ML18038B205
| ML18038B205 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 03/16/1995 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18038B204 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9503200318 | |
| Download: ML18038B205 (8) | |
Text
~gg R$0I (4
Cg
~o Cy 0O UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION D
0 AMENDMEN NO. 22 TO CI ITY 0 RAT G
CENS NO.
D R-33 AMENDMENT NO. 194 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-68 TEN ESS E V LLEY AUTHORITY BROWNS F
AND 3 DOC E
OS.
50-259 AND 50-296
- 1. 0 INTRODUCTION By letter dated March 31, 1994, the Tennessee Valley Authority (the licensee) requested changes to Technical Specifications (TS) for the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) Units 1 and 3.
The proposed changes would revise the Limiting Conditions for Operation and Surveillance Requirements relating to.
temperature detection instruments that initiate isolation of the High Pressure Coolant Injection System (HPCI) and Reactor Isolation Cooling System (RCIC) turbine main steam supply lines in the event of a line break.
2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
- 2. 1 Technical Specification Changes The proposed changes are conservative in that temperature setpoints for steamline isolation would be lowered, thus resulting in earlier isolation and greater sensitivity to smaller breaks.
The new setpoints were determined analytically and incorporate sufficient margins to prevent spurious actuation of isolation valves.
The bimetal sensors and instrument logics are not being
- changed, nor are the surveillance test intervals.
However, the proposed amendment does (in addition to changing setpoints) revise the action to be taken in the event.of an inoperable channel.
The revised action requirements would allow continued oper ation with an inoperable channel placed in a tripped condition within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
TS changes similar to those requested-for BFN Units 1 and 3 TS were approved for BFN Unit 2 on January 10, 1991.
The staff has reviewed this BFN Unit 2 evaluation, and has confirmed that BFN Units 1 and 3 are of similar design to BFN Unit 2.
The staff finds that, similar to BFN Unit 2, the proposed setpoints for BFN Units 1 and 3 provide appropriate isolation protection in the event of a HPCI: or RCIC steam line rupture.
Therefore, the TS changes for BFN. Units 1 and 3 are acceptable for those units on the same basis given for BFN Unit 2 in its January 10, 1991 evaluation.
95032003<
5000259 PDR ADOCK 0 P
ENCLOSURE 3
tl;
.~', ~
p IP h
2.2 Concerns Regarding Inoperable Instrumentation In the Safety Evaluation accompanying the January 10, 1991 BFN Unit 2 amendment, the staff raised a generic concern regarding the action of placing an inoperable HPCI/RCIC isolation instrument channel (trip system) in the tripped condition for an unlimited time period.
When operating in such a
condition, the isolation function is still single-failure proof from the standpoint that a single sensor failure will not prevent a required isolation.
However, the logic is no longer such that a single failure will not, cause an inadvertent isolation.
The concern was that this logic configuration could reduce the reliability of the HPCI and RCIC systems when they are operating under accident conditions.
The staff has further considered this question and concluded that the likelihood of a spurious ESF isolation actuation, and the associated required actions that must be taken, provide a strong motivation for timely repair of instruments in a tripped channel and thus avoid prolonged oper ation or startup with a channel in a tripped condition.
Therefore, the staff's concerns raised in the January 10, 1991 Safety Evaluation are resolved.
3.0
SUMMARY
The proposed changes to the BFN Units 1 and 3 TS are consistent with changes previously reviewed and approved for BFN Unit 2.
The changes are similarly acceptable for BFN Units 1 and 3.
Therefore, the licensee's proposed amendments of the BFN Units 1 and 3 TS are acceptable.
4.0 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.
- 5. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION.
The amendments change requirements with respect.to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes the surveillance requirements.
The 'NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of'ny effluents that may be released
- offsite, and. that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupati'onal 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 (59 FR 42347).
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.
r
( p II
~ t
'I
- 6. 0 CONCLUSION The 'Commission has concluded, based upon the considerations discussed
- above, that:
(I) there is reasonable assurance that the.health and safety of the public wil.l.not be endangered by operati'on in the, proposed
- manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted. in compliance with the, Commission',s regulations, and (3) issuance of this amendment will'ot be.inimical to the common defense arid securi.ty.
or, to the, health and safety of the.public.
Principal Contributor:
W.. Long Dated:
March 16, 1995
0 il
~Pk.f 3 jl, t>
i
Mr. Oliver D. Kingsley, Jr.
Tennessee Valley Authority BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR'LANT CC:
Hr. 0. J. Zeringue,, Sr. Vice President Nuclear Operations Tennessee Valley Authority 3B Lookout Place 1101 Harket Street Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 Dr. Mark 0. Hedford, Vice President Engineering 8 Technical Services Tennessee Valley Authority 3B Lookout Place 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 Hr. D.
E.
Nunn, Vice President New Plant Completion Tennessee Valley Authority 3B Lookout Place 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 Hr.
R.
D. Hachon, Site Vice President Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Tennessee Valley Authority P.O.
Box 2000
- Decatur, AL 35602 General Counsel Tennessee Valley Authority ET 11H 400 West Summit Hill Drive Knoxville, TN 37902 Hr.
P.
P. Carier, Manager Corporate Licensing Tennessee Valley Authority 4G Blue Ridge 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 Hr. T.
D. Shriver Nuclear Assurance and Licensing Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Tennessee Valley Authority P.O.
Box 2000
- Decatur, AL 35602 Hr. Pedro Salas Site Licensing Manager Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Tennessee Valley Authority P.O.
Box 2000 Decatur, AL'5602 TVA Representative Tennessee Valley Authority 11921 Rockville Pike, Suite 402 Rockville, MD 20852 Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, NW., Suite 2900
- Atlanta, GA 30323 Hr. Leonard D. Wert Senior Resident Inspector Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10833 Shaw Road
- Athens, AL 35611 Chairman Limestone County Commission 310 West Washington Street
- Athens, AL 3561-1 State Health Officer Alabama Department of Public Health 434 Monroe Street Montgomery, AL 36130-1701
Ik
)(,
t~
~W.
./
J