ML20043B360

Application for Amends to Licenses DPR-62 & DPR-71,deleting Item 7 Re RHR Head Spray Flow from Tech Spec Tables 3.3.5.2-1 & 4.3.5.2-1 Concerning Remote Shutdown Monitoring Instrumentation

ML20043B360
Person / Time
Site:	Brunswick
Issue date:	05/22/1990
From:	Cutter A CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML20043B361	List: ML20043B360 ML20043B362
References
NLS-90-092, NLS-90-92, NUDOCS 9005290183
Download: ML20043B360 (5)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:. , , . . , c., - c , P.O Boa 1561

• Raleigh. N C. 27602 gy 2 2 $90 A. B CUTTER SERIAL: NLS 90 092 Yks Preemnt 10CFR50.90 Nuclear SeMees Department 89TSB10 United States Fuclear Regulatory Commission ATTENTION: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PIANT, UNIT NOS.1. AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50 325 6 50 324/ LICENSE NOS. OPR 71 & DPR 62 REQUEST FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT REMOVA1. OF RilR llEAD SPRAY TiDW TRANSMITTER Centlemen:

In accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations Title 10, Parts 50.90 and 2.101, Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) hereby requests a revision to the Technical Specifications for the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP), Units 1 and 2. The proposed amendment deletes Item 7, Residual llent Remove.1 llead ' Spray Flow, from Technical Specification Tables. 3.3.5.21 and 4.3.5.21, dealing with Remote Shutdown Monitoring Instrumentation. The head spray mode of RJR is no longer in use at Brunswick and, as such, performing the required surveillances constitutes unnecessary personnel radiat)on exposure. Enclosure 1 provides a detailed description of the proposed changes and the basis for the changes. Enclosure 2 details the basis for the Company's determination that the proposed changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration. Enclorare 3 provides the proposed Technical Specification pages for Unit 1. Enclosure 4 provides the proposed Technical Specification pages for Unit 2. In order to allow time for procedure revision and orderly incorporation into copies of the Technical Specifications, CP&L reques. that the proposed amendments, once approved by the NRC, be issued with an effective date to be no later than 60 days from the issuance of the amendment. t j, hbt ' pg/ P

                                                                                                               / /,/

E L. g,._

i. ' l Document C:ntr21 Icsk i-- . NLS 90-092 / Page 2 ,

i I L  ; L Please refer any questions regarding t.his submittal to Mr. M. R. Oates at  : [- (919)-546 6063. Yours very trul ,..- i A. B Cutter f()[ ABC/ MAT

Enclosures:

l

1. Battis for Change Request L 2. 10 CFR 50.92 Evaluation  :

1 3. Technical Specification Pages . Unit 1 4 Technical Specification Pages . Unit 2 cc: Mr. Dayne 11. Brown

                    -Mr. S. D. Ehnster Mr. N. B. Le Mr. W. H. Ruland A. B Cutter, hering been first duly sworn, did depose and say that the information contained herein is true and correct to the best of his                  '

information, knowledge and belief; and the sources of his information are l officers, employees, contractors, and agents of Carolina Power & Li6 ht Company. p

   .                                                               cwis      I       <wt l .-                                                          (/ I Notary (Seal)

My commisi. ion expires: 7ha /M

• v .

                                                                           .=                       .

