ML20009E400
| ML20009E400 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 07/15/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20009E399 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8107280158 | |
| Download: ML20009E400 (1) | |
Text
-
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION i
RELATED TO NIENDMENT WO. 8 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE DPR-77 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Introduction On July 14, 1981, TVA proposed updating technical specifications 3.7.5 and 4.7.5 to reflect design changes resulting from the implementation of the new Essential Raw Cooling Water (ERCW) pumping station. TVA further proposed increasing the ultimate heat sink temperature from 81 degrees F to 83 degrees F since the flow deficiencies have now been resolved.
Discussion Section 9.2.2 of the Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-0011) for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, dated March 1979, states that the new ERCW pumping station is designed and located to eliminate any dependence upon the intake forebay.
Therefore, the technical specifications regarding the water level in the forebay may be deleted because the new ERCW is currently in operation for both units.
The NRC staff agrees that since TVA has corrected the deficiencies that resulted in a lower heat sink temperature the Technical Specifications for Unit No.1 may now be revised to 83 degrees F.
The Sequoyah Unit 2 specifications, issued on June 25, 1981, included the revised temperature of 83 degrees F.
9 Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact.
Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insigni-ficant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR
$51.5 (d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margir the amendment does not o
involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be con-
)
ducted in compliance with tue Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: July 15, 1981 8107280158 810715 PDR ADOCK 05000327 P
--