ML20149E653
| ML20149E653 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1987 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20149E635 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-00077, TAC-00078, TAC-00079, TAC-77, TAC-78, TAC-79, NUDOCS 8801130426 | |
| Download: ML20149E653 (2) | |
Text
...
[c[
UNITED STATES 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1#I j
j W ASHING TON, D, C. 20555 g
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS SUPPORTING AMENCHENT NO. 139 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. OPR-33 AMENDMENT NO.135 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-52 AMENDMENT NO. 110 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. OPR-68 q
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY l
BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1. 2 AND_3, l
DOCKETS NOS. 50-259, 50-260 AND 50-296 l
l
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The proposed amendments would correct a minor deficiency in technical specification 6.8.3.1, page 6.0-21, concerning high radiation art cs.
It would change the upper limit of one set of requirements from "less than 1000 mrem /hr" to "less than or eaual to 1000 mrem /hr" to clarify any time the radiation intensity of exactly 1000 mrem /hr is achieved in any area of the plant.
2.0 EVALUATION The current technical specification 6.8.3.1 contains certain requirements for high radiation areas in which the intensity of radiation is greater than 100 mrem /hr but less than 1000 mrem /hr. The current technical specification 6.8.3.2 contains additional requirements for high radiation areas greater than_1000 mrem /hr.
This. set of limits is deficient in that the possibility of an area with a radiation intensity of exactly 1000 mrem /hr is not covered.
The proposed change would clarify and complete those requirements by simply including an area of exactly 1000 mrem /hr in technical specification 6.8.3.1 Since this change would alleviate a deficiency and result.only in a minor change in technical specification reouirements, the margin of nuclear safety will not be reduced. Therefore, the staff finds the proposed change to the TS acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments involve a change to a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has determined that the amendments involve 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 occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that these amendments-involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public h5000
concent on such findir.g. Accordingly, the arendments meet the eli j
criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)gibility Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement nor environmental assessrent need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amend-ments.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will. be conducted in compliance with the Commission's re-culations, and the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the ecmmon defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: John Stang Dated: December 31, 1987 1
l 4