k! OO ,l h h NBL\C $ h'4f+1,co...*/

                                                                         ,,.. ..u w 9/

r

i ENCLOSURE 1 BRUNSVICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 NRC DOCKETS 50 325 & 50 324 OPERATING LICENSES DPR 71 & DPR 62 REQUEST FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT REMOVAL OF RHR HEAD SPRAY T1hV TRANSMITTER BASIS FOR CHANCE REQUEST Proposed Chance The proposed amendment deletes Item 7. Residual Heat Removal Head Spray Flow, from Technical Specification Tables 3.3.5.2 1 and 4.3.5.2 1, dealin6 with Remote Shutdown Monitoring Instrumentation. The head spray mode of RHR is no longer in use at Brunswick and, as sach, performing the required surveillances constitutes unnecessary personnel re.diation exposure. Basic The purpose of the head spray mode of RHR is to spray water in the reactor vessel head area, while in the process of reactor shutdown, to provide a rapid reactor vessel head cooldowr., it is a low flow, low pressure system designe to supply 625 gpm of water to the vessel steam dome, through the head spray n'tzle, at less than 129 psig. The Brunswick Plant was designed with this capsbility when it was anticipated that reactor vessel n'ead conditions would be caitical path for beginning a refueling outage. There are no safety related functions associated with the head spray mode of RHR, nor is use of this capability addressed in the Emergency Operating procedires. In addition, use of the head spray mode of RHR is not practical give6 se restrictivo cooldown rates established in Technical Specificatio- 4/4.4.6. Based on the above reasoning, the head spray mode of RHR has been de activated for both Brunswick 1 and Brunswick 2. Technical Specification Table 3.3.5.2 1 lists the remote shutdown instrumentation required to be operable when the unit is in Operational Conditions 1, 2, or 3. Technical Specification Table 4.3.5.2 1 provides the surveillance requirements associated with this instrumentation. Currently, Item 7 of these tables requires the RHR Heat Removal Head Spray Flow instrumentation to be operable and established monthly and quarterly surveillance requirements to demonstrate this operability. As stated above, the head spray mode of RHR is no longer in use at Brunswick and has been de activated on both units Therefore, operability of the RHR head spray flow instrumentation is not required and performing the required surveillances constitutes unnecessary personnel radiation exposure. The proposed amendment deletes Item 7 from Techr' cal Specification Tables 3.3.5.2 1 and 4.3.5.2 1. El-1

l. .

ENCLDSURE 2 BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 NRC DOCKETS $0 32$ & $0 324 OPERATING LICENSES DPR-71 & DPR 62 REQUEST FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT REMOVAL OF RHR HEAD SPRAY F14W TRANSMITTER 10 CFR 50.92 EVALUATION The Commission has provided standards in 10 CFR 50.92(c) for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists. A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facility involves no significant hazards consideration 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, (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Carcline Power & Light Company has reviewed this proposed license amendment request and determined that its adoption would not involve a significant hazards consideration. The bases for this determination are as follows: Pronosed Change The proposed amendment deletes Item 7 Residual Heat Removal Head Spray Flow, from Technical Specification Tables 3.3.5.21 and 4.3.5.21, dealing with Remote Shutdown Monitoring Instrunientation. The head spray mode of RHR is no longer in use at Brunswick and, as such, performing the required surveillances constitutes unnecessary personnel radiation exposure. AM.ia The change does not involve a significant hazards consideration for the following reasons:

1. The purpose of the head spray mode of RHR is to spray water in the reactor vessel head area, while in the process of reactor shutdown, to provide a rapid reactor vessel head cooldown. It is a low flow, low pressure system designed to supply 625 v a of water to che vessel steam dome, through the head spray nozzle, at es than 129 psig. The Brunswick Plant was designed with this capability when it was anticipated that reactor vessel head conditions would be critical path for beginning a refueling outago. There are no safety related functions associated with the head spray mode of RHR, nor is use of this capability addressed in the Emergency Operating Procedures. The head spray mode RHR is not used for accident mitigation, normal operation, or shutdown at Brunswick. Its use for shutting down the unit was optional. Based on this reasoning, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

E2 1

[ 7p

b. . .

     ~. - i; f           .                                                                                            !
 ,4  .

t. [ 2. The proposed amendment does not_ create the possibility of a new or l' different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The [ proposed changes do not affect any safety related functions. No new  ! [ interfaces with safety related equipment, systems or structures or any L new system subject to failure or malfunction have.been introduced. The  ! F change merely deletes-operability and surveillance requirements for , i' nonsafety related flow instrumentation associated with the head spray i mose of RHR, an cptional capability of RRR which is not used at the

^

4 Brunswick Plant. There are no safety related functions l associated with i the head spray mode of RHR, nor is use of this capability addressed in-

• L the Emergency Operating Procedures. Therefore, the proposed change can not create the possibility of.a new or different kind of accident from j!

any accident previously evaluated. 1 m 3. The proposed amendment does_not involve a significant reduction in tho-L margin of safety. As stated above, the proposed change deletes . operability and surveillance requirements for nonsafety related flow instrumentation associated with the head spray mode of RHR, an optional

capability of RHR which is not used at the Brunswick Plant. There are no safety related functions associated with the head spray mode of RHR, i nor is use of this capability addressed in the Emergency Operating i

                         -Procedures. The head spray mode of RHR is not used for accident mitigation, normal operation, or shutdown at Brunswick. Therefore, the      ;
                         -proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

i i f

                                                                                                     -{

i' i

                                                                                                         'l T

E2 2 s cc

• 1}}