ML20128B683
| ML20128B683 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 06/28/1985 |
| From: | Zimmerman S CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Vassallo D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NLS-85-120, NUDOCS 8507030317 | |
| Download: ML20128B683 (3) | |
Text
,
~.
m.
4 CD&L Carolina Power & Light Company SERIAL: NLS-85-120 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention:
Mr. D. B. Vassallo, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NOS.1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-325 & 50-324/ LICENSE NOS. DPR-71 & DPR-62 SUPPLEMENT TO REQUEST FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT DC SYSTEM - LIMITING CONDITIONS FOR OPERATION AND SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS
Dear Mr. Vassallo:
In a letter dated December 10,1984, Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) requested a license amendment involving an upgrade of Technical Specification Sections 3/4 8.2.3 4
and 3/4 8.2.4 to reflect the Brunswick DC Voltage System design and load profiles.
Although a significant hazards analysis was performed for this request, the criteria used to make a significant hazards determination were not specifically addressed. Enclosure I contains a revised significant hazards analysis for this request.
Please refer any questions concerning this matter to Mr. Richard J. Fasnacht at (919) 836-7318.
Yours very truly, N
S.
merman Manager Nuclear Licensing Section MAT /ccc (1358 MAT) cc:
Mr. W. H. Ruland (NRC-BNP)
Dr. 3. Nelson Grace (NRC-RII)
Mr. M. Grotenhuis (NRC) l 8507030317 850629 PDR ADOCK 05000324 P
PDR 00[
411 Fayettevilte Street
- P. o. Box 1551
- Raleign, N C. 27602 l,I
- w en i
ENCLOSUREI TO SERIAL: NLS-85-120 1
l l
1 l
I l
l l
l l
(1358 MAT /ccc1
SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS ANALYSIS As stated in 10 CFR 50.92(c), a proposed amendment to an operating license involves no significant hazards consideration if operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed revisions to TS Sections 3/4.8.2.3 and 3/4.8.2.4 more accurately reflect the Brunswick DC Voltage System design and load profiles.
Adoption of the revised surveillance requirements ensure that the batteries are maintained within the manfacturer's recommendations, thereby adding to DC power reliability. In addition, the plant will undergo no physical alteration as a result of this change. As such, the batteries will perform their required safety function as designed. Based on this, the proposed amendment does not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated nor does it create a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
Nearly all changes are more restrictive in nature, including the addition of TS Section 3/4.8.2.4.1 dealing with DC Distribution - Operation of One or Both Units. In two instances, the restrictions of the surveillance tests were reduced. The maximum amperage to which the batteries are tested in the 60 second load profile test (4.8.2.3.2.d.i.a) has been reduced to 916 amperes and the 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> load profile (4.8.2.3.2.d.l.c) has been reduced to 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />. These changes do not significantly reduce the margin of safety and are justified based on the results of the detailed DC system load study performed for Brunswick. Overall, the proposed change increases rather than reduces the margin of safety.
Based on the above reasons, the Company has determined that the proposed revision does not: (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As such, this amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
l 0358 MAT /ccc)