ML18025B722
| ML18025B722 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 02/01/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18025B721 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202160069 | |
| Download: ML18025B722 (3) | |
Text
I
~ Q
- +gQ REQy>
Vp
) +I O~
Op
+)( *++
t UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY'THE'OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 81 'TO'FACILITY OPERATING'LICENSE NO-DPR-33 AMENDMENT NO. 78 TO FACIL'ITY'OPERATING'ICENSE NO.'DPR-'52 AMENDMENT NO; 'TO:FACIL'ITY'OPERATING'LICENSE NO.
'TENNESSEE'VALLEY'AUTHORITY BROMNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1, 2 AND 3.
DOCKET NOS.. 50-259, 50-260 AND 50-296 1.0 2.0 Introduction By letter dated October 19, 1981.
(TVA BFNP TS 168); the Tennessee Valley Authority (the licensee or TVA) requested changes to the Technical Specifications (Appendix A) appended to Facility Operating License Nos.
DPR-33, DPR-52 and DPR-68 for the Browns Ferry Nuclear
- Plant, Unit.-Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
The proposed amendments and revised
,Technical Specifications would increase the interval of time during-which a primary containment integrated leak rate test (ILRT) must be performed from 3 1/3 years
+ 8 months to 3 1/3 years
+ 10 months.
The proposed change would conform the requirement in the Browns Ferry Technical Specifications to the requirement in the BMR Standard Technical Specifications.
Evaluation Section 4.7.A.2.e of the Browns Ferry Technical Specifications now requires that "primary containment ILRT's shall be performed at approximately three and one-third year intervals so that any ten-year interval would include four ILRTs; These intervals may be extended up to eight months if necessary to coincide with refueling outages."
The proposed change to the Technical Specifications is to increase the extension period for performing the ILRTs from eight months to ten months.
In order to complete NRC required modifications (e.g.,
TMI Lessons
- Learned, Mark I Torus Upgrade, etc.); recent outages at Browns Ferry have been longer than projected; the 1981 outage for Browns Ferry Unit 1 was 6 months vs a projected outage of 3 1/2 months when the facility shutdown on April 10, 1981; This in turn has altered the projected dates for future refueling outages.
8202160069 82020f PDR ADOCK 05000259 P
~ The BWR Standard Technical Specifications, NUREG-0123, Revision 3, dated fall 1980, in Section.4.6.1.2.a states:
"Three Type A Overall.
Integrated Containment Leakage Rate tests shall be conducted at 40 + 10 month intervals during shutdown at either Pa, (40.4) psig, or at Pt, (20.2) psig, during each 10-year service period.
The third test of each set shall be conducted during the shutdown for the 10-year plant inservice inspection."
The proposed change in the Browns Ferry Technical Specifications would conform them to the above requirement in the BWR Standard Technical Specifications..
This change only allows ILRT intervals to be extended an 'additional 2 months if necessary and does not
'change.or effect any safety system or other requirements on how the ILRTs must be conducted.
Four ILRTs must still be performed in any 10-year period. as required by 10 CFR Part 50.
We conclude that the proposed change. is acceptable
.on the bases for this test interval in the BWR Standard Technical Specifications.
3.0 Environmental'Considerations
~
m We have determined that these amendments do 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 these amendments involve an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact,-and pursuant to 10 CFR Section 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 these amendments.
4.0 Conclusion We have concluded based on 'the considerations discussed above that:
(1) because the amendm'ents do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and do not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendments do not involve a 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 mariner~- a~d-3~sc~act~tjes~1.be-.
conducted in compliance with the Cosraission's r~e ulations and the issuance
. of these amenrnments will not be inimical to the common defense and
- securrty or to the"health and safety'f the public.
r, t
Dated: February" 1, 1982
.