ML20002D617
| ML20002D617 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 12/29/1980 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20002D612 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8101210566 | |
| Download: ML20002D617 (2) | |
Text
,'
',/
p2K8cg 4
70,
UNITED STATES I g%
- .j
~ i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e,
C WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
'l
%%...._,.(.y SAFETY EVALUATION BY'THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR P.EACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMEN 0 MENT NO. 32 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. DPR-71 AND AMENDMENT NO. 53 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. OPR-62 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT C0ti')ANY BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-325 AND 50-324 r
1.0 Introduction By letter dated June 18, 1980, Carolina Power & Light Company (the licensee) requested a change to the Technical Specifications for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP), Unit Nos. I and 2.
The pro-posed license amendment would revise the limiting conditions for operation (LCO's) to clarify the tem "0PERABLE" as it applies to the single failure criterion for safety systems in power reactors.
2.0 Discussion NRC letter dated April 10, 1980 requested all ?ower reactor licensees to take specific actions to assure that the term "0PERABLE" is appropriately applied at their facilities. BSEP Units 1 and 2 were operating with standard technical specifications in effect at the time this action was initiated. Thus, the application of the term "0PERABLE" to multiple outages of redundant components or outages of any support systems that could result in the facility being in an unprotected condition was already in place through LC0 3.0.3.
Nevertheless, the licensee agreed td add LC0 3.0.5 with Bases to clarify the intent of the term "0PERABLE" as relates to power sources.
As stated in the licensee's letter of June 18, 1980, LC0 3.0.5 is an appropriate formulation of an interpretation previously in effect during operation of the facility.
3.0 Evaluation The addition of LCO 3.0.5 with Bases brings the BSEP technical specifi-cations into conformance with the BWR STS regarding the term "0PERABLE" as it applies to the single failure criterion. We find the proposed change acceptable.
8101210h
. 4.0 Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendments do not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendments involve an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environ-mental impact and pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4) that an environmental impact statement, negative declaration, or environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
5.0 Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendments do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and do not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regu-lations and the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: December 29, 1980 i
i l
i
-