ML19340D502
| ML19340D502 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 12/10/1980 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19340D500 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8012300721 | |
| Download: ML19340D502 (3) | |
Text
_ _ _ _
m 6
gs.a KtCg O+
UNITED STATES NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION b[
, g/g( )
/.
WASHING TON. D. C, 20555 S,,
%,.....f v
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NitCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 64 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-33 AMENDMENT N0. 60 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-52 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-259 AND 50-260 1.0 Introduction By letter dated September 17,1980 (TVA BFNP TS 150) the Tennessee Valley Authority (the licensee or TVA) requested changes to the Technical Specifications (Appendix A) appended to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33 and DPR-52 for the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2.
The proposed amendments and revised Technical Specifications would allow operation of Browns Ferry Unit 2 with the standby coolant supply capability (supplied from Unit 1) inoperable for a period not to exceed ten days.
2.0 Discussion In response to TVA's application of August 26, 1980, on September 9,1980 we issued Amendment No. 34 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-68 for the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Unit No. 3.
The Amendment allowed operation of Unit 3 with the residual heat removal service water (RHRSW) standby coolant supply capability (supplied from Unit 2) inoperable for a period not to exceed 10 days. TVA's application of September 17, 1980 - which is the subject of this safety evaluation - requested the same change for Unit 2.
3.0 Evaluation Our safety evaluation for Amendment No. 34 for Unit 3 included a detailed discussion of the configuration of the residual heat removal (RHR) system and the RHRSW system for all three Browns Ferry units.
The discussion and evaluation in Amendment No. 34 for Unit 3 are completely pertinent to this safety evaluation and the safety evaluation for Amendment No. 34 for Unit 3 is incorporated herein by reference.
001 2300
'72/
. As noted in the previous safety evaluation, the RHR pump suction and heat exchanger discharge lines of one loop in Unit 1 are cross-connected to the pump suction and heat exchanger discharge lines of one RHR loop in Unit 2.
Units 2 and 3 systems are cross-connected in a similar This arrangement is shown in the attached figure for Units 1 manner.
and 2.
The cross-connection valves are those in the lined or cross-hatched circles. The cross-hatched valve permits RHRSW (river water) from the IDRHR heat exchanger to be added to the RHR system (primary coolant) as a last-ditch emergency if all the " clean" water sources of cooling water in Units 1 and 2 have been lost (condensate, suppression pool, etc.) and the normal service water makeup in the unit in trouble is not available. The present Technical Specifications do not provide any period of time for the RHRSW cross-connection to be out of service, which in turn does not allow the associated RHR heat exchangers and RHRSW pumps to be out of service for maintenance - even though there is considerable redundancy in the RHR systems and the present Technical Specifications permit the RHR cross-flow connections to be out-of-service for up to 10 days. We conclude, as we did in Amendment No. 34, that the proposed Technical Specification change to allow a 10 day outage time for the RHRSW cross-flow connection between units is acceptable and that the overall reduction in plant safety margin is insignificant.
4.0 Environmental Considerations We have determined that the amendments do not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendments involve an action which is insignificant from tne standpoint of environmental impact and pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5(d)(4) that an environmental impact statement, or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
5.0 Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
g (1) because the amendments do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and l
i do not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission'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.
Dated: December 10, 1980
dL P
i m
,.. e.%w ew rss%wrus rc v n% v-~
< CONDENSATE "
I
[ *~
l MAIN STEAM l
,f il
{dljEN )M r--"'
3CIC
- 1
}
j RCIC
- 1 HPCI GFY
)RYd l
T m?FC rM l*9 cm 1
l r -g
'n,
7 l
- 9 iM0F a *J 4E0 t i:
- i
- d
<b b
- FEEDWATE CS CS FEE 0 WATER t
I l
CS FEE 0 WATER -
OR CORE
]' "
i
[
,l 1,
% g lI
.l
[
d eram j
( ua2 I
l.
Ca'u n
I<
x.
/4 II II' I
A
/I L I.
x,,y
((l ll
[T 9
ll lk[
-4
-((I l
[
r s
I HhHh)I h
H -$
W,
,f H [ H I l ll W
llll l H
l ll
[
X X
l a
X X
8 i
X X
][.
'l d
AR "
RHR f
"s
& yRHR7 s,w 4
AR AR V
I RHR j
i i
[\\
h
^
^^
a c
c
[
SUPPRESSION
,f [f
(
F
{
,N[ f,
-SUPPRESSION
- o o
", f h
" f j,, f, POOL POOL UNIT I UNIT 2 m :,
- .wm e
@ UNIT CROSS CONNECTIONS
@ STAND-BY COOLANT SUPPLY BROWH5 FERRY HUCLEAR PLANT Residual Heat Removat System, Unit Cross Connections and Standby Coolant Supply
&