ML20214H909

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 133,129 & 104 to Licenses DPR-33,DPR-52 & DPR-68,respectively

ML20214H909
Person / Time
Site:	Browns Ferry
Issue date:	05/13/1987
From:	NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS
To:
Shared Package
ML20214H831	List: ML20214H830 ML20214H851 ML20214H909
References
TAC-61960, TAC-61961, TAC-61962, NUDOCS 8705270539
Download: ML20214H909 (3)

Text

. - _ _

I  :.

o UNITED STATES g j

• .E g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D. C. 20655

... .; j

%.,....*/

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS i SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 133 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-33

- AMENDMENT NO. 129 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-52 d

AMENDMENT NO. 104 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-68 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1, 2 AND 3 00CKETS NOS. 50-259, 50-260 AND 50-296

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated June 4, 1986 (Reference 1) Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) proposed to change the Technical Specifications for the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Units 1, 2 and 3. The specifications to be changed are concerned with requirements for the Rod Worth Minimizer (RWM) and the Rod Sequence Control System (RSCS).

The current specifications (3/4.3.B.3) are in somewhat different format and have slightly different content for the three reactors. They also differ somewhat from Standard Technical Specifications. They were involved in a " Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties" (Reference 2) in 1985. A subsequent letter (Reference 3)'by

the NRC suggested clarification of these specifications. Thus the intent of the changes is to provide (1) the same specifications for.the three reactors (2) clarification (and other editorial changes) of the specifications to avoid difficulties of interpretation, and (3) a closer approach to the Standard Technical Specifications.  !

2.0 EVALUATION The current RSCS and RWM Limiting Conditions for Operation and Surveillance specifications are 3/4.B.3.a through d. In the proposed change they will  !

be 3.3.B.3.a through c and 4.3.B.3.a,1 and 2 and b.1 through 3. Unlike 4

.i the current specifications the numbering and wording of the new specifi-cations will be the same for each of the three reactors. Since the; systems and operations are the same for these reactors, this change will avoid confusion with respect to the commonality of operating requirements.

The changes to the specifications do not change the overall meaning and intent and significant requirements of the specifications. All of the changes are such as to move closer to.(and in most respects directly adopt) the language and content of the Standard Technical Specifications for RCSC and RWM operation and surveillance. The revised specifications provide all of the operational limits and action and surveillance 8705270539 870513 PDR. ADOCK 05000259:

P PDR a

9 9

4 requirements of the Standard Technical Specifications (STS) and are l clearly within all acceptable criteria with respect to the operation of l the RCSC and RWM systems and components specified in Standard Review l Plan (SRP 7.7).

This is done both for reactor.startup and shutdown operations. This' change to provide the same requirements and much'of l

the language of th,3 STS is a satisfactory approach to needed modification '

and improvement of these specifications. Therefore, the changes proposed by TVA are acceptatle.

The specific request by the NRC cited in Reference 3 was to clarify the specifications to indicate that when the RWM (or RSCS) is inoperable (below 20 percent power) the reactor need not be shut down, but can continue to operate if there is .no motion of any control rod (except by scram). This is accomplished in the revised specifications by specifi-cation 3.3.B.3.b, in which no control rod movement is.an acceptable alternative to immediate shutdown. This change is acceptable and satisfies the request of Reference 3.

TVA has proposed changes to the Technical Specifications of RSCS and RWM operation and surveillance which would make them the same for each of the three reactors, would adopt the requirements for operation, action and surveillance of the Standard Technical Specifications and therefore, clearly within all acceptable criteria of SRP 7.7 and would satisfy the NRC request for clarifications of the specifications. We have reviewed the changes and information submitted by TVA and based on this review we have concluded that appropriate material was submitted and that the proposed changes satisfy staff positions and requirements in these areas. Operations in the proposed manner and the Technical Specification changes are 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 significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there should be no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational i

radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set i forth in 10 CFR 651.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 651.22(b), no envi-ronmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.

1 1

's b .

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 manner, and-(2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's re-gulations, and the issuance of the amendments will not be inimicaloto the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

5.0 REFERENCES

1. Letter (and attachment) from R. Gridley, TVA, to D. Muller, NRC, dated-June 4, 1986, " Proposed Technical Specification Revisions, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plants Unit 1, 2 and 3."

2. Letter from J. Grace, NRC, to H. Parris, TVA, dated February 27, 1985,

" Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties: EA 84-136 ...."

3. Letter from J. Taylor, NRC to H. Parris, TVA, dated August 05, 1985.

Principal Contributor: H. Richings Dated: May 13,1987 1

-- _ - - - . -