ML20034C241
| ML20034C241 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 04/23/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20034C238 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9005020213 | |
| Download: ML20034C241 (3) | |
Text
po Raog d
o o
UNITED ST ATES E'3#c ','g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 o
E
\\..v,/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.141 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-71 AND AMENDMENT NO.173 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-62 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, et al.
BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-325 AND 50-324
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated February 16, 1990, Carolina Power & Light Company submitted a request for changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2.
The proposed change removes the provision of Specification 4.0.2 that limits the combined time interval for three consecutive surveillances to less than 3.25 times the specified interval. Guidance on this proposed change to the TS was provided to all power reactor licensees and applicants by Generic Letter 89-14, dated August 21, 1989.
2.0 EVALUATION Specification 4.0.2 includes the provision that allows a surveillance interval to be extended by 25 percent of the specified time interval. This extension provides flexibility for scheduling the performance of surveillances and to permit consideration of plant operating conditions that may not be suitable for conducting a surveillance at the specified time interval. Such operating conditions may include transient plant operation, or ongoing surveillance, or maintenance activities. Specification 4.0.2 further limits the allowance for extending surveillance intervals by requiring that the combined time interval for any three consecutive surveillances not exceed 3.25 times the specified time interval. The purpose of this provision is to assure that surveillances are not extended repeatedly as an operational convenience to provide an overall increase in the surveillance interval.
Experience has shown that the 18-month surveillance interval, with the provision to extend it by 25 percent, is usually sufficient to accommodate normal variations in the length of a fuel cycle.
However, the NRC staff has routinely granted requests for one-time exceptions to the 3.25 limit on extending refueling surveillances because the risk to safety is low in contrast to the alternative of a forced shutdown to perform these surveillances.
Therefore, the 3.25 limitation on extending surveillances has not been a practical limit on the use of the 25 percent allowance for extending surveil-lances that are performed on a refueling outage basis.
9005020213 9004 y (DR ADOCK 03Oo E 4 h
..t.
y r
-2.
Extending surveillance intervals & ring plant operation can _also result in a benefit to safety when a scheduled surveillance is due at a time that is not suitable for conducting the surveillance.
This may occur when transient plant operating conditions exist, when ' safety systems; are out of-service for maintenance or other surveillance activities.
In such cases,= the-benefit to' safety of extending a surveillance interval would exceed any safety benefit derived by limiting the.use of the 25 percent allowance to extend a surveillance.. Furthermore, there is the administrative burden associated with tracking the use of the 25 percent allowance to ensure compliance with the 3.25 limit.
In view of these findings, the staff concluded that Specification 4.0.2 should be changed to remove the 3.25 limit for all'surveillances because its removal will have an overall positive effect on-safety.
The guidance provided in Generic Letter 89-14 included the following change to this specification and removes the 3.25 limit on three consecutive surveillances with the following statement:
4.0.2 Each Surveillance Requirement shall-be performed within the specified surveillance interval with a maxinum allowable extension not to exceed 25 percent of the specified surveillance interval.
In addition, the Bases of this specification were updated to reflect this change and noted that it is not the intent 'of the allowance for extending surveillance intervals that it be used repeatedly merely as an operational convenience to extend surveillance intervals beyond that which is speci fied.
The licensee has proposed changes to Specification 4.0.2-that are consistent with the guidance provided in Generic Letter 89-14 as noted abov e.
On the basis of its review of this matter, the, staff finds -
that the above change-to the TS for the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 are acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
These amendments change a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted areas as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes to the surveillance require-ments. The' staff has determined that these amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released off site;- 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 consider-ation, and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accord-ingly, these amendments meet the elig)ibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c (9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
7 no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
t
)
,,,,,i--mmmmme imu mm-mmm i m um u u
f.
L 1
3
4.0 CONCLUSION
i The Commission's made a proposed determination that these' amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the 7,
Federal Register (55 FR 8220) on March 7,1990.
The Commission consulted with the State of North Carolina.. No public-comnents were received, and.
the State of North Carolina did not have atly conments.
The staff has concluded that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that'the i
health and safety of the
.. proposed nenner, and. (2) public will not be endangered by operation in the such activities will be. conducted in compliance-:
.with the Commission's regulations, and the. issuance of these anendments' 1
will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the' health.
f and safety of. the public.
Principal Contributors:
T. Dunning N. ' Le Dated: April 23, 1990-
\\
r E
.