ML18026B113
| ML18026B113 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 07/16/1984 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18026B112 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8407270199 | |
| Download: ML18026B113 (4) | |
Text
~p,8 RE0Ir Nr.
~
0r+~
r+
<r" o~
++*++
UNITEDSTATES CLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOI WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 103TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-33 AMENDMENT NO. 97 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-52 AMENDMENT NO. 71 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 1.0 Introduction By letters dated November 5, 1982, (TVA BFNP TS 176-Sl) and December 17, 1982,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 Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
The requested changes would make corrections and clarifications to the Table of Primary Containment Isolation Valves, change the frequency for Physical Security Plan audits.,
and delete the requirement for the Plant Operations Review Committee (PORC) to review the guality Assurance (gA) program.
2.0 Evaluations Table of Primar Containment Isolation Valves (applicable to Units 1 and 3, nit c anges were part o men ment Technical Specifications (Table 3.7.A) for Units 1 and 3 would be changed to add a footnote for clarification of initiating conditions for reactor water sample line isolation.
The table presently indicates that the sample line isolation valves are closed by any one of the five following conditions 1) reactor low water level, 2) main steamline high radiation,
- 3) main steamline high flow 4) main steamline high temperature or, 5) main steamline low pressure.
However, installed instrumentation is such that only reactor water low-low level or main steamline high radiation initiate sample line isolation.
These events are sufficiently diverse to ensure reliable isolation capability consistent with Standard Review Plan Section 6.2.4 criteria.
This change is therefore acceptable.
Table 3.7.A would be changed to indicate that the drywell exhaust valve bypass to standby gas treatment (SBGT} system (FCV 64-31}, and the suppression chamber exhaust valve bypass to SBGT system (FCV 64-34) are normally open instead of normally closed.
These valves were originally 05000259 9 8407>+
PDR IIIDQCK'gR
) j P
"normally closed".
However the piping in which they are installed is now, as a result of a modification, common to the drywell-to-suppression chamber differential pressure control system.
These valves must now be "normally open" to allow differential pressure control.
This change is therefore acceptable.
Plant Ph sical Securit Plan Audit Intervals Units 1, 2, 8 3.
Technical Specifications for all units would be changed to specify a
12-month, instead of 24-month, audit cycle for the Physical Security Plan.
This change is necessary for consistancy with 10 CFR 73.55(g) and is therefore acceptable.
ualit Assurance Pro ram Overview (Units I, 2, 8
3 Technical Specification 6.2.B.4.h for all units would be changed to delete a requirement that the Plant Operations Review Committee (PORC) periodically review the Quality Assurance Program.
The QA program is presently required to be reviewed by both the PORC and the Nuclear Safety Review Board (NSRB).
However, Regulatory Guide 1.33 (by endorsing ANS 3.2 "Adminstrative Controls and Quality Assurance for the Operational Phase of Nuclear Power Plants" )
prescribes QA program review by an independent offsite organization.
This position is met by the NSRB review and PORC review is therefore unnecessary.
This change is therefore acceptable 3.0 Environmental Considerations The amendments involve a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
We have determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupation radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
4.0 Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that (l) 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 Contributor:
W. Long Dated:
July 16, 1984
~
~