ML20211M290
| ML20211M290 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 08/19/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211M296 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8612170102 | |
| Download: ML20211M290 (2) | |
Text
__
[
UNITED STATES
,8
,' g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a
l.I r,
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAEETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION e
SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.129 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO, DPR-33 AMENDMENT NO.124 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-52 AMENDMENT NO.100 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-68 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY J
BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1, 2 AND 3 DOCKET N05. 50-259, 50-260 AND 50-296
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated February 12, 1986 (TVA BFNP TS-217), the Tennessee Valley Authority (the licensee or TVA) requested amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52 and DPR-68 for the Browns Ferry i
Nuclear Plant. Units 1, 2 and 3.
The proposed amendments would change the Technical Specifications to clarify the limiting conditions for operation regarding seismic restraints, supports and snubbers.
2.0 EVALUATION The proposed amendments clarify the requirements for seismic restraints, supports, and snubbers by adopting the requirements of the Standard Technical Specifications. This would permit the plant, during i
t i
all modes of operation, to replace or restore inoperable seismic restraints, supports, and snubbers within a 72-hour period of time after they were discovered.
It also requires an engineering analysis to show that the supported component (s) has not been damaged by the inograble-snubber (s). Since this is a provision in the Standard Technical Specifications, the addition of this requirement is acceptable.
4 i
I i
i I
i 6612170102 061212 DR ADOCK 0500 9
i L
?._
s'
- As noted above, the revised Technical Specifications would permit a unit to startup with an inoperable seismic restraint, support or srgibber (SRSS), which is consistent with the BWR Standard Technical Siscifications (NUREG-0123). At a glance, this might seem to be at variance with the long standing compliance-based policy that any plant repairs should be completed before a plant starts up, even thou be allowed to fix the item'it it becomes non gh some period of time might functional during operation.
(For SRSSs, this period of time is 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />).
If a SRSS is inoperable, it technically renders the system it is protecting inoperable. The Browns Ferry Technical Specifications (TS)_contain specific restrictions on what systems must be operable prior to startup. For example, Section 3.5.A.1 of
,the TS on the core spray system (CSS) states:
~
prior to startup from a cold condition." If a SRSS on the CSS were
. inoperable, the unit could not startup until the SRSS was repaired. As TVA stated in the justification for the proposed change to the TS in the submittal of February 12, 1986, " instances of starting the reactor prior i o completing a SRSS repair would rarely occur" because of the present t
restrictions in the TS on what systems (vs specific components of these systems) must be operable prior to startup. The proposed revisions to the TS is not inconsistent with having plants ready for sustained operation before startup from a shutdown condition and is acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
S The amendments change 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 significantincreaseinthyamounts,andnosignificantchangeinthe
. types, of any eftluents tha,t may be released offsite, and that there should be no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the arrendments' involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public coment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 551.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 951.22(b), no l
environmental impact staternent or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
4.0 CONCLUSION
We have 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 manrer, and (2) such activities will be conducte.d 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.
Principal Contributor:
H. Shaw, R. Clark Dated: August 19, 1986 i
t
(
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -