ML20084C986
| ML20084C986 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 04/12/1984 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20084C978 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8405010112 | |
| Download: ML20084C986 (2) | |
Text
.
ga as cg
+
o UNITED STATES E\\
"k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
WASHING TON, D. C. 20555
)
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMEN 0 MENT NO. 34 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE DPR-77 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY INTRODUCTION Interim relief had been granted for Sequoyah Unit 1 Amendment No. 20, to con-duct a visual inspection of certain protective fuses instead of destructive testing of fuses until the next refueling of Unit 1.
At a later date, Unit 2 was granted the same relief, Amendment No. 21.
The licensee on December 29, 1983, requested an extension of the visual inspection requirements for both units until the NRC completes a review of this matter on a generic basis. This Safety Evaluation addresses Unit I.
EVALUATION The staff agrees that the interim relief granted for surveillance testing of the protective fuses should remain in effect until the generic issues on this matter are resolved. The licensee's justification for the initial relief through cycle 2 operations is adequate for continued relief pending the results of the NRC study.
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 insignificant 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 the amendment.
CONCLUSION The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration (SHC) which was published in the Federal Register on February 24,1984 (49 FR 7045), and consulted with the State of Tennessee.
No public comments were received and the state of Tennessee did not have any comments.
The Notice of Consideration of Amendment erroneously stated that the proposed amendment would extend the period during which nondestructive testing of fuses would be allowed for Unit 1 in a manner similar to an extension already granted for Unit 2 (pending completion of an NRC generic review of proposed technical specifications).
In fact, Unit 2 had previously been granted an extension only until Cycle 2; the proposed amendment requested an extension for both units pending completion of the NRC review.
gDRADOCK405010112 840412 05000327 p
l i
i j,
With respect to Unit 1, this error does not affect the description of the l
amendment nor the Commission's basis for its proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
I We have 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 i
conducted in compliance with the 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: April 12, 1984 Principal Contributors: Carl Stahle, Licensing Branch No. 4, DL H. Emami, Power Systems Branch, OSI l
i i
1 1
4 i
1 i
3 l
i
}
t-4
- -