ML20127P658
| ML20127P658 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 11/27/1992 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127P657 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9212030053 | |
| Download: ML20127P658 (4) | |
Text
..
d* * '
o
- 5 UNITED STATES E
I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION "o
WASHINoTON. O C. RM6
%*...*/
1AILILLLAltLAl[QRJL11L0flKLOLRUCl[AILMET0R REqVLAIl0ff KLARD 10 AMI!Gif4T N0.1MLLO.l!AILITY OPERATING LICENSING fio. RPR-71 af1D AMU 1RfjERT NO.18 L10_[AMlllY OPl!@llNG Li(LLQL30. DPR-62 2
CAR 0Lif4A POWER & LIGHT (QtiPAfiY h!LV3MLlLUKUL[L(CTRIC PLANT. UtilTO.1 AND 2 QQifET NOSm50-3 U t4D 50-324 1.0 itLT10QVCT10N By letter dated February 21, 1992, as supplemented August 24, 1992, September 4, 1992, and October 28, 1992, Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L or the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP), Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications (iS).
The followinn supplcmental letters did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration.
The August 24, 1992, submittal provided typed TS pages and clarifying information.
The September 4, 1992, submittal provided corrected 15 pages.
The October 28, 1992, submittal provided typed TS pages consistent with the proposed change described in Enclosure 1 to the february 21, 199L 4
ihe proposed changes would revise the refueling platform overload cutoff setpoint for the fuel grapple hoist specified in TS 4.9.6 a. from "less than or equal to 1250 pounds" to "1600 pounds."
The amendment would also revise the refueling platform loaded interlock setpoint for the fuel grapple boist specified in TS 4.9.6.b. from "less than or equal to 435 pounds" to "750 pou.1ds."
The proposed change is being made to accomcdate the use of a naw General Electric (GE) Model Nf500 main hoist grapple mast that will replace the existing NF400 mast.
2.0 LYALVAT10ff 2,1 Comparison of New and Present Masts The refueling platform main hoist grapple mast is part of the hoist on the refueling platfo m.
The hoist is used to move fuel assemblies into and out o' both the core and spent fuel neol at BSEP.
The licensee intends to replace the present mast, a GE Hodel NF 400, with a Model NF 500, which is heavier (approximately 1015 pounds as compared to 550 pounds) and more rigid.
The new mast will have less tendency to bow when used to move fuel asserablies.
The licensee reports that the NF 500 mast is identical in function to the NF 400 mast in grappling, lifting, moving and lowering of fuel assemblies.
Use of the NF 500 grapple does not reduce the effectiveness of the platform design features, including the grapple fail-safe brakes and grapple interlocks that are intended to protect against fuel damage when moving.
The NF 500 mast has the same single failure prctections as the NF 400 mast.
9212030053 921127 PDR ADOCK 05000324 p
2-The heavier weight of the NF 500 mast does not overstress the platform which i
was designed to hold a mast of approximately 1165 pounds.
The height to which a fu?1 assembly may be raised is the same with the NF 500 mast as with the NF 400 raast i.e., 32 feet.
2.2 proposed TS In paragraph "a" of T.S. 4.9.6 the licensee proposes to specify an overload cutoff less than or equal to 1600 pounds for the mast fuel gripper, in lieu of the previt,aly specified cutoff of less th6n or equal to 1250 pounds.
The licensee, in paragraph "b", proposes to change the weight at which the loaded interlock operates frcm eqJal to or less than 435 pounds to equal to or less than 750 pounds.
The new overload cutoff load is based upon a submerged fuel bundle weight of 650 pounds, the highest unloaded hoist cable-supported load of 660 pounds, and load spikes of 290 pounds.
The new interlock load, 750 pounds, consists of 660 pounds (the highest unloaded hoist cable-supported load) plus a load spike tolerance of 90 pounds.
The licensee also proposes to add t'e rationale for the cutoff load (1600 pounds) and for the interlock load to the " Bases" for these T5s.
Note that specifications 4.9.6a and 4.9.6b, which involve surveillance requirements for cranes and hoists, require that operability of the overload cutoff and loaded interlock be demonstrated within 7 days prior to the start of using the mast fuel gripper, which is part of the main hoist grapple.
2.3 Accident Analysis The licensee noted that parts of the cast can fall with a fuel assembly.
Therefore, a new fuel assembly drop accident analysis is required.
The licensee renorted that GE had conducted a new analysis, dated April 24, 1992, and forwarud it to the licensee and to NRC.
The licensee examined the caleulation and judged it to be acceptable.
The staff has reviewed the analysis and found it to be bounded by a previcus analysis found to be acceptable.
Therefore, the new analysis is found to be acceptable.
2.4 Summary The NF 500 mast appears to be equel or superior to the NF 400 mhst in all aspects with the exception of increased weight, which does not preser,t a problem.
The question of potential damage due to an increased weight in a potential load drop analysis has been resolved. -The proposed changes in TS 4.9.6.a. and 4.9.6 b. together with the changes in the Bases for TS 3/4.9.6,.
" Crane and Hoist Operability," are also found to be acceptable.
Therefore, the staff finds the licensee's proposal to replace the NF-400 mast with the NF-500 mast to be acceptable.
F r-. + - - +-
.,,,,w.,-..-.r,i-
-c,.----,
,~,
-..--.e m-.,r,-.---,,
-.-c.-
r-,.
...mv.,
,e,
~.y,,y-e, t.y.---,w--ry-p-mw,w-,---e._---
---rey.,
m.
' 3.0 STATE CONSULTAT10B 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 LNVIRONMENTAL CONSIDEkATION The amendment changes the surveillance requirements.
The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the W unts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no s gnificant increase in individual or cumulative i
occupational radiation exposure.
The Cornmission has previously_ issued a l
proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (57 FR 11102). Accordingly, the amendment meets the elig'bility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CfR 51.22(c)(,').
Purso nt to 10 CFR i
51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or envirorit..'ntal assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the consider".tions discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assnrance that the *.ealth and safety of the i
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 amendment will not be inimical to the common def:nse and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
N. Wagner Date: November 27, 1992 l
l
-. _,. au