ML18036A421
| ML18036A421 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 11/04/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18036A420 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9111140049 | |
| Download: ML18036A421 (3) | |
Text
e ~R RKDII
+
0 4p A
I 0O gO
'++**+
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 ENCLOSURE 4 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMEND!IENT N0.186 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-33 AIIENDIPENT N0.199 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-52 AMENDMENT N0.158 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-68 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY BROWNS'ERRY NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1
2 AND 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-259 50-260 AND 50-296
- 1. 0 INTRODUCTION By letter dated September 13, 1991, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) submitted a request for changes to the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFNP),
Technical Specifications (TS)'.
The requested changes would extend the logic system functional test (LSFT) surveillance interval from "once every 6 months" to "once every 18 months" for the Common Accident Signal Logic, 4
kY Shutdown Board Undervoltage Start of the 'Diesel Generator, 480V Load Shedding Logic, and RHR Service Water Initiation Logic.
TYA considers this change to be similar to TS changes previously evaluated and approved by the staff, on February 12, 1988 as License Amendments
- 144, 140, and 115 for BFNP Units 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
As such, the LFST surveillance interval changes proposed by TYA's September 13, 1991 application should be within the bounds of the staff's previous safety eva luati on.
2.0 EYALUATION Present TS require a six-month surveillance interval for the aforementioned LSFTs.
Since the duration of a fuel cycle is 18-24 months, a surveillance interval of six months requires performing LSFTs during power operation.
In
- general, the performance of LSFTs at power is undesirable because of the potential for inadvertent
- scrams, actuations of equipment and unexpected transients which place unnecessary demands on safety systems.
Furthermore, the numerous temporary alterations required to perform these complex tests place the plant in a configuration which increases system restoration time and reduces the redundancy of protection.
The proposed TS changes will permit performing 'LSFTs during unit shutdown.
TYA's proposed extension of the survei.llance interval for certain LSFTs is consistent with the guidelines established
.by the staff in the Standard TSs (i.e.,
NUREG-0123) for Boiling Water 'Reactors (BWR).
Furthermore, it was only because of an oversight by TYA that the subject LFSTs were not included as part of the TS changes approved previously by the staff in License Amend-ments
- 144, 140 and 115.
9iiii4004III 9iii04 PDR ADDCK 0500025'P~
P,
'DR Defining appropriate surveillance intervals is an important element in achieving high levels of availability for the Reactor Protection System (RPS) and the plant's Engineered Safeguard Features (ESF).
As a result of extensive efforts by General Electric and the NRC staff to resolve concerns expressed in Item 4.5.3 of Generic Letter 83-28 regarding RPS reliability, the TS surveillance intervals established in NUREG-0123 were reviewed and determined to be adequate.
Since TVA's requested TS revisions for BFHP are consistent with the Standard TS for BhlRs, the, staff concludes that they are acceptable.
Furthermore, extending the surveillance interval for these particular LSFTs should reduce equipment
- wear, increase system availability and minimize situations where the plant is placed in abnormal configurations.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Alabama State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment.
The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONh~iENTAL CONSIDERATION The amendment changes a surveillance requirement.
The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves 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 occupa-tional radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (56 FR49927), Accordingly, the amendment meets the el'igibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR Si.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed
- above, that:
(I) there is reasonable assurance that the hea1th and safety of the public will not be endangered
'by operation in the proposed
- manner, (2) such activities wi 11 be conducted in compliance with the Comnission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment wi 11 not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
T.
Ross Date:
November 4, 1991
~I I,
~V) o-,
, ~