ML20247F824
| ML20247F824 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 05/16/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247F821 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8905300189 | |
| Download: ML20247F824 (3) | |
Text
.
-)
-[pren;\\
n UNITED STATES i,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~h 8
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666 e
k,y.
ENCLOSURE 2 j
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES REGARDING REACTOR PROTECTION SYSTEM POWER MONITORING SYSTEM BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-260 f
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated August 7, 1978, the staff advised the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) of deficiencies regarding the Reactor Protection System (RPS) power monitoring system (PMS) identified in Hatch, Unit 2 and the potential for similar deficiencies at other'BWRs. TVA was requested to evaluate the design of the. Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant (BFN) RPF and promptly comence surveillance of the RPS power supply as described in Enclosure 1.of the letter.
By letter dated December 13, 1978, TVA responded that the proposed RPS
' modifications were not necessary and that it did not plan to propose any additional Technical Specification (TS) changes. The letter also advised the staff that the surveillance requirement imposed by NRC in its letter of August 7,1978 would be discontinued after January 1,1979. The staff's letter of September 24, 1980 advised TVA that based on the staff's evaluation, BFN could experience the saae adverse conditions as were found at Hatch Unit 2 and that the modifications should be implemented at BFN with specified TS.
By letter dated July 1, 1981. TVA provided the general outline of the design approach for the requested modifications.
Also, proposed TS limits were submitted as part of the Unit I reload (TS-190, July 13, 1983). However, these submittals from TVA did'not provide sufficient information to substantiate design conformance to General Design Criteria (GDC) 2 and 21, and IEEE 279-1971.
Also, the proposed trip setpoints of the protective relays were not based on analysis and test verification.
By letter dated October 12, 1983, the staff transmitted these concerns to TVA. TVA responded by letter dated August 9, 1984 which resolved some issues. A request for additional information was sent to TVA by the staff's letter of October 31, 1984, to which TVA responded by letter dated March 1, 1985.
The staff prepared its safety evaluation (SE) on these modifications and issued it by letter dated July 27, 1985.
In that SE, the staff accepted the modifications and required TVA submit the revised TS after completion of the testing of design modifications and include the test-verified relay setpoint and time delays in the TS.
TVA, by their letter of December 22, 1988, submitted this information tc the staff.
2.0 EVALUATION In accordance with the staff's SE and TVA's commitment as stated in their letter of August 9, 1984 TVA has submitted the TS surveillance requirements for the
F 2
RPS power monitoring system. TVA has also corrected the equality sign for the overvoltage, undervoltage and underfrequency values. The proposed trip level settings are based on the calculations using current plant configuration and post-modification data. TVA has comitted to perform a voltage verification test with the unit in normal operation and RPS components in their normal operating configuration. The staff had reviewed the setpoint and test procedure previously and found it acceptable. Hence, the proposed TS and comitment to perform a voltage verification test are acceptable to the staff.
However TVA has not included the time delays associated with the trip setpoints in the TS, although these time delays are incorporated in the power monitoring system (PMS) for the RPS. According to TVA these devices are handled in normal plant calibration Since Standard TS (Page 3/4 8-22) and Hope Creek TS (Page 3/4 8-40) procedures.
do not include these time delays in the TS, the staff agrees with TVA that these time delays may be excluded from the TS as they are included in the normal plant calibration procedures.
Based on our review we conclude that the proposed TS changes are acceptable as they are in accordance with the Standard Technical Specifications.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change to a requirement with respect to the installation 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 amendment involves 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 itsued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public coment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.?2(b), no environmental impact statement nor environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Cuamission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (54 FR 5176) on February 1, 1989 and consulted with the State of Alabama.
No public coments were received and the State of Alabama did not have any comments.
j l
I L_______
3 The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) public 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:
H. Garg Dated: May 16, 1989 l
- - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____