ML20064E496
| ML20064E496 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 12/23/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20064E484 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8301060030 | |
| Download: ML20064E496 (2) | |
Text
__
i i
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF fiUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT fle.18 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE DPR-77 Afl0 AMEM3 MENT NO. 9 TO FACILITY OPEuTING LICENSE DPR-79 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY INTRODUCTION As a result of a telephone conversation April 27, 1982, between TVA and the NRC, j
this technical specification amendment is proposed to clarify the calculation of cunulative purge time over a 365-day period.
Additionally, technical specifications 3/4.7.5 for Unit 1 and 3/4.9.6 for Unit 2 will be changed as discussed with the NRC staff on July 19, 1982, since these changes were inadvertently onitted in previous anendments.
EVALUATION The staff agrees that clarification of how cumulative purge time over a 365-day period is calculated is necessary.
Rather than the April 15 starting date, pro-posed by TVA, the staff is approving a starting date of January 1 in order to facilitate easier standardization with other facilities as they request changes in their purge times.
Purging and venting shall be limited to 1000 hours0.0116 days <br />0.278 hours <br />0.00165 weeks <br />3.805e-4 months <br /> per 365-l days.
The staff agrees that the corrections to technical specifications 3/4.7.5 and 3/4.9.6 should be made on the basis that these revisions were previously justified in other amendments to the Sequoyah technical specifications.
( Amendments 12'& 4 respectively.)
1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION We have detemined 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 signif-icant environmental impact.
Having nade this determination, we have further con-cluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant fron the stand-point of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4), that an environ-nental impact statenent or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal l
need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
i l
CONCLUSION He have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or con-sequences of accidents previously considered, does not create the possibility of an accident of a type different from any evaluated previously, and does not 8301060030 821223 PDR ADOCK 05000327
.. P PDR sun- >
om)
Nac ronu sta nteamscu om OFFICIAL RECORD COPY uso m - - m.eo
J i
involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a l
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, i
and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regu-lations 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.
l Date: December 23, 1982 Principal Contributors: Helanie Miller, Licensing Branch No. 4,0L Carl Stahle, Licensing Branch No. 4, DL 1
h 1
i, 4
i i
l l
l l
l l
l l
l 4
f i
4 i
i 1
omce>
sunmt >
ourp me ronu ais tiomi nacu ano OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usa m mi.-m a
- _.