ML18025B779
| ML18025B779 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 05/19/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18025B778 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8206010060 | |
| Download: ML18025B779 (2) | |
Text
~P,R RfCIj, lp0~i Op pN
+**++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, O. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 83 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-33 AMENDMENT NO. 80 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-52 AMENDMENT NO. 54 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-68 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS.
1, 2 AND 3
. DOCKET NOS.
50-259, 50-260, AND 50-296 Authors:
Dick Clark, Ken Eccleston 1.0 Introduction By letter dated October 16, 1980 (TVA BFNP TS 153),
and suppleIlIented by letter dated November 18, 1981, 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, Units 1, 2 and 3.
The proposed amendments and revised Technical Specifications would provide additional surveillance requirements for the scram discharge volume (SDY) vent and drain valves and limiting conditions for operation (LCO) and surveillance requirements on the SDV limit switches as requested by our generic letter of July 7, 1980 to the licensees of All Operating Boiling Water Reactors.
2.0 Discussion As a result of events involving common cause failures of SDV limit switches and SDV drain valve operability, the NRC staff issued IE Bulletin 80-14 on June 12, 1980.
In addition, the staff sent a letter dated July 7, 1980 to all operating BWR licensees requesting that they propose Technical Specification changes to provide surveillance requirements for SDV vent and drain valves and LCO/surveillance requirements on SDV limit switches.
Model Technical Specifications were enclosed with this letter to provide guidance to licensees for preparation of the requested submittals.
3.0 Evaluation The enclosed report (TER-C-5506-67/71/76) was prepared by Franklin Research Center (FRC) as part of a technical assistance contract program.
Their report provides their technical evaluation of the compliance of the licensee's submittal with NRC provided criteria.
82060i0060 820519 PDR ADOCK 05000259
,,P PDR
FRC has concluded that the licensee's response does not meet the explicit requirements of paragraph 3.3-6 and Table 3.3.6-1 of the NRC staff's Model Technical Specifications (TS).
However, the FRC report concludes that technical bases are defined on p.50 of our "Generic Safety Evaluation Report BWR Scram Discharge System" dated December 1,
1980 that permit con-sideration of this departure from the explicit requirements of the Model Technical Specifications.
We conclude that these technical bases justify a deviation from the explicit requirements of the Model TS.
FRC has concluded that the licensee's proposed TS revisions meet the staff-developed criteria without the need for further revision.
Based upon our review of the contractor's report of its,evaluations, we conclude that the licensee's proposed TSs satisfy the staff-developed criteria for surveillance of SDV vent and drain valves and for LCOs and surveillance requirements for SDV limit switches.
Consequently, we find the licensee's proposed TSs acceptable.
4.0 Environmental Consideration 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 51.5(d)(4) that an envir'onmental impact statement, or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
5.0 Conslusions We have concluded based on the considerations discussed above that:
(1) because the amendments do not involve a si nificant increase i Dated:
gay lg, ]>82
Enclosure:
Technical Evaluation Report 9
n the probability or consequences of accidents previousl'y 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
- manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common( defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.