ML20203L180

Environ Assessment & Finding of No Significant Impact Re Issuance of Exemption from Certain Requirements of 10CFR50.71(E)(4) for Plant,Units 1 & 2.Proposed Action in Response to Licensee Application,

ML20203L180
Person / Time
Site:	Sequoyah
Issue date:	02/24/1998
From:	Hebdon F NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20203L184	List: ML20203L180
References
NUDOCS 9803050387
Download: ML20203L180 (3)

Text

__ ___

4 I=

c.-

7590-01P UNITED STATES NUQLEAR REQUI.ATORY COMMISSION 4

i-SEQUOYAH NUCl FAR PLANT. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-327 AND 50-328 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT a.

The U. S. Nuclou Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of j

sn exemption from certain requirements of its mgulations to Facility Operating License Nos.

]

DPR 77 and DPR-7g for the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN), Units 1 and 2, respectively, issued to the Tonnessee Valley Authority (the licensee).

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ldentification of Prannaad Actinn:

The proposed action is in response to the iicensee's application dated December 1, 19g7, for exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4) regarding submission of revisions to the updated Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), which could also affect the schedule for submitting design change reports for facility changes made under 10 CFR 50.55, i

for SQN. Under the proposed exemption the licensee would schedule updates to the single, unified FSAR for the two units based on the refueling cycle of Unit 2.

The Need for the Procomed Action:

The Code of Federal Regulations,10 CFR 50.71(e)(4), requires licensees to submit updates to their FSAR annually or within 6 months after each refueling outage providing that the interval between successive updates does not exceed 24 months. Since Units 1 and 2 share a common FSAR, the licensee must update the same document annually or within 6 months after a refueling outage for either unit. The underlying purpose of the rule was to relieve licensees of

. the burden of filing annual FSAR revisions while assuring that such revisions are made at least

'9803050387 980224 PDR ADOCK 0S000327 c

?

PDR n

vm+w

+s-+e--,

t m

_..y-..,_

.e

2-every 24 months. The Commission reduced the burden, in part, by permitting a licensee to submit its FSAR revisions 6 months after refueling outages for its facility, but did not provide for multiple unit facilities sharing a common FSAR in the rule. Mather, the Commission stated that

'With respect to the concem about multiple facilities sharing a common FSAR, licensees will have maximum flexibility for scheduling updates on a case-by-case basis." 57 FR 3g355 (19g2). Allowing the exemption would maintain the UFSAR current within 24 months of the last revision and would not exceed a 24-month interval for submisslori

• the 10 CFR 50.5g design-change report for either unit, if thic is submitted with the FSAR revision.

EnvironmentalImnacts of the Pronosed Adinn:

The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that it involves administrative activities unrelated to plant operation.

The proposed action will not result in an increase in the probability or consequences of accidents or result in a change in occupational exposure or offsite dose. Therefore, there are no radiological impacts associated with the proposed action.

The oroposed action will not result in a change in nonradiological plant effluents and will have no other nonrad;ological environmental impact.

. Accordingly, tne Commission concludes that there are no environmentalimpacts associated with this action.

Altemativa to the Pronosed Adian:

Since the Commission has concluded that there is no measurable environmental impact associated with the proposed action any altematives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be evaluated. As an altamative to the proposed action, the sisff considered denial of the proposed action. Denial of the exemption would result in no change in current environmentalimpacts. The environmentalimpacts of the proposed exemption and this attemative are similar.

3.

Alternative Use of Resources:

This act;on did not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the i

Final Environinental Statement related to SQN dated February 13,1974.

Agencies and Persons Contacted:

In accordance with its stated policy, on January 29,1998, the staff consulted with the Tennessee State omcial regarding the environmentalimpact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments.

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment,'the Commission concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.

Accordingly, the Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact i

statement for the proposed exemption.

For further details with respect to this action, see the licensee's request for the exemption dated December 1,1997, which is available for public inspection at the l

Commission's Public Document Room, Gelman Building,2120 L Street, NW., Washington DC, and at the local public document room located at the Chattanooga-Hamilton County Library, 1001 Broad Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 24thday of February,1998, FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 9M

/A Frederick J. Hebdob, Director Project Directorate ll-3 Division of Reactor Projects - 1/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 9

.. l