ML20126B046
| ML20126B046 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 01/31/1980 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20126B044 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003030074 | |
| Download: ML20126B046 (2) | |
Text
.. -
=.
O~
(o UNITED STATES g
'g CLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
m g
5 )M
- E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATEN BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR EcGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMNT NO. 57 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. OPR-33 AMENDMENT NQ. 52 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-52 AMENDMENT NQ. 30 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-68 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY BROWNS FERY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS NOS.1, 2 AND 3 DOCIET N05. 50-259, 50-260 AND 50-296 1.0 Introduction By letter dated Jouary 24, 1980, the Tennessee Valley Authority (the licensee or TVA) equested changes to the Technical Specifications (Appendix A) appealed to Facility Operating Licenses Nos. OPR-33, DPR-52 and DPR-68 for the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units Nos.1, 2 and 3.
The proposed amendments would change the Technical Specifications to be exactly idertical to the Technical Specifications.that existed irmiediatel) prior to the changes effected by Amendment Nos. 56, 51 and 29.
On January 14, 1980, in response to TVA's request of the same date, we issued Amendment 1os. 56, 51 and 29 to Facility Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-33, DPR-E2 and DPR-68. These amendments permitted operation of Browns Ferry Udt No. 3 (BF-3) while Unit No.1 is down for refueling by providing a te@orary second off-site power source to the Unit No. 3 4 kv shutdown boarJs through the 4 kv bus tie board.
In the Safety Evaluation related to these Amendments - which is incorporated in this Safety Evaluation'ay reference - we stated that upon completion of the new overhead line installation from the cooling tower transformers to i
the Unit No. 3 4ky system, the Technical Specifications will be cnanged j
to revert to the Technical Specifications that existed inmediately prior to the changes effected by Amendments Nos. 56, 51 and 29.
i 2.0 Evaluation J
TVA has completed rerouting of the cables from the cooling tower trans-formers into Unit b. 3.
As TVA stated in their submittal of January 14, I
1980, the cooling bwer connection to the bus tie board has been l
physically removed until repairs are completed.
TVA is awaiting approval j
l of this amendment b restore this connection to the cooling tower l-e T
-800303u
1 transformers and to restore the interlocks circuitry between the Units 1 and 2 shutdown boards and the Unit 3 bus tie board. TVA has reaffirmed their comnitments to:
- 1) verify, by test, the operabili ty of the restored system, 2) restore the interlocks circuitry to that which existed immediately prior to January 14,1980,3) revise the operating and emergency procedures to reflect the restored system, and 4) reinstruct the operating and maintenance personnel on the restored system.
We had previously evaluated the Browns Ferry inplant electrical system and had concluded that it was designed to maintain adequate inplant electrical system voltages under all postulated modes of normal and abnormal operation of the three Browns Ferry units.
We have rereviewed the system as a result of the temporary modifications made on January 14, 1980 and reaffirmed our previous conclusions.
The system must be restored to the configuration that exi:ted irmediately prior to January 14, 1980 before Unit No.1 is authorized to resume operation; the refueling outage of Unit 1 is scheduled to be completed by February 21, 1980.
3.0 Environmental Considerations We have determined that these 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 these amendments involve an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4) that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
J 4.0 Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendments do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does 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 l
not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of the amendnents will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Da :ed:
January 31, 19R0 l
.