ML18036B113

Proposed Tech Specs Re High Range Primary Containment Radiation Recorders

ML18036B113
Person / Time
Site:	Browns Ferry
Issue date:	12/23/1992
From:	TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
To:
Shared Package
ML18036B112	List: ML18036B111 ML18036B113
References
TVA-BFN-TS-327, NUDOCS 9212300147
Download: ML18036B113 (11)

Text

ENCLOSURE 1 PROPOSED TECHN1CAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 2 (TVA BFN TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION NO~327I SUPPLEMENT 1)92f2300i47 92i223 PDR ADOCK 05000260 P , PDR e

PROPOSED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 2 (TVA BFN TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION NO~327~SUPPLEMENT

1)

I Hinimum 4 of Operable Instrument 1/Valve Imfzu~H2H-76-94 H2H-76-104 PdI-64-137 PdI-64-138 RR-90-272 RR-90-273 L I-64-159A XR-64-159 PI-64-160A XR-64-159 TI-64-161 TR-64-161 TI-64-162 TR-64-162 RH-90-306 RR-90-360 TABLE 3.2.F (cont'd)Surveillance Instrumentation Drywell and Torus Hydrogen Concentration Drywell to Suppression Chamber Differential Pressure Relief Valve Tailpipe Thermocouple Temperature or Acoustic Honitor on Relief Valve Tailpipe High Range Primary Containment Radiation Recorders Suppression Chamber Mater Level-Mide Range Drywell Pressure Mide Range Suppression Pool Bulk Temperature Wide Range Gaseous Effluent Radiation Honitor and recorder Type Indication 0.1-20'A Indi cator 0 to 2 psid Recorder 1-10 R/Hr 7 Indicator, Recorder 0-240" Indicator, Recorder)0-300 psig)Indi cator, Recorder))30'230 F))Honitor and recorder (Noble Gas 10-10+pCi/cc)(1)(2)(3)(5)(7)(8)(1)(2)(3)(1)(2)(3)(1)(2)(3)(4)(6)(7)(8)(9)

TABLE 4.2.F (Continued)

HINIHUH TEST AND CALIBRATION FREQUENCY FOR SURVEILLANCE INSTRUMENTATION 16)Drywell to Suppression Chamber Differential Pressure 17)Relief Valve Tailpipe Thermocouple Temperature 18)Acousti c Moni tor on Relief Valve Tailpipe 19)High Range Primary Containment Radiation Monitors (RR-90-272)(RR-90-273) 20)Suppression Chamber Water Level-Wide Range (LI-64-159A)(XR-64-159) 21)Drywell Pressure-Wide Range (PI-64-160A)(XR-64-159) 22)Suppression Pool Bulk Temperature (TI-64-161)(TR-64-161)(TI-64-162)(TR-64-162) 23)Wide Range Gaseous Effluent Radiation Honi tor and recorder (RH-90-306 and RR-90-360)

Once/6 months N/A Once/cycle (25)Once/18 Honths (30)Once/18 Honths Once/18 Months Once/18 Months Once/18 Months Each Shift Once/month (24)Once/month (26)Once/month Once/shift Once/shift Once/shift Once/shift ENCLOSURE 2 BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT (BFN)UNXTS 2 (TVA BFN TECHNXCAL SPECIFICATION NO+327~SUPPLEMENT 1)REASON FOR THE CHANGE DESCRIPTXON AND JUSTIFICATION REASON FOR THE CHANGE The changes are administrative changes to revise the labeling of the two recorders.

These changes are the result of a resolution of Human Engineering Discrepancy (HED)'identified through the Control Room Design Review (CRDR)effort for BFN.DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE For Unit 2 on Tables 3.2.F,"Surveillance Instrumentation" and 4.2.F,"Minimum Test and Calibration Frequency for Surveillance Instrumentation", the high range primary containment radiation recorders instrument numbers will be revised to RR-90-272 and RR-90-273.

JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROPOSED CHANGE The changes are administrative changes to revise the labeling of the two recorders.

These changes do not affect the design bases or safety functions of the Radiation Monitoring System.The change will result in improved man-machine interface characteristics and, thus, enhance operator performance during abnormal and emergency plant conditions.

ENCLOSURE 3 BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT (BFN)UNIT 2 (TVA BFN TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION NO 327'UPPLEMENT 1)PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATIONS DETERMINATION DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE The technical specifications for BFN Unit 2 are being revised to change the labeling of the two high range primary containment radiation recorders.

BASES FOR PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION NRC has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists as stated in 10 CFR 50.91(c).A proposed amendment to an operating license involves no significant hazards considerations if operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or (2)create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated, or (3)involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.The proposed TS change is judged to involve no significant hazards considerations based on the following:

1.The proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.

The proposed changes are administrative changes to revise the labeling of the two recorders.

The proposed changes do not effect the design bases or safety functions of the Radiation Monitoring System.Therefore, the proposed changes do not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

2.The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

The proposed changes are administrative changes to revise the labeling of the two recorders, which resolves a HED identified through the CRDR effort.There are no automatic actions effected by the proposed change.Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

3.The proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.The proposed changes are administrative changes to revise the labeling of the two recorders and does not affect the setpoint calibration interval or functional test interval of the high range primary, containment radiation recorders.

The proposed changes do not affect any limiting conditions of operation or analysis assumptions found in the technical specifications or their bases.Therefore, the changes do not involve a significant reduction in any margin of safety.

ENCLOSURE 3 (Continued)

BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT (BFN)UNIT 2 (TVA BFN TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION NO~327~SUPPLEMENT 1)PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATIONS DETERMINATION CONCLUSION TVA has evaluated the proposed amendment described above against the criteria given in 10 CFR 50.92(c)in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.91(a)(1).

This evaluation has determined that the proposed amendment will not (1)involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, (2)create the possibility for a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or (3)involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.Thus, TVA has concluded that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

I~~I k A