ML18026A984
| ML18026A984 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 04/23/1984 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18026A983 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8405150510 | |
| Download: ML18026A984 (3) | |
Text
gP,R REGS
~o
+G
~++*++
I UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATIOl'I BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.
95 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-33 AMENDMENT NO.
89 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-52 AMENDMENT NO.
62 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-68 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1, 2 AND 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-259, 50-260 AND 50-296 1.0 Introduction By letter dated February 1,
1983 (TVA BFNP TS 176) 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, Units 1, 2 and 3.
The licensee's application was submitted in response to our request in Generic Letter No. 82-23, dated October 30, 1982.
The requested change adds a requirement that the licensee perform an audit of the Safeguards Contingency Plan at least once every 12 months.
2.0 Evaluation By Generic Letter No. 82-23 dated October 23,
- 1982, we advised all licensees that "Section 73.40(d) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations requires that each nuclear power reactor licensee provide for an independent review of its safeguards contingency plan at least every 12 months."
At present, there is no requirement in the Browns Ferry Technical Specifications with respect to an audit of the safeguards contingency plan.
The change proposed by the licensee would add a new requirepIent for such an audit.
We find that the licensee has responded fully to the requirements to 10 CFR 73.40(d) by proposing to add the required audit to the Browns Ferry Technical Specifications, and therefore, the proposed amendment to the Technical Specifications is acceptable.
3.0 Environmental Considerations 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 determina-tion, 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 environmental impact statement, or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
8405i505i0 840423 PDR ADOCK 05000259 PDR
fs
~ 1
'I
4.0 Conclusion Me have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed
- manner, and (2) 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 Contributors:
mohan C. Thadani Dated:
April 23, 1984