ML20082P258
| ML20082P258 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 12/02/1983 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20082P252 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8312080159 | |
| Download: ML20082P258 (3) | |
Text
d j
UNITED STATES y s, i },
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 !14 o
WASHING TON,0. C. 20555
$.94.1 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 59 TO FACILITY LICENSE N0. OPR-71 AND At1ENDMENT NO. 85 TO FACILITY LICENSE N0. DPR-62 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
. BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-325 AND 50-324 1.0 Introduction By letter dated December 6, 1982, the Carolina Power & Light Company (the 4
licensee) submitted proposed changes to the Technical Specifications appended to Facility Operating License fios. OPR-71 and DPR-62 for the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP), Units 1 and 2. The proposed changes would modify the Technical Specifications to provide a clarification of certain requirements, provide editorial corrections and prov1de changes to reflect consistency with the actual plant design. During our review we have found certain changes to the proposed Technical Specifications to be not desirable. We have discussed these changes with the licensee.
They agreed with the NRC staff and the changes have not been incorporated.
2.0 Evaluation The amendments consist of clarifications, etc. in five areas:
1.
ATWS Recirculation Pump Trip Systen Instrumentations.
2.
Standby Liquid Control System.
3.
Containment Atmosphere Dilution System.
4.
Drywell Suppression Pool Vacuum Breakers.
5.
Control Rod Instrumentation.
(1) Technical Specification 3.3.6.1, ATWS Recirculation Pump Trip System Instrumentation:
Revise the first paragraph to capitalize the first letter of the words " Anticipated Transient Without Scram."
" Anticipated Transient Without Scram" appears elsewhere with the first letter of each word capitalized. To maintain consistency with standard usage, Technical Specification 3.3.6.1, shoulo be revised in this manner.
We have reviewed this proposed change and find it is a purely administrative change.
8312080159 831202 PDR ADOCK 05000324 P
. (2) Technical Specification 4.1.5, Standby Liquid Control System (SLCS)
Surveillance Requirements:
(1) Revise item C.2 to read " Demonstrating that the minimum flow requirement cf 41.2 gpm at a pressure of greater than or equal to 1190 psig is met" and (2) delete the asterisk and note for items C.1 and C.2 of the Unit 1 Technical Specifications.
The SLCS and pumps have sufficient pressure margins, up to the system relief valve. setting of approximately 1400 psig, to assure solution infection into the reactor above the normal pressure. To clarify that 1190 psig is the minimum pressure that will ensure the required system flow rate will be met, Surveillance Requirements should be revised to state "at a pressure of greater than or equal to 1190 psig."
The cnetime-only exemption for Unit 1, which extended the scheduled date for testing of the SLCS flow and pressure requirements has e.yred.
References to this exemption should therefore be deleted.
We have reviewed these changes and find that they are purely administrative.
(3) Technical Specification 4.6.6.2, Containment Atmosphere Dilution System (CADS) Surveillance requirements:
(1) Delete the phrase "not testable during plant operation" from item b.1 and (2) delete the double asterisk and note for item b.2 of Unit 1 Technical Specifications.
Requirements for cycling of CADS power operated (excluding automatic) valves in flow paths not testable during plant operation are not applicable since the current design of the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant permits testing of the CADS valves during plant operation. The phrase "not testable during plant operation" should therefore be deleted from surveillance requirement 4.6.6.2.b.1.
The onetime-only exemption for Unit 1, which extended the scheduled date for cycling of the CADS valves in the flow path not testable during plant operation has expired.
References to this exemption should therefore be deleted.
We have reviewed these changes and find that they arc purely administrative.
(4) Technical Specification 3.6.4.1, Drywell-Suppression Pool Vacuum Breakers, Action Items b and c:
Revised the ending sentences to read "to the closed position or enter ACTION statement d, below."
As written, the Technical Specifications may appear to be ambiguous in that ACTION statement d applies to ACTION statement a, b, and c.
At first glance ACTION statement d may not appear to apply to Action Statement a, because it explicitly states an alternate limiting condition for operation.
However, in this case ACTION statement d applies to the alternate limiting condition which is a part of ACTION statement a, and therefore does apply to ACTION statement a.
We have discussed this with the licensee staff and they have agreed with our interpretation, therefore the proposed change has not been nade.
l l
(5) Technical Specification 3.1.3, 3.3.4 and 4.3.4 deal with administrative controls for the withdrawal of control rods, control rod block instrumentation and attendant surveillance requirements.
The proposed changes do not change the requirements of these specifications.
These changes are all administrative in nature and are required to insure consistency between Units 1 and 2 and to correct a number of typographical errors.
Thus the proposed changes described above are either purely administrative changes or impose additional testing requirements.
3.0 Environmental Considerations 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 environmental impact and pursuant to 10 CFR 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 these amendments.
4.0 Conclusions We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the p0blic will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense anc security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
D. Brinkman, M. Grotenhuis and D. Hoffman Dated:
December 2,1983
-e m
n-
- -