ML20070N191
| ML20070N191 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 05/02/1994 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20070N187 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9405050209 | |
| Download: ML20070N191 (2) | |
Text
.
fn nouq 5%
i f ) ^(.
3 UNITED STATES (I
'i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g-j/'
WASHINGTON, D C. 20555-0001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 170 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-71 AND AMENDMENT NO. 201 TO FACILTY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-62 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT. UNITS 1 AND 2 l
DOCKET NOS. 50-325 AND 50-324
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated April 13, 1993, the Carolina Power & Light Company (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications (TS).
The requested changes would revise the design feature information pertaining to the elevation at which the spent fuel storage pool is designed to prevent inadvertent draining.
The proposed amendment would change this elevation from 116 feet 4 inches to 115 feet 11 inches, based on the actual spent fuel storage pool design.
2.0 EVALVATION The licensee proposed the changes to TS 5.6.2, Drainage, to correct an error in the design feature information provided in this section.
The proposed change would revise the elevation to which the spent fuel pool was designed to prevent inadvertent draining from the present 116 feet 4 inches to 115 feet 11 inches.
This lower elevation corresponds to the actual elevation at the bottom of the spent fuel pool overflow suction to the skimmer surge tanks.
With the fuel pool gates installed, the minimum level to which the pool could be inadvertently drained is governed by the location of the bottom of these skimmer overflows.
For this to occur, spent fuel pool water would be drained through the piping connected to the skimmer overflows with no return or makeup flow to the pool.
The licensee is required to maintain a minimum level of water above the top of the spent fuel rods in the storage racks.
The minimum level required by TS 3.9.9 is 20 feet 6 inches above the top of the fuel.
This level equates to an actual spent fuel pool elevation of about 115 feet 6 inches.
Thus, should inadvertent draining occur, the worst case level of water would still remain about 5 inches above the minimum required level.
The staff finds this proposed change acceptable.
The change will correct the design information error in the TS to correspond with the actual construction of the fuel pool and the connected skimmer piping.
The change does not reduce the minimum water level required above the fuel in the spent fuel storage pool for radiation shielding.
9405050209 940502 gDR ADOCK0500g4
a
,a.-,,_a a
e
_._m a
.x_
e i
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the State of North Carolina official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments.
The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments change a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (59 FR 12359). Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental c:sessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of l
the amendments.
j
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the-public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
P. Milano Date:
May 2, 1994
. - -