ML20056E004
| ML20056E004 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 08/02/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056E003 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9308190174 | |
| Download: ML20056E004 (2) | |
Text
(
4 -
/,ps usy o
UNITED STATES
[ "
,, ~ g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
y WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
...../'
ENCLOSURE 3 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION REL ATED TO AMENDMENT NO.169 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-77 AND AMENDMENT No.159 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-79 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SE0VOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET N05. 50-327 AND 50-328
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By application dated March 1, 1993, and amended by letter dated June 16, 1993, the Tennessee Valley Authority (the licensee) proposed changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN) Units I and 2.
The requested changee would increase the interval for submittal of the Radioactive Effluent Release Report from semiannual to annual.
The proposed changes are in accordance with the change in 10 CFR 50.36a,
" Technical specifications on effluents from nuclear power reactors," effective October 1, 1992.
In addition, they reflect the information published in the Federal Register Notice 57FR39353, " Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licensees," dated August 31, 1992.
The proposed changes affect the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual definition in TS Section 1.18, and the reporting requirements stated in Sections 6.9.1.8, 6.14.1.3, and 6.15.1.1 by changing the reporting requirements from semi-annual to annual, The June 16, 1993 letter modified the original proposed changes to Section 6.9.1.8 to indicate that the effluent report would cover the previous
" calendar year" and would be submitted prior to May 1 of each year.
The information providea ia the June 16, 1993 letter did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
2.0 EVALUATION The change to 10 CFR 50.36a requires that a report to the Commission specifying the quantity of each of the principal radionuclides released to unrestricted areas during the previous twelve months be prepared and submitted. The new regulation also requires that the time interval between submissions of the reports must be no longer than twelve months.
Previously, 10 CFR 50.36a required these reports to be submitted semiannually and within sixty days after January 1 and July 1 of each year.
9308190174 930902 PDR ADOCK 05000327 P
~-
+
r l The most recent report was submitted by letter dated February 26, 1993,-under the old TS requirement, and covered the period from July 1 through December 31, 1992.
Following discussions with the staff, the licensee agreed to specify in the TS that reports will be based on the releases for the previous calendar year and submitted prior to May 1 of each year.
Consequently, the next report will be submitted prior to May 1, 1994, and will cover the period of January 1 through December 31, 1993, in accordance with the new requirement.
i Since the requested TS changes are consistent with the new regulation, since I
the submittals of the required reports will provide continuity in the periods t
covered, and since all of the requested changes are consistent with implementation of the new requirement, the staff finds the licensee's proposed changes acceptable.
l
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
in accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Tennessee State official I
was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments.
The State official i
had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
i The amendments involve changes in reporting requirements.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (58 FR 19487). Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the i
public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
i Principal Contributor:
D. La4arge l
Date: August 2,1993 t
i i
b
.-