ML20128B648
| ML20128B648 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 06/21/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128B623 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8507030309 | |
| Download: ML20128B648 (3) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
p org
[f k,
UNITED STATES
+
p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ti 1l WASHING TON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT N0. 84 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 February 13, 1985, as supplemented April 4,1985, the Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L, the licensee) requested an amendment to Facility Operating license No. DPR-71 for the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP), Unit 1.
The amendment would permit postponement of one full-flow test of the core spray pumps until the primary containment suppression chamber is restored to its operational condition.
~
2.0 BACKGROUND
- ' Brunswick Unit I was shut down about March 31, 1985 for refueling, maintenance work and modification of the Mark I torus suppression pool.
In conjunction with the latter, the suppression pool has been drained and therefore it is now not possible to perform the usual full-flow surveillance test of the core spray system (CSS) wherein water is pumped from the suppression pool and back into it.
Technical Specification (TS) 4.5.3.1.c.1 states:
"4.5.3.1 Each CSS subsystem shall be demonstrated OPERABLE:
c.
At least once per 92 days by:
1.
Verifying that each CSS pump can be started from the control room and develops a flow of at least 4625 gpm on recirculation flow against a system head corresponding to a reactor vessel pressure of greater than or equal to 113 psig."
In regard to this requirement, the maximum permissible interval between full-flow tests is presently 92 days, plus a 25 percent extension of surveillance intervals generally permitted by Technical Specification
{
4.0.2.a.
Thus, the maximum permissible interval is presently 115 days.
This full-flow test was last performed on or about April 1,1985.
Due to the modifications being made to the suppression pool, the maximum permissible interval between full-flow tests will be exceeded.
CPt.L is, therefore, requesting a one-time extension of the maximum surveillance 8507030309 850621 PDR ADOCK 05000325 P
. interval during the upcoming refueling outage (Reload 4) until within 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> after restoration of the suppression chamber to operable status, but, in any case, no later than October 30, 1985. Based on the present outage schedule, CP&L plans to restore the suppression chamber to operable status and perfom Surveillance Requirement 4.5.3.1.c.1 by approximately August 29, 1985. This will extend the surveillance interval from the present maximum of 115 days to approximately 150 days. The October 30, 1985 date allows for contingencies in the completion of modification to the suppression pool making the total allowable surveillance interval 212 days.
3.0 EVALUATION We have considered the safety significance of extending the present surveillance interval for perfoming a full-flow test of the core spray system. The interval would be extended from a nominal 92-day interval to a maximum of 212 days. We have considered the potential need for a CSS during this shutdown period, the availability of the CSS, the verification of operability of the CSS by other surveillance tests, the availability of other means of cooling the reactor core and the past perfomance of the CSS.
The licensee has provided the following infomation in response to these considerations.
1.
For a large portion of the outage (approximately 10 weeks), the fuel will not be in the vessel therefore removing the need for CSS at that time.
2.
Nomally, in the refueling condition (OPERATIONAL CONDITION 5), the CSS is not required to be operable if the suppression pool is not operable and the following conditions are met:
(1) the reactor vessel head is removed, (2) the refueling) cavity is flooded, (3) the spent fuel pool gates are removed and (4 the water level is maintained within specified limits.
3.
The CSS consists of two independent subsystems, each with 100%
capacity.
4.
Surveillance will be performed every 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> to verify that the CSS has an operable water source (TS 4.5.3.1.a).
Surveillance will be performed every)31 days to verify that the CSS is filled with water (TS 4.5.3.1.b.1.
Surveillance will be performed every 31 day (TS 4.5.3.1.b.2).
s to verify that all valves in the CSS flow path are properly aligned Surveillance will be perfomed every 92 days to verify the operability of the core spray header differential pressure instrumentation (TS 4.5.3.1.c.2).
g Based on this information and the considerations above, we have concluded that extending the surveillance interval for a full-flow test of the CSS from 92 days to 212 days does not constitute a significant reduction in the verification of operability or the availability of this system.
Furthermore, if the CSS were not available, other systems would be available to provide adequate cooling of the reactor core. Therefore, we find the proposed amendment to be acceptable.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
S The amendment involves a change in a surveillance requirement. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public coment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
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 comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
K. Desai and M. Grotenhuis Dated:
June 21, 1985
-