ML20083D733
| ML20083D733 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 12/12/1983 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20083D731 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8312280239 | |
| Download: ML20083D733 (2) | |
Text
w QCQ
[
o UNITED STATES f3 N-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
- y WASHINGTON, D, C. 20555 g, v /
.t
+....
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 60 TO FACILITY LICENSE N0. DPR-71 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-325 1.0 Introduction By letter dated January 26, 1983, the Carolina Power & Light Company (the licensee) submitted proposed changes to the Technical Specifications appended to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62 for the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP), Units 1 and 2.
The proposed changes modify the Technical Specifications to apply to new analog (continuous measuring)'
instrumentation that has been installed in Unit 1 and will be-installed in Unit 2.
The analog instrumentation replaces certain pressure switches and will provide improved performance of trip functions for reactor protection system actuation, containment isolation, reactor core isolation cooling system isolation and emergency core cooling system actuation.
In addition, miscell&neous typographical errors are corrected.
When the licensee notifies the NRC that the new analog instrumentation is installed and operable in Unit 2 we will issue an amendment for that unit.
2.0 Evaluation On November 19, 1979 the 1.icensee submitted a recuest for Technical Specification changes to replace certain digital instrumentation with analog
' equipment.
In response, the staff issued License Amendment Nos. 26 and 50 on March 14, 1980. The Safety Evaluation (SE) attached to those amendments found the proposed modifications to be technically acceptable and established a procedure whereby the licensee would periodically submit Technical Specification changes to revise instrument designations with surveillance requirements for those systems that had been modified. The licensee now
-propcses certain instrument Technical Specification changes based on the previously issued SE. The technical acceptability of the instrument replacement has been previously reviewed and approved.
Furthermore, since the licensee is following the previously established periodic instrument change procedure, including change surveillance requirements, and the instrument designation changes do not involve substantive changes of the type usually associated with NRC approved changes, we find the croposed changes to be acceptable.
8312280239 B31212 PDR ADOCK 05000 2 P
3 -
- 3.0 Environmental Considerations We have determined that the amerdment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts ne' 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 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 the amendment.
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 public 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 amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: December 12, 1983 Principal Contributors:
J. Carter D. Hoffman e
-w
-