ML20245E956
| ML20245E956 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 01/19/1989 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245E954 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8902030177 | |
| Download: ML20245E956 (2) | |
Text
___-
\\
UNITED STATES
~
I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
]
P I
wasmotow.t c.nosos r,
r.(
l ENCLOSURE 4 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS SUPPORTING AMENDMENT.10.163 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. OPR-33 AMENDMENT N0.160 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-52 AMEN 0 MENT N0.134 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. OPR-68 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1, 2 AND 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-?59, 50-260 AND 50-296
= v..
3; I.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Ry letter dated September 29, 1988, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA or the Itcensee) requested amendments to Appendix A of the Technical Specifications (71) for Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52 and DPR-68 for the delete the references to seismic restraints and supports (but retain 2rowns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), Units 1, 2 and 3.
The proposed change would references to snubbers) from TS Sections 3.t.H and 4.6.H and revise the appropriate bases for these two sections.
~
2.0 EVALUATION Technical Specifications (TSs) for operating plants have surveillance requirements for snubbers in order to confirm operability of these components.
The snubber action statements, therefore, specify actions which are appropriate when snubbers are inoperable. However, the staff's guidance in its Standard
}.
Technical Specifications (STS) for Boiling Water Reactors {BWRs) (NURE6-0123) do not define either specific operability or surveillance requirements for structural components such _as restraints and supports. The rationale for including TS surveillance and operability requirements for snubbers is that failures.of snubbers are considered probable events based upon field experience at numerous plants. -Damage to stroctural components should generally occur only due to unusual events.
The deletion of references to seismic restraints and supports from Sections 3.6.H and 4.6.H is, therefore, consistent with the STS. The licensee has stated that if a restaint or support is found to be damaged or in need of F
modification as a result of the ongoing seismic design program, then an engineering i
evaluation would be performed. The evaluation would assess the impact of the support in question on the operability of the system which it supports. This j
evaluation shall be completed within seven days or within the allowable outage s
f
(
90 ;LO 30 / 77 lo__
i l
i '.
(. Operation (LCO), whichever is less.gcordance with the TS Limiting time for the associated system in a The allowable outage time for the associated system would be applicable from the point that it is recognized that the support is damaged or needs modification.
If the support /restaint is determined to affect system operability then the applicable system LC0 must be entered and the support /restaint repaired or replaced within the remaining system outage time.
Further NRC generic guidance is expected in the area of operability of I
restraints and supports. Therefore, the above position for detemining I
operability is acceptable on an interim basis until further guidance is developed.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
i 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 C -
_.10 CFR Part-20.--The-staff has-determined that the-amendrents involve no_.
signifi~ cant increase frithe am6irnts of and no significant change-in-the types of any effluents that may be *eleased 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 tiere has been no public criteria for, categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)gibility Accordingly, the amendments meet the eli O
consent on such finding.
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 CONCLUSIO_N s
The Cosmission made a proposed determination that the antadment involves no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (53FR41001)onOctober 19, 1988, and consulted with the State of Alabama. No public consents were received and the State of Alabama did not have any comments.
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 and security nor to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
G. Gears and M. Branch Dated:
January 19, 1989 0
1 For safety-related piping systems, the time frame for evaluating non-confomances should be consistent with IE Bulletin 79-14, " Seismic S
Analysis for As-Built Safety-Related piping Systems,' Supplement 2 dated September 7,1979.
I
_m_
_____m___-_..__-.m_____
___. _