2 only;.(2) the instrumentation listed in Table 3.3-11, Fire Detection Instruments, for Unit 1 only; (3) the table notation of Table 4.11-2, Radioactive Gaseous Waste Monitoring, Sampling and Analysis Program, for both units; and (4) the surveillance requirements
~4.8.1.1.2.a.4 (both units) and 4.8.1.1.2.d.7 (Unit 1 only) for diesel-genera tors. These changes are both units or for only Unit 1 or !! nit 2 as described above. These TS changes are to correct inconsistencies between TS requirements and to provide clarification of the intent of various TS specifications.
2.0 EVALUATION The proposed changes were presented by the licensee as five different items.
These items are evaluated below:
Item 1 affects TS Page 3/4 8-3 for Units 1 and 2.
It is proposed that asterisks be moved to clarify the intent and scope of a page note. The staff finds that the proposed change achieves its objective without diminishing safety or increasing the probability of an accident anywhere in the plant.
Item 2, which affects TS Page 3/4 11-13 of Unit 1 and 3/411-12 of Unit 2, corrects the reference listed in Item g to ictentify the proper specification for the " Semi-Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report." The staff has i
confirmed that the correction is rsquired and appropriate.
Item 3 concerns fire detection instrumentation and affects TS Pages 3/4 3-59 3-60, 3-63, 3-68 and 3-68a for Unit 1 only.
These pages are part of Table 3.3-11. " Fire Detection Instruments." The elevations for fire zones numbers 22 to 29,120 and 121 were corrected to have the correct elevation in i
^h DobK
[7 P
t i
~2-the TS. Two fire zones, numbers 277 and 287, were added to the TS. These zones had been inadvertently omitted from Table 3.3-11.
The proper notation j
for fire zone number 17 was added to Table 3.3-11.
The staff finds that the changes improve Table 3.3-11 of the TS because they properly reflect the current plant conditions.
Item 4 changes TS Page 3/4 8-5 for Unit 1 by rearranging the sequence of 1
sentences in a paragraph in SR 4.8.1.1.2.d.7 to agree with the corresponding TS in Unit 2.
The staff finds tnat this change is beneficial because it clarifies the TS and provides consistent usage between the units in the TS.
The change does not affect the requirements in SR 4.8.1.1.2.d.7.
Item 5 affects TS Page 3/4 3-7 for Unit 2.
It corrects an inconsistency between Action 8b of Table 3.3-1 and the corresponding action in the Unit 1 TS.
The turbine trip function is deleted from Action 8b because the P-7 and P-13 i
interlocks do not affect the turbine trip function.
The incorporat' ion of the editorial changes and corrections proposed do not l
diminish safety or increase the probability of an accident in any area of the l
plant.
Therefore, the staff concludes that the proposed TS changes are acceptable.
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 i
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 j
consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding, j
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 assessmer,t 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 (52 FR 47794) on December 16, 1987 and consulted with the State of Tennessee.
No public comments were received and the State of Tennessee did not have any conments.
l
a O'
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) public (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the such i
activities will be conducted in compliance with the Connission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the connon defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.
i Principal Contributor:
J. Watt, R. Wescott Dated: April 3, 1939 i
)
1 1
___s-____________
__ _ _ ;