ML18025B929
| ML18025B929 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 02/14/1983 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18025B928 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8303030075 | |
| Download: ML18025B929 (5) | |
Text
e.W
-D}
-~ ~i I
n
+~4 T
()N
~
)fp*y4 t
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSlON WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.
86 TO FACILITY OPERATION LICENSE NO.
DPR-33 AMENDMENT NO, 83 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO DPR 52 AMENDMENT NO. 57 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-68 1
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT NOS.
1 2 AND 3 DOCKET NOS.
50-259 50-260 AND 50-296 1.0 Introduction By letter dated August 19, 1980, the Tennessee Valley Authority (the licensee or TVA) requested amendments to Facility Operating License Nos.
DPR-33, DPR-52 and DPR-68 for the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit Hos. 1, 2 and 3.
In re-sponse to discussions with the TVA staff, the application was supplemented by a resubmittal on December 3, 1982.
The proposed amendments would change the Technical Specifications to:
(1) reduce the duration of containment integrated leak rate tests by following the procedures outlined in Bechtel Topical Report BH-TOP-l, (2) revise the requirements in Sections 3.7.2 and 4.7.2 to conform the leak rate testing to the BWR/4 Standard Technical Specifications and (3) update the tables on isolation valves that are required to be tested.
2.0 Evaluation One of the proposed changes would reduce the duration of the Containment In-tegrated Leak Rate Test (CILRT) from 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />.
The Licensee has committed to follow the procedures outlined in Bechtel Topical Report BN-TOP-l, dated November 1, 1972, whi'ch allows for an 8-hour CILRT.
This report was evaluated and approved by the staff in a Topical Report Evaluation dated February 1, 1973.
The licensee s submittal satisfies the leak testing require-ments. of 10 CFR 50, Appendix J and ANSI H45.4-1972 with regard to test
- methods, procedures and frequency of testing.
We, therefore, conclude that the proposed change to the Technical Specifications reducing the duration of the CILRT from 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> is acceptable.
In conjunction with the above change, TVA has proposed revisions and reformatting the limiting conditions for operation (LCO) and surveillance requirements on leak rate testing in Sections 3.7.2 and 4.7.2 of the Technichl Specifications.
The staff concludes these proposed changes are acceptable since they are con-sistent with the BWR/4 Standard Technical Specifications.
8303030075 8302l4 PDR *DOCK 05000259 F
I
.There was one change in the present requirements (Section 3.7.2.c, P229) which is to change the drywell operating pressure from 1.5 psig to 1.1 psig, and the allowable leakage from 549 SCFH to 542 SCFH (2X of containment volume).
This adds conservatism to the allowable leakage rate.
This is done to en-sure that the test method does not produce nonconservative results.
The change also reflects the extensive modifications made to the units as a re-sult of the generic Mark I torus modifications.
The proposed change is more conservative and is acceptable.
The proposed changes to Table 3.7.D, E, and 'F, which l.ist the containment isolation valves, were discussed with the Licensee in a telephone conference on January 31, 1983.
The L'icensee stated that valve number 64-141, on the Drywall Pressurization Compressor Line, was deleted from the original tables, since it had been incorrectly identified as an isolation valve.
The correct isolation valves for that line were confirmed to be numbers64-139 and 64-140 in Table 3.7.D by the Licensee, during the telephone conference.
Six ad-ditional valves have been classified as isolation valves in the updated tables, including valve numbers 2-1143, 2-1192, 2-1383, 33-. 795, 33-1070, and 74-722.
The Licensee indicated that these revisions were made as a result of recent plant modifications.
The Licensee has also proposed to air test certain isolation valves that were previously water tested.
Appendix J 10 CFR 50 specifies air testing as the recommended leak testing method except for those valves that are fluid sealed.
In addition, the staff considers air testing of v'alves to be a more conservative method than water testing.
On the basis of the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix J and clarifications provided by the Licensee during the telephone conference of January 31, 1983,the staff concludes that the above proposed changes to the Technical Specifications are acceptable.
The staff concludes, on the bases detailed above, that the proposed changes to Sections 3.7.2 and 4.7.2 of the Technical Specifications for Browns Ferry, Units 1, 2, and 3, as detailed in the Licensee's submittal of December 3, 1982, are acceptable.
3.0 Environmental Considerations Me 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 amendments do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, do not create the possibility of an accident of a type different from any evaluated previously, and do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, 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.
Principal Contributor; J,
R. Hall Dated:
February 14, 1983
~
~
s