ML18029A546
| ML18029A546 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 05/02/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18029A545 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8505200178 | |
| Download: ML18029A546 (4) | |
Text
~y,S REOp CW P
4 0
Cy nO I
4 cA O~
V/+~
~
go
+)t*w+
l UNITED STATES N~EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, O. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.
117 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE'. DPR-33, AMENDMENT NO.
112 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-52, AND AMENDMENT NO.
88 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 October 22, 1984 (TS 203) 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 I, 2 and 3.
The proposed specifications would revise the Technical Specifications (TS)
Auxiliary Electrical System section to reflect the 161-kV offsite power system capability, incorporate changes in start bus utilization, and to clarify wording.
The proposed changes would also delete unnecessary degraded voltage timer relay tolerances and provide settings which more realistically match relay characteristics.
2.0 Discussion and Evaluation The staff has reviewed the proposed TS changes and supporting bases and concluded that the following changes are acceptable:
A.
For Units 1 and 2, the 16lkV Athens and Trinity lines to Browns Ferry, previously credited as one offsite power source, may, for no more than two units in operation, be considered as two distinct offsite power sources.
This will simplify the requirements for the offsite power sources, even though the system design has not changed.
This change increases availability of offsite sources to individual units and results in reducing the potential for a unit shutdown.
B.
C.
Surveillance requirements for the bus-tie board, for Units I and 2, are reinstated to assure a power path to shutdown buses of Units 1 and 2
from the 161 kV lines, the third offsite source.
(This requirement already exists for Unit 3.)
In Table 4.9.A.4.c of Units I and 2, the value for timer uncertainty for the undervoltage relay on the 4 kV shutdown boards was revised to reflect more practical values comensurate with that for Unit 3 which were approved March 29, 1982, in Amendment No. 52.
8505200i78 850502 PDR ADOCK 05000259
(
P PDR
(
D.
The following revisions apply to all three units.
( 1)
The descriptive language throughout TS 3.9.A was simplified to eliminate ambiguity of offsite source selection.
(2)
TS 4.9.A.1, rewords a surveillance requirement relating to automatic load sequencing on diesel generators, to clarify that there is no load sequencer.
(Load sequencing is accomplished by timers and relays.)
(3)
The complete text of TS 3.9 and TS 4.9 are revised to identify specific transformers and to state when (and how) substitution is allowed.
(4)
In TS 4.9.A.2a, the requirement to record the temperature of the cell adjacent to the pilot cell for the unit batteries, diesel generator batteries and shutdown board batteries on a seven-day basis is removed.
However, the temperature for the pilot cell will be monitored weekly.
The temperature of each cell will still be measured and recorded every three months in accordance with 4.9.A.2.b.
These changes more clearly reflect the surveillance described in the BMR Standard Technical Specification (NUREG-0123).
In summary, the changes clarify the text to eliminate ambiguity, reinstate the bus-tie board operability requirements, and bring Units I and 2 offsite power source requirements into accord with Unit 3 Technical Specifications.
Based on the above, we find these changes 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 and changes in surveillance requirements.
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 occupational 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 (1)'here 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 Cooeission's
3 regulations, and the issuance of these amendments will not be dpimical to the c'ommon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
S.
Rhow Dated:
May 2, 1985