ML20248D521
| ML20248D521 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 08/03/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20248D507 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8908110065 | |
| Download: ML20248D521 (3) | |
Text
. - _ _ _ _ _ _ -
r i
g Nih qk UNITED STATES
)
\\
g
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
g
,, y\\ *...+}
- l WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 I
ENCLOSURE 4 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT N0.170 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-33 AMENDMENT NO.170 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-52 AMEN 0 MENT NO.141 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. OPR-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
By letter dated May 15, 1989, Tennessee Valley Authority (the licensee) requested an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-33, DPR-52 and DPR-58 for the Browns Ferry Nuclear (BFN) Plant, Units 1, 2 and 3.
The proposed omendment would change the Technical Specification (TS) 4.6. A.3 and Bases Section 3.6/4.6, Thermal and Pressurization Limitations, to update them in accordance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix H and NRC letter to TVA dated December 2, 1989.
2.0 EVALUATION The licensee provided a proposed revision to TS 4.6.A.3 to reflect the current revision of ASTM E 185 that their material surveillance program for the reactor vessel must comply in accordance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix H, II.B.1.
This section of Appendix H requires that the testing procedures and reporting requirements for each capsule (specimen) withdrawn from the reactor vessel after July 26, 1983 must meet the requirements of ASTM E 185-82 (including a test internal of 6.0 EFPY) to the extent practical for the configuration of the specimens in the capsule.
By letter dated December 2, 1988, NRC approved a BFN request to withdraw the first set of surveillance specimens from each reactor vessel at the end of each unit's cycle which most closely approximates 8.0 effective full power years (EFPY) of operation.
After the first capsule from each unit has been withdrawn, the subsequent specimens will be tested at 6.0 EFPY interval as required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix H.
This amendment only updates Surveillance Requirement 4.6.A.3 to comply with surveillance program requirement in 10 CFR 50, Appendix H, II.B.I. and is i
acceptable.
The proposed revision to the Bases Section 3.6/4.6 would provide for the inclusion of the following paragraph to provide clarification as to the agreed upon specimen withdrawal requirements of the material surveillance program for the reactor vessel:
SCk $$0f@3, de
o e
a C
6,
1 TVA's letter dated May 15, 1987, proposed to withdraw the first set of reactor surveillance specimens from each reactor vessel at the end of each unit's cycle which most closely approximates 8.0 EFPY of operation. The reasoning was that the development of an integrated surveillance program related to estimated fluence obtained from reactor vessel specimens prior to 8.0 EFPY would be premature because it would be based only on
{
extrapolations of limited dosimetry measurements taken from Unit I during the first cycle of operation. Dosimetry measurements for 8.0 EFPY would be more credible than Cycle 1 dosimetry data.
NRC's let u c o d December 2,1988 stated that BFN could withdraw the first specimen from ead 3
reactor vessel at the end of each unit's cycle of operation that moR closely approximates 8.0 EFPY of operation. After withdrawal of each unit's first sample, the remaining specimens will be withdrawn every 6.0 EFPY thereafter.
Revisicn of the Bases Section, as proposed, provides clarification as to the agreed upon specimen withdrawal program between NRC and TVA as documented in the letter to TVA dated December 2, 1988 and is 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 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 Commission 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 i
l environmental impact statement nor environmental assessment need be prepared in I
connection with the issuance of these amendments.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (54 FR 25379) on July 14, 1989 and consulted with the State of Alabama.
No public comments 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 oparation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in comp.'hnce with the Commission's regula:lons, 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. Daniels l
Dated: August 3, 1989 l
l
o:
e-o l
f f
Mr. Oliver D. Kingsley, Jr. l cc:
General Counsel Chairman, Limestone County Commission 1
Tennessee Valley Authority P. O. Box 188 400 West Summit Hill Drive Athens, Alabama 35611 i
Eli B33 Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Claude Earl Fox, M.D.
r State Health Officer Mr. F. L. Moreadith State Department of Public Health Vice President, Nuclear Engineering State Office Building Tennessee Valley Authority Montgomery, Alabama 36130 400 West Summit Hill Drive W12 A12 Regional Administrator, Region II Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street. N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Vice President and Nuclear Technical Director Mr. Danny Carpenter Tennessee Valley Authority Senior Resident Inspector SN 157B Lookout Place Growns Ferry Nuclear Plant Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Route 12, Box 637 Mr. M. J. Ray, Acting Director Athens, Alabama 35611 Nuclear Safety and Licensing Tennessee Valley Authority Dr. Henry Myers, Science Advisor 5N 157B Lookout Place Committee on Interior Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801 and Insular Affairs U.S. House of Representatives Mr. O. J. Zeringue Washington, D.C.
20515 Site Director Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Tennessee Valley Authority Tennessee Valley Authority Rockville Office i
P. 0. Box 2000 11921 Rockville Pike Decatur, Alabama 35602 Suite 402 Rockville, Maryland 20852 Mr. P. Carier Site Licensing Manager Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Tennessee Valley Authority P. O. Box 2000 Decatur, Alabant 35602 Mr. G. Campbell Plant Manager Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Tennessee Valley Authority P. O. Box 2000 Decatur, Alabana 35602
_-________________-_____a