ML20236D355
| ML20236D355 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 07/17/1987 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236D340 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-64706, TAC-64707, TAC-64708, NUDOCS 8707300420 | |
| Download: ML20236D355 (2) | |
Text
-]
l q..
j'n. / '.17.NpKf4 --
't
... NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UNITED STATES
- 8 d
-('
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
.t iO o
.....s.
SAFETY EVALUATION BY'THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.134 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-33 I
.j AMENDMENT NO.130 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-52 q
AMENDMENT NO. Ich TO FACILITY' OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-68 ~
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY J
BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1, 2 AND 3 DOCKETS NOS.- 50-259, 50-260 AND 50-296 j
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1 By'letterdatedFebruary9.1987,(TS-226)the.TennesseeValleyAuthority
- j
.(TVA or the: licensee) requested amendments to Facility Operating Licenses F
u Nos. DPR-33 DPR-52, and DPR-68 for the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 1[TS) 2, and 3.(BFN)'. LThe amendments would change the Technical Specifications
~
.to delete one of the alternative actions specified in Table 3.1.A when'the Average Power Range Monitor -(APRM) High Flux or Inoperative trip channels.
are inoperable. It also makes minor clarifications and improvements.
2.0 EVALUATION _
i 2.1' Deletion of Alternative Action The amendments would revise Table 3.1.A page 3.1/4.1-3 (Units l'and 2) and page.
]
3.1/4.1-2(Unit 3)todeletealternativeaction"or1.B"fromtheaction column for the-APRM, High Flux and' APRM, Inoperative trip function.
The APRM, High Flux and Inoperative trip functions are required to be operable i
by the'TS.in the Run and Startup/ Hot Standby modes of reactor operation.' If the APRM, High Flux or Inoperative trip functions are inoperable in.the RUN mode of reactor operation, TS allow action 1.B to be taken.which results in the plant being placed in the Startup/ Hot Standby Mode of operation. Taking this action, however, as.the TS. are currently written,- would require the APRM, High Flux and the Inoperative trip functions to be operable. This ambiguity could lead to confusion by the operators. The deletion of option 1.B is appropriate j
lin order to remove the ambiguity and would result in additional restriction, not
'i allowing action 1.B to be taken, thereby improving the margin of nuclear safety.
Therefore, the staff finds.the change to the TS acceptable.
)
2.2 Clarifications and Improvements The amendments would revise Table 3.1.A page 3.1/4.1-4 (Units 1 and 2) and page
-3.1/4.1-3 (Unit 3) to make two administrative changes.
8707300420 870717 PDR ADOCK 05000259:'
3.P PDR
j l
The first change adds "1.A or 1.0" to the Action column for the Turbine First Stage Pressure Permissive trip function. The action column currently references note 19 which specifies when actions 1. A or 1.0 are required. This addition in the Action column is consistent with the content of and clarifies the intent of note 19 and enhances con-1 sistency throughout the table.
For the second change note 2 is added in the Shutdown column for the High Water Level in West and East Scram Discharge Tanks trip functions.
i Since the note itself currently specifies its applicability during j
shutdown, the intent of the requirement is not changed and the addition i
of the note enhances table consistency with and clarifies the intent of note 2.
Therefore, the staff finds the above changes acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
S 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 j
in 10 CFR Part 20.
The staff has determined that the amendments involve no j
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 l
criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)gibility comment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendments meet the eli Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement nor environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
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 regulations, and the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense l
and security nor to the health and safety of the public.
f Principal Contributor: John Star.g Dated: July 17, 1987 A