ML20125D010
| ML20125D010 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 12/04/1992 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20125C999 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9212140221 | |
| Download: ML20125D010 (2) | |
Text
.
F.t o i-UNITED STATES f
c' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINoTON. O.C. 20656
%....+/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
+
RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO-159-TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DRP-71 AND AMENDMENT N0'.190 TO FACILITY OPEF
'NG LICENSE N0. DPR-62 CAROL'NA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY BRUNSg r.K STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-3'r AND 50-324 5
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated August 25, 1992, Carolina Power & Light Company requested changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) for the Brunswick Steam Electric.-
Plant, Units 1 and 2.
The proposed changes would increase t.ie acceptable limits for control rod average scram insertion times from 0.040 to 0.049 seconds for each of the rod positions listed in TS 3.1.3.3 and 3.1.3.4.
In addition, the proposed changes would revise the values of mu, sigma, and-7, in TS 3.2.2.2.
Technical Specifications 3.1.3.3 and 3.1.3.4 ensure that control rod insertion times are consistent with those used in the accident analysis.
Control rod scram insertion times are listed in the TS-to ensure that actual control rod drive performance during a plant transient is bounded by.the reactivity assumed _in the safety analysis to be inserted by a reector scram.
Both the current and Poposed scram insertion times of TS 3.1.3.3 are based on the 67B scram insertion time curve.
Technical. Specification 3.1.3.3 provides requirements for the average scram insertion time of all OPERABLE control rods-for four insertion positions.
Technical Specification 3.1.3.4 provides requirements for~ the average scram-r.
. tion time of each group of four control rods (arranged in'a two-by-two s.
2.0 EVALVATIO!f The proposed changes are a result of_ installation of the NUMAC-based rod worth; minimizer (RWM) hardware and ti r resulting measurement-of the. rod insertion times to a different position.
The RWM hardware was upgraded to a NUMAC-based system in 1989 for Unit 1 and in 1988 for Unit 2.
This: system allows the insertion times to be measured from de-energization of the scram solenoid.to-drepeA of the notch position reed switch.
Previously the measurements were made the pickup position.
The pr ised notch position insertion times are given to-the nearest millise nd, which is consistent with the edit of the NUMAC System.. The current S 3.1.3.3 and 3.1.3.4 list insertion times to the nearest hundredths of a second.
-fokNbh 4
g 1
_2_
To maintain consistency,-the proposed change revises'the values of mu, sigma and r in TS 3.2.2.2 to values appropriate for dropout of the reed switch, and e
the proposed TS 3.1.3.3 notch 36 scram insertion time.
The changes to the insertion times in TS 3.1.3.3 and 3.1.3.4 are due to measuring the insertion times to slightly different positions.
This is possible because of the NUMAC-based RWM hardware which was installed.
The proposed insertion times are consistent with those of other similar plants, -
which use the same rod insertion scram curve for accident analysis.
The staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and finds it to be bounded by a previous analysis found to be acceptable.
Thus, these changes are acceptable.
The changas to TS 3.2.2.2 are being made to maintain consistency by having all rod insertion time values appropriate for measurement to the dropout of the reed switch.
These changes are acceptable.
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 amendment.
The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes '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 amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in tne types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation i
exposure.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (57 FR 45077).
Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical excl -ion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9),
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no enviro.. mental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
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) auch activities will be conducted in compliance with the ? commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and ' security or to-the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
M. Chatterton, SRXB/DSSA Date: December 4,1992 d
w
,-ww y
n ww.---
p,
-,v---yy
,y