ML20093B947
| ML20093B947 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 10/04/1995 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20093B944 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9510120161 | |
| Download: ML20093B947 (2) | |
Text
,i..
enso,q c
g t
UNITED STATES
+[
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM!GSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666 0001
+9.....,d SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 213 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-77 AND AMENDMENT N0. 203 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-79 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SE0VOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-327 AND 50-328
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By application dated August 7, 1995, the Tennessee Valley Authority (the licensee) proposed an amendment to the Technical Specifications (TS) for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN) Units 1 and 2.
The requested changes would correct various editorial errors in the text of the technical specifications and remove provisions that have expired or are no longer applicable.
The licensee has listed the individual changes in the submittal.
2.0 EVALUATION i
The purpose of the proposed changes is to eliminate potential confusion that could be created by the errors and the outdated provisions that are no longer applicable.
The staff agrees that they (a) do not change the intent of the related TS requirements, (b) do not affect the way the units are operated or maintained, and (c) do not change the setpoints or other plant functions.
In addition, the outdated provisions that are being removed (including Unit 1 License Condition 2.C.(25), " Surveillance Interval Extension" that expired on October 1, 1995) have no effect on present plant operation or maintenance.
Therefore, the proposed changes are editorial in nature and are acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
in accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Tennessee State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment.
The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATI03 The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no.significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation ENCLOSURE 3 9510120161 951004 gDR ADOCK0500g7
i 4 exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the 4
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (60 FR 45185). Accordingly, the amendment meets 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 or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
5.0 CONCLUji103 The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, i
that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of she public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, 1.
and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common l
defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: David E. LaBarge 4
Dated: Octobc-1 F 95 s,
. ('
i i
3 i
4 9
1 J
.