ML20237L021
| ML20237L021 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 08/20/1987 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237L008 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-64703, TAC-64704, TAC-64705, NUDOCS 8708270383 | |
| Download: ML20237L021 (2) | |
Text
,
- ... la nov o
UNITED STATES g
jjg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.g
,y WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 rg,/
sf...,..,
h SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.135 TO FACILITY '0PERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-33 AMENDMENT NO. 131 TO FACILITY OPERA TING LICENSE N0. DPR-52 AMENDHENT NO. 106 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-68 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, LNITS 1, 2 AND 3 DOCKETS NOS. 50-259, 50-260 AND 50-296
1.0 INTRODUCTION
f By.letterdatedFebruary6,1987,TennesseeVjlleyAuthority(TVA,thelicensee) requested amendments to definition 1.0.C.2 of the Technical Specifications (TS) for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFNP). The proposed TS change will clarify the applicability of definition 1.0.C.2 so that the definition will not be erroneously appliedwhileinColdShutdownconditionprRefuelmode.
Definition 1.0.C.2 for units 1, 2 and 3[ts changed by adding the word " definition" and by deleting the phrase "if the unit is already" so that the sentence beginning on the thirteenth line of BFNP definition 1.0.C.2 reads, "This definition is not applicable in Cold. Shutdown or Refueling."
-i 2.0 EVALUATION By letter dated April 10, 1980 the NRC sent letters to all Power Reactor
]
Licensees, requesting that the provisions of certain model TS be added to each i
licensee's TS. Amon for Operation (LCO) g these was model Boiling Water Reactor Limiting Condition 3.0.5.
TS Section 3.0.5 deals with the operability of systems when normal or emergency power supplies are lost. Model TS 3.0.5 contains the sentence, "This Specification is not applicable in OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS 4 or 5."
1 Two minor mistakes were made in adopting this sentence of model LC0 3.0.5 to l
l be BFNP technical specification definition 1.0.C.2.
These mistakes resulted in confusion about when definition 1.0.C.2 may be applied.
First, the word " specification" in the model LC0 should have been changed
{
to " definition" to adapt from an LC0 to a definition format.
Instead, the word
" specification" was deleted without being replaced by the word " definition."
Second, the phrase "if the unit is already" was incorporated into the TS from an early GE-STS (BWR/4) LCO 3.0.5.
In a later edition GE-STS j
(BWR/4), LCO 3.0.5 was deleted and replaced by a combination of a revised definition of Operable-Operability and a new action (c) in LC0 3.8.11.
]
B708270383 870820 PDR ADOCK 05000259 P-PDR
.s o.
4 2-This change to GE-STS (BWR/4) made the old concept represented by the early GE-STS (BWR/4) LC0 3.0.5 only applicable in Operational ~ Conditions 1, 2 and 3 (Power Operation, Startup, and Hot Shutdown). The sentence in model LC0 3.0.5 reflected this restriction of applicability.
The changes to the TS will clarify the applicability of the definition and since the revised wording will be more restrictive than the current definition, the staff concludes that the margin of safety will not be reduced, and therefore, the proposed 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 detsrmined 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 the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public 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 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 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 and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principa1 ' Contributor:
John Stang Dated:
August 20, 1987 l
l M9
_