ML20244D465
| ML20244D465 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 04/13/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20244D464 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-00474, TAC-00475, TAC-00476, TAC-474, TAC-475, TAC-476, NUDOCS 8904210358 | |
| Download: ML20244D465 (2) | |
Text
_ - - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
('
e UNITED STATES g
NDCLEAR HEGULATORY COMMISSION
+
g j
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655
\\,,,,/
l
.J ENCLOSURE 4 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF SPECIA4. PROJECTS SUPPORTING /]4ENDMENT NO.165 TO FACILITY OPERATIN@ LICENSE NO. DPR-33 AMENDMENT NO.163 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-52 AMENDMENT NO.136 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICE]NSE NO. DPR-68 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1, 2 AND 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-259, 50-260 AND 50-296
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), by submittal dated September 29, 1988x proposed to revise Tables 3.2.J and 4.2.J of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), Units 1, 2, and 3 Technical Specifications (TS) for seismic monitoring.
The proposed revisions would reflect the manufacturer's suggested testing frequency for triaxial peak accelerographs and to correct typographical errors in these tables. Changes to the TS bases for the seismic instrumentation have also been proposed. TVA states that the new seismic instruments and the pro-posed TS changes will improve instrument efficiency and dependability.
2.0 EVALUATION TVA is upgrading the seismic monitoring instrumentation for BFN, Units 1, 2, and 3.
BFN TS Tables 3.2.J and 4.2.J, Seismic Monitoring Instrumentation, are being revised to reflect the suggested manufacturer's testing requirements.
Specifically, the channel calibration frequency for the triaxial time history and triaxial peak accelerographs are proposed to be changed from "N/A" to "R"
(once per refueling outage). The channel functional test frequency for the triaxial peak accelerographs is proposed to be changed from "12 months" to "N/A".
The channel functional test frequency for the triaxial time history accelerocraphs and the biaxial seismic switches are proposed to be changed from "six months" to "SA" (semiannually). The calibration frequency for the biaxial seismic switches is proposed to be changed from once/ operating cycle to "R".
TVA also proposed to delete the note "except seismic switches" as referenced by the channel check requirements for the triaxial time history accelerographs and biaxial seismic switches. The proposed administrative TS changes include instruments listed in the seismic monitoring TS Tables, the numbering of table entries for each instrument, typographical corrections, and the addition of a reference elevation (E.R.) of 519.0 feet for each biaxial seismic switch.
890421035g 99o433 PDR ADOCK 05000259 P
PDC il
R i
(,'
?
\\
.. f The proposed administrative changes listed above provide consistency for the seismic monitoring TS Tables, correct spelling, and standardize the abbreviations for the surveillance requirement frequencies. These changes are i
strictly administrative in nature, do not affect safety, and are, therefore, found to be acceptable. A new requirement for performance of a channel calibration of the triaxial time history accelerographs of at least once per refueling is consistent with the General Electric Standard Technical Specifications (GE STS) and ANSI /ANS - 2.2-1978, " Earthquake Instrumentation Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants." TVA has proposed to delete the once per 12 month channel functionr1 test requirement for the triaxial peak accelero-graphs and replace it with a new requirement to perform a channel calibration at least once per refueling. TVA states that the channel calibrations proposed are a more comprehensive operability verification and better serve the intent of the TS. _The staff agrees that instrumentation operability would be better verified and, since the proposed frequencies are consistent with the GE STS, the NRC staff finds these proposed chhnges to be acceptable. The staff also notes that TVA has proposed to revise the TS bases to reflect the wording of Regulatory Guide 1.12.
The staff finds these changes to be acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
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 in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes to 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 Cognission has previously issued a proposed finding that these 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 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 Connission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (54 FR 6211) on February 8, 1989 and consulted with the State of Alabama.
No public connents were received and the State of Alabama did not have any comments.
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
1 I
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety cf the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Connission's regulations, 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:
T. Roi.cIla Dated: April 13, 1989
.