ML20237G078
| ML20237G078 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 08/26/1987 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237G070 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-64372, TAC-64373, TAC-64374, NUDOCS 8709020089 | |
| Download: ML20237G078 (2) | |
Text
- _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
o UNITED STATES
~,
8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
g E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%,+..../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS SUPPORTING AMEN 0 MENT NO.137 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-33 AMENDMENT NO.133 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. OPR-52 AMENDMENT NO.108 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. OPR-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 December 15, 1986, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA cr the licensee) proposed to change the Technical Specifications (TS) for the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3.
The specifications to be changed are concerned with coolant leakage monitoring requirements.
In NRC Generic Letter 84-11. " Stainless Steel Piping Reinspection" dated April 19, 1984, the NRC specified the need for more restrictive leakage monitoring limits.
The proposed changes address this request.
2.0 EVALUATION The proposed changes would affect the following:
Section 4.6.C.1, " Coolant Leakage," would be changed to require reactor coolant leakage to be checked by the sump and air sampling system and recorded at least once every 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />. The current TS require sampling and recording once every 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />.
In addition, the corresponding Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.6.C.1.b is being changed to delete the last sentence which is actually a Surveillance Requirement (SR) and redundant to SR 4.6.C.1.
LC0 3.6.C.2, " Coolant Leakage," would be changed to restrict reactor power operation to continue only during the succeeding 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> whenever the drywell sump system is found to be inoperable.
The current TS allow 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> of continued operation once the drywell sump system is declared inoperable.
These proposed changed are in accordance with the guidance provided in GL 84-11 as well asSection IV.B.1.a.2 of NUREG-0313 (Technical Report on Material Selection and Processing Guidelines for BWR Coolant Pressure Boundary Piping, July 1980).
Both changes are more restrictive than the current TS requirement.
8709020089 07082 PDR ADOCK 05000 P
P
r
. Based on the above considerations, we conclude that the proposed changes enhance the overall margin of safety, and are consittent with the intent of all regulatory guidance.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments involve a change to a requireri,ent with respect to installation j
or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes to the surveillance requirements. 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 Comission has previously issued a I
proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards consider-I ation 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 51.22(c)(9).
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 re-1 gulations, and the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
G. Gears Dated: August 26, 1987