ML18026B158
| ML18026B158 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 07/30/1984 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18026B157 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8408160427 | |
| Download: ML18026B158 (3) | |
Text
~$l AEONS 0
0
~O
~>>*++
UNITED STATES UCLEAR REGULATORY COIVIMISSI WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.
105; TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-33 AMENDMENT NO.
99 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-52 AMENDMENT NO.
72 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-68 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY BROMNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS.
1, 2 AND 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-259, 50-260 AND 50-296 1.0 Introduction By letter dated July 18, 1983 (TS 176, Supp.
- 9) the Tennessee Valley Authority, licensee for the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2 and 3, requested changes to the Technical Specifications for these units as follows:
1.
Sections 6.8.1, 6.8.2, 6.8.3, and 6.8.5 - Add the word "reactor" to change the titles of the licensed operators so that they are standardized with the abbreviations SRO and RO (senior reahtor operator and reactor operator).
2.
Section 6.8.3 - Change the words from "A licensed senior operator shall be in direct charge of a refueling operation" to "A licensed senior reactor operator or SRO limited to fuel handling shall be in direct charge of a reactor refueling operation."
2.0 Evaluation Change No.
1 is a title change only; it has no affect on plant safety and is therefore acceptable.
Change No.
2 is consistent with 10 CFR 50.54(m)(2)(iv) and 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.
The staff has 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 8408160427 840730 PDR
@DOCK 05000259 P
1 E
~
C 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 (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 Comnission 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:
L. Crocker Dated:
July 30, 1984