ML20003D259
| ML20003D259 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 03/20/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20003D258 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103260066 | |
| Download: ML20003D259 (2) | |
Text
.
p *%<$g d
UNITED STATES g
f i 3 c. (g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,.'. ' " /. 2 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Y
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDfiENT N0. 56 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-62 CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET N0. 50-324 1.0 Introduction By letter dated March 11,1981 (Reference 1) Carolina Power and Light Company (the licensee) forwarded a proposed Technical Specification change that establishes revised vessel level setpoints that are consistent with a new comon instrument zero level.
The proposed common reference level is 367" above the vessel bottom. Establishment of the comon zero level for all reactor vessel level instrumentation is called for as TMI Action Item II.K.3.27 in NUREG-0737 (Reference 2).
2.0 Evaluation We have reviewed each of the proposed revised setpoints and find them to be consistent with the previously established safety settings. We also investigated the potential for operator error given that Unit I will not have the revised setpoints and operators are cross-assigned. To ensure that the proposed revised setpoints for Unit 2 do not create a potential for operator error, we require and CP&L has committed, by their letter dated March 18,1981 (Reference 3), that all operators will be trained on the new level setpoints prior to completion of the modification on Unit 2.
The required changes to operating and emergency procedures will be entered prior to operating with the new setpoints installed.
Since no change in actual water level for any function is involved in the proposed: Technical Specification revisions, and since no instrunentation is being changed, we find the proposed Technical Specification revisions acceptable for use.
3.0 Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendment does 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 amendment involves an action which 'is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and pursuant to 10 CFR Section 51.5(d)(4) that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be' prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
' '8103260 @
. 4.0 Conclusion
.We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
.(1) because-the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reason-able 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 regulations and the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health-and safety of the public.
Dated: March 20,1981 n
-