ML20148T884
| ML20148T884 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 02/06/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148T881 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8102280120 | |
| Download: ML20148T884 (3) | |
Text
.
[panagj UNITED STATES g
y K.~ q ) g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g.g\\fj,y E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 o, y
, f e
%.u j SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 66 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-33 AMENDMENT NO. 62 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-52 AMENDMENT NO. 38 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-68 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTRORITY BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS NOS. 1, 2 AND 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-259, 50-260 AND 50-296 1.0 Introduction By letters dated June 13,1980 (TVA BFNP TS 139) and October 16, 1980 (TVA BFNP TS 152), the Tennessee Valley Authority (the licensee or TVA) requested changes to the Technical Specifications (Appendix A) appended to Facility Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52 and DPR-68 for the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos.1, 2 and 3.
The letter of June 13, 1980 was in response to our generic letter of April 10,1980 to "all power reactor licenses" requesting that they sub-mit proposed changes to their technical specifications that incorporate the requirements of the Model Technical Specifications (which were enclosed with our generic letter) to employ an explicit definition of the term OPERABLE for all components of safety related systems. The letter of October 16, 1980 was a request to change the definition of
" Cold Shutdown" to make it consistent with the "3WR Standard Technical S pec i fica tio n." Thus, the proposed amendments and revised Technical Specifications would make the Browns Ferry Units 1, 2 and 3 Technical Specifications consistent with the NRC Standard Technical Specifications in defining operability of safety related systems and cold shutdown.
2.0 Evaluation Our generic letter of April 10, 1980 discusses the basis for our request that all licensees review and, as necessary, revise the technical speci-fications for their facilities.
Basically, the thrust of the model technical specifications is to insure that there are not only limiting conditions of operation (LCOs) that require all redundant components of safety related systems to be operable but that the LCOs address multiple outages of redundant components and the effects of outages of any support 810228 0@
f i systems - such as electrical power or cooling water - that are relied upon to maintain the OPERABILIT,Y of the particular system. The changes to the definitions of " Limiting Conditions for Operation" and " Operability" proposed in TVA's submittal of June 13,1980 are consistent with the definitions in the Model Technical Specifications enclosed with our generic letter of April 10, 1980.
The proposed changes are acceptable.
In the submittal of June 13, 1980, TVA also proposed several additional administrative type changes to the Technical Specifications for Units 1, 2 and 3 to correct errors or omissions.
Each of the proposed changes are discussed below.
On page 16 of the Unit 1 Technical Specifications, the value for the
. sa f ety limit minimum critical power ratio (SLMCPR) shown in parenthesis is the old value of 1.06.
This limit only applied during the first fuel cycle. Once 8x8 fuel was added to the core, the SLMCPR became 1.07; a SLMCPR of 1.07 is the correct and accepted value for all three units.
The proposed change corrects an administrative error and is acce< table.
By letter dated November 9,1979, we issued Amendment Nos. 53, 49 and 26 to Facility License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52 and DPR-68 in response to TVA's application of August 27, 1979. The amendments changed the Technical Soecifications to increase the high drywell pressure trip level setpoint
'rcm 2.0 psig to 2.5 psig. Besides the changes in TVA's application of A; gust 27, 1979, there were additional pressure switches for which the ranges shown in the Technical Specifications snould have been changed by the amendments but which TVA failed to include in their application. The proposed changes on pages 33, 52, 63 and 78 of the Technical Specifications for Units 1 and 2 and the proposed changes on paces 32, 65 and 81 of the Technical Specifications for Unit 3 correct these omissions. The changes are acceptable.
The proposed change on page 219 of the Unit 3 Technical Specifications is to add two new snubbers to the list of snubbers to be inspected.
The two new snubbers are for the residual heat removal service water system.
The proposed additions are acceptable.
The proposed changes on page 188 of the Unit 1 and 2 Technical Specifi-cations and on page 201 of the Unit 3 Technical Specifications is to substitute a revised Nil Ductility Temperature (NDT) operating curve.
These curves specify the minimum temperature that the reactor vessel must be at for the range of primary coolant pressures. The upper portion of the curves provides an additional 20*F shift from the original curves for protection because of uncertainty of radiation damage. The lower portion of curves 2 and 3 reflect the limiting conditions for protection of the feedwater nozzles from degradation. This lower portion includes the 40*F conservatism for nuclear heatup.
These proposed curves are more conservative than those in the present technical specifications and have been administratively imposed. The proposed changes are acceptable.
9
,.The change ^ on p. 354 of the Unit 3 Fire Protection Inspection program is to change the-time frame for the audit to make it consistent with the time frame specified for Units 1 and 2.
The proposed change is acceptable..
.The audit by an outside consultant for the first 3 year period has been completed.
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 Section 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 these amendments.
4.0 Conclusion We have concluded that: -(l) because the amendments do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previou ly considered and do not involve a significant decrease.in a safety margin, the amendments do not involve a significant hazards cor. sideration, (21 there is reasonable assurance that the health and safetyLof the public will 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 these amendments will not be inimical to the common' defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
l Dated: February 6,1981 -
6 l
l t
n,,.+.,.c w,,,.,r,-,--,,.
,-,,-,-..,..,-,,w, n,,,,,
v.,-
,,,,..n.,n.,
. - -, -. - ~ - - -,