ML18031A732
| ML18031A732 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 08/19/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18031A731 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-60822, TAC-60823, TAC-60824, NUDOCS 8608270398 | |
| Download: ML18031A732 (4) | |
Text
~pg REgy, (4
Np0 Cy
~c nO r
+a*<<+
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
'I SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. l29 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO DPR-33 AMENDMENT NO. 124 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-52 AMENDMENT NO. l00 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-6U TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY BROMNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1
2 AND 3 DOCKET NOS.
50-259 50-260 AND 50-296
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated February 12, 1986 (TVA BFNP TS-217),
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 proposed amendments would change the Technical Specifications to clarify the limiting conditions for operation regarding seismic restraints, supports and snubbers.
2.0 EVALUATION The proposed amendments clarify the requirements for seismic restraints,
- supports, and snubbers by adopting the requirements of the Standard Technical Specifications.
This would permit the plant, during all modes. of operation, to replace or restore inoperable seismic restraints,
- supports, and snubbers within a 72-hour period of time after they were discovered.
It also requires an engineering analysis to show-that the supported component(s) has not been damaged by the inoperable snubber(s).
Since this is a provision in the Standard Technical Specifications, the addition of this requirement is acceptable.
The licensee also proposed to remove the following requirements from the present Technical Specifications:
4.6.4.2 Visual Ins ection,
- Schedule, and Lot Size The first inservice visual inspection of snubbers not previously included in these technical specifications and whose visual inspection has not been performed and documented previously, shall be performed within six months for accessible snubbers and before resuming power after the first outage.
Ihe purpose of this requirement was to assure that any safety-related snubbers inadvertently missed during the first inservice visual inspection be visually inspected within a cer tain time frame.
Since these plants have been operated several fuel cycles, the deletion of this requirement, which applies only to the first visual inspection of
- snubbers, is therefore acceptable.
8b08270398 8b0819 PDR ADQCK 05000259
'~j P
~
~ As noted above, the revised Technical Specifications would per to startup with an inoperable seismic restraint, support or s (SRSS),
which is consistent with the BWR Standard Technical S
(NUREG-0123).
At a glance, this might seem to be at variance it a unit bber ci-fi cations ith the long standing compliance-based policy that any plant repairs should be completed before a plant starts up, even though some period of time might be allowed to fix the item it it becomes non-functional during operation.
(For SRSSs, this period of time is 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />).
If a SRSS is inoperable, it technically renders the system it is protecting inoperable.
The Browns Ferry Technical Specifications (TS) contain specific restrictions on what systems must be operable prior to startup.
For example, Section 3.5.A. 1 of the TS on the core spray system (CSS) states:
"The CSS shall be operable prior to startup from a cold condition." If a SRSS on the CSS were inoperable, the unit could not startup until the SRSS was repaired.
As TVA stated in the justification for the proposed change to the TS in the submittal of February 12, 1986, "instances of starting the reactor prior to completing a
SRSS repair would rarely occur" because of the present restrictions in the TS on what systems (vs specific components of these systems) must be operable prior to startup.
The proposed revisions to the TS is not inconsistent with having plants ready for sustained operation before startup from a shutdown condition and is acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
S The amendments change a requirement with respect to 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 should be 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 551.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 551.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
4.0 CONCLUSION
lie 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 the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
H. Shaw, R. Clark Dated:
August 19, 1986
e Docket Nos.:
50-259/260/296 Mr. S. A. White Manager of.-Nuclear Power Tennessee Valley Authority 6N 38A Lookout Place 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401
Dear Nr. White:
August 19, 1986 The Commission has issued the enclosed Amendment Nos. 129, 124, and 100 to t.aci lity Operating License Nos.
DPR-33, DPR-52 and DPR-68 for the Browns l.erry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2 and 3.
These amendments are in response to your application dated February 12, 1986 (TVA BFNP TS 21/).
The amendments revise the Technical Specifications to clarify the limiting conditions for operation regarding seismic restraints, supports and snubbers.
A copy of the Safety Evaluation is also enclosed.
Notice of Issuance will be included in the Commission's 8i-Weekly Federal
~Re ister Notice.
Sincerely,
Enclosures:
1.
Amendment No. 129 to License No.
DPR-33 2.
Amendment No. 124 to License No.
DPR-52 3.
Amendment No. 100 to License No.
DPR-68 4.
Safety Evaluation cc w/enclosures:
See next page Richard J. Clark, Project Manager BWR Project Directorate
¹2 Division of BWR Licensing DISTRIBUTION:
Doc et File NRC PDR Local PDR JPartlow LHarmon JHolonich TAlexion HDenton RBernero SNorris RClark OGC-Bethesda ACRS (10)
CStahle FCantrell, RII
- JTaylor, IE EJordan BGrimes TBarnhart (12)
WJones
- SPgWeise, RII TKenyon RWessman
- BHayes, OI SRichardson, IE DVassallo HThompson OPA NGrotenhuis LFMB EButcher Gray File NThompson SRConnelly, OIA
- G2ech, RII BJYoungblood SConnelly, OIA OFFICIAL RECORD COPY DB 'PD¹2 DBL:PD SN res:rs RJCIa 8/ 7/86 8/ 7 /86 t
DBL:PD¹ OG DBL+
NGrotenhuis
+,
6 Lib'< DNP'Yer 8////86 8/iP/86 J 8/+86 6/l/f/I