ML20087N807

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 67 & 93 to Licenses DPR-71 & DPR-62,respectively

ML20087N807
Person / Time
Site:	Brunswick
Issue date:	03/13/1984
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20087N806	List: ML20087N807
References
NUDOCS 8404050006
Download: ML20087N807 (3)

Text

. -

~

p asa y

,(

k UNITED STATES y'

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3?'

E E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 o

%..s.,/

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 67 TO FACILITY-LICENSE NO. DPR-71 AND AMENDMENT NO. 93 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. DPR-62 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-325 AND 50-324 l

1.0 Introduction On July 7, 1981, Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L/ licensee) proposed changes to the Technical Specifications in response to NRC's February 26, 1981 letter from Mr. D. G. Eisenhut which transmitted NUREG-0313, Revision 1 " Technical Report on Material Selection and Processing Guidelines for BWR i

Coolant Pressure Boundary Piping" (Generic Activity'A-42).

For the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP) Units 1 and 2, CP&L was asked to identify non-conforming piping and provide a schedule for the replacement of " service sensitive" nonconforming piping.

CP&L was also requested to propose appropriate Technical Specification' changes for surveillance of operational leakage.

The changes proposed by the licensee would add a requirement-that all ASME' l

Class 1 and 2 piping conform to the guidelines stated in NUREG-0313 Revision 1 and impose an additional restriction on leakage from ths reactorL l

coolant system. Both of these changes would be additional limiting conditions for. operation that'are not presently. included in the Technical Specifications.

a 2.0 Evaluation

'The changes proposed by the licensee are as follows:

i (1) Add a.new section-(4.0.6)'on page 3/4 0 -'31that states:

4.0.6 All ASME. Code. Class 1 and 2 coolant pressure boundary lines shall conform to the guidelines for materials.or augmented -in-service

-inspection of NUREG-0313, Revision 1, " Technical Report on Material-

' Selection and Processing Guidelines for BWR Coolant; Pressure

. Boundary Piping," July 1980.

(2)_ Add a new item (d) to the 11mits on reactor coolant system leakage [in-Section 3.4.3.2 that states:

8404050006 840313 PDR ADOCK 05000324

-._..P PDR m

~

d.

2 gpm increase in UNIDENTIFIED LEAKAGE within any 24-hour period.

We have reviewed these proposed additions to the Technical Specifications on the basis of the guidance provided in NUREG-0313 Revision 1, which is the latest revision to this report. The proposed additional Section 4.0.6 represents the licensee's commitment to adhere to the guidelines of NUREG-0313 for all ASME Code Class 1 and Class 2 reactor coolant pressure boundary lines and therefore, we find this acceptable.

With regard to increases in reactor coolant system leakage, NUREG-0313 states in part:

" Plant shutdown should be initiated for inspection and corrective action when any leakage detection system indicates, within a period of 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or less, an increase in rate of unidentified leakage in excess of 2 gallons per minute or its equivalent, or when the total uniden-tified leakage attains a rate of S gallons per minute or its equivalent, which occurs first.

For sump level monitoring systems with fixed-measurement interval method, the level should be monitored at 4-hour intervals or less."

The 2 gpm limit proposed by the licensee conforms to the guidance given in NUREG-0313 and is acceptable. The 5 gpm limit presented in NUREG-0313 was previously incorporated into the Technical Specifications. The sump level monitoring recommended in NUREG-0313 was not proposed by the licensee; however, it will be the subject of a future licensing action.

In discussions with the licensee, it was pointed out to the staff that during startup of the reactor, while the reactor coolant system is being pressurized, the rate of coolant leakage might increase from zero to some value greater that 2 gpm but less than 5 gpm within a few hours. This increase in leakage would be the result of increasing the reactor pressure and would not necessarily be indicative of degradation of the reactor coolant pressure boundary.

In consideration of this operational attribute and with the assurance that the 5 gpm leakage limit is in effect at all times, the staff has concluded that it is permissible to exceed the 2 gpm increase in leakage during the first 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of reactor startup. The staff had considered this matter previously' in issuing the Order Confirming Licensee Commitments on Pipe Crack Related Issues for Brunswick Unit 1 dated July 22, 1983.

That Order applies the 2 gpm limit following the first 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of reactor startup.

I The staff issued its notice of consideration of issuance of this amendment in the Federal Register on August 23, 1983 and proposed a determination of no significant hazards considerations. The bases for that proposed determination was that the change requested by the licensee was an additional limitation not presently in the Technical Specifications.

Although the specification proposed by the licensee was subsequently modified to provide relief during the first 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of startup, this -

amendment still constitutes an additional limitation not presently in the Technical Specifications. Therefore the staff's previously proposed determination of no significant hazards considerations remains valid.

]

( Therefore, in consideration of the licensee's reauest, the staff's evaluation, the previously issued Order and the guidance provided in NUREG-0313, we have concluded that Technical Specification 3.4.3.2.d should read as follows:

d.

2 gpm increase in UNIDENTIFIED LEAKAGE within any 24-hour period except for the first 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of reactor startup commencing with entry into operational condition 2.

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 public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's-regula-tions and 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 Contributors:

S. MacKay Dated: March 13,1984