ML20129J708
| ML20129J708 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 07/08/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20129J695 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8507230252 | |
| Download: ML20129J708 (4) | |
Text
.
,[e nnI\\
+
UNITED STATES g
g
~ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 85 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. DPR-71 AND AMENDMENT NO. 111 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. DPR-62 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-325 AND 50-324 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated March 6, 1985, the Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L, the licensee) requested a change to the limiting conditions for operation (LCOs) for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Units 1 and 2 as set forth in the Technical Specifications (TS) of Facility Operating License Nos.
DPR-71 and DPR-62. The requested change for Unit I would revise TS Tables 3.3.5.3-1and4.3.5.3-1(AccidentMonitoringInstrumentation)andSection 3/4.6.2.1 (Suppression Chamber) to incorporate the inclusion of a suppression pool temperature monitoring system (SPTMS) to meet the acceptance criteria of NUREG-0661, Appendix A.
In addition, TS sections 3/4.6.2.1 and 3/4.6.4.1 (Drywell-Suppression Chamber Vacuum Breakers) have i
been modified to more closely conform to the guidance of BWR-4 Standard Technical Specifications (STS), NUREG-0123. The channel check for item 4.3.5.3-1.4 would be changed from monthly to daily for Units 1 and 2 to provide' consistency with TS 4.6.2.1.d.1.
TS 4.6.2.1.b.2.b would be changed to elimin.ea redundancy in that Surveillance Requirement for Unit 2.
2.0 DISCUSSION The requested TS change reflects the new suppression pool temperature monitoring system being installed on Brunswick Unit 2 during the current refueling outage. This system consists of 24 Class IE resistance temperature detectors (RTDs) installed about the torus at designated locations to provide accurate measurement of the average pool water temperature. These new RTDs are split into two totally independent channels consisting of 12 RTDs per channel. All new RTDs are Class IE i
qualified, seismically analyzed, and the two suppression pool temperature monitoring divisions meet the acceptance criteria of Regulatory Guide i
1.97, NUREG-0661, and NUREG-0783. The new suppression pool temperature monitoring system also serves as the accident monitoring instrumentation for suppression chamber water temperature. Tables 3.3.5.3-1 and 4.3.5.3-1 have been changed to reflect the new instrument numbers. A footnote has been added in Table 3.3.5.3-1 to ensure that the dual function of the system is apparent to operations personnel, h72gM05000324-2 85070s P
PDR 1
In addition, TS section 3/4.6.2 has been rewritten to make the section more closely conform to the format of the Standard Technical Specifications A Limiting Condition for Operation and new action items have been added to i
ensure appropriate requirements exist for various plant conditions. The LC0 and Surveillance Requirements pertaining to suppression chamber leakage have been moved from Section 3/4.6.4 to Section 3/4.6.2, consistent with guidance of the STS.
The above proposed