ML20129C652

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 112 to License DPR-62
ML20129C652
Person / Time
Site: Brunswick 
Issue date: 07/12/1985
From:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20129C650 List:
References
NUDOCS 8507290507
Download: ML20129C652 (4)


Text

_ _ _ - -. _. _ _ _ _ _

[f

+

UNITED STATES

',g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7,.

j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20h j'

....+

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.112 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. DPR-62

\\

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY l

BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-324

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By a letter dated July 12, 1985, the Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L, the licensee) requested that the Technical Specifications (TS) for the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Unit 2 be modified to allow the primary containment maximum average air temperature to be raised from 135'F to 140*F for a period of 30 days.

l The licensee stated that as a result of unusually wann weather, very high j

air temperatures have been experienced in the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant area and the service water temperature has risen to a point where the efficiency of the drywell cooling capacity has forced the licensee to reduce the heat input to the containment air to ensure that the air temperature remains below the Technical Specification limit of 135'F.

In the absence of any other means, the licensee has reduced the containment air heat input by lowering the circulation pump speed, which also results in derating the plant output. At the time of the licensee's request for a Technical Specification change, the power generation was derated from 100% to 71% and the circulation pump speed was reduced to the minimum l

permissible. Any further increase of atmospheric temperature would result in a plant shutdown. The licensee has taken mitigating actions and has commenced work on installation of a drywell service water cooling system to provide the necessary additional cooling capacity. The licensee states that the additional cooling system is scheduled to be operational within 30 7

i days. Therefore, in order to avoid the need for a forced shutdown of the plant during the ensuing peak sumer period, the licensee proposes to raise the Technical Specification limit on containment air average temperature i

from 135'F to 140*F. The licensee states that the limiting temperature will be returned to 135'F within 30 days or upon successful installation and operation of the new service water cooling system.

r 2.0 EVALUATION The licensee has evaluated the effect of the change in the containment air temperature against the environmental qualification criteria, drywell concrete design requirements,(and the bounding assumptions made in theFSAR) an Final Safety Analysis Report l

(LOCA). The licensee stated that the only adverse impact would arise from the change in environmental qualification. Operation at the proposed I

h7]DOCM05000324 O507 850712

)

p PUN

4,.

i j-elevated temperature could cause accelerated aging in some components, l

resulting in the need for these components to be replaced at an earlier date.

Despite the increated aging, component operability will not be affected.

Due to the short period of time during which these components may be 3

i subjected to higher operating temperatures (a maximum of 30 days) and the i

small overall increase in that temperature (5*F), the effect on the component's expected life is negligible.

i The analysis and increased temperature profile are still within the bounds of the LOCA analysis. Environmental qualification of drywell components j

will, therefore, not be affected by the preposed change.

An evaluation has determined that the margin of safety will not be affected by this change. An increase in the drywell temperature during normal 4'

operation would reduce the air and noncondensibles within the drywell.

Thus, in the unlikely event of a LOCA, the final drywell temperature and pressure will not change significantly from that currently analyzed and the environmental qualification and drywell concrete limits remain within j

design criteria.

1 The staff has reviewed the above evaluation of the licensee and concludes l

that the environmental qualifications, operation in a slightly elevated temperature environment (5'F), and the effect on the maximum containment l

pressure and temperature reached following a LOCA will not be i

]

significantly altered. The proposed change is therefore acceptable.

4 l

3.0 CONCLUSION

S 1

3.1 Final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination i

3.1.1 State Consultation i

In accordance with the Comission's regulations, consultation was held with the State of North Carolina, by telephone. The State expressed no 4

I concern over the proposed revision to the containment air maximum average temperature limits.

j 3.1.2 Response to Coments No coments were received. A notice of the proposed amendment was not l

i published in the FEDERAL REGISTER due to the lack of sufficient time for public comment.

3.1.3 No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination i

The Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92 state that the Comission may make a final determination that a proposed license amendment involves no i

l

5 ;

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 conseq'uences of an accident previously evaluated; or (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 information in this Safety Evaluation provides the basis for evaluating the proposed license amendment against these criteria. The operation in a slightly elevated temperature environment (increase of 5*F) will not significantly affect the perfomance of the components and systems in the containment, and will not result in significant change in the containment pressure and temperature following a LOCA. Therefore, the staff concludes that:

(1) Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an i

accident previously evaluated.

I (2) Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

(3) Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

Accordingly, we conclude that the amendment to Facility Operating License

}

No. DPR-62 involves no significant hazards consideration.

4

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

S The amendment involves a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.

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 Comission has made a final no significant hazards consideration finding with respect to this amendment. 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.

1

n-4, I

,- ~

)

9 i

I; 4-s s

N '?

/,, ',

5.0 CONCLUSION

t

~

We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed'above,,.that:

(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, ani (2) public such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission'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.

t Principal Contribu'.or: Mohan Thadani Dated: July 12, 1985 4

I

) n

l.,

n

/

T t

('

' w l

i I

a v

4

_,._-i,_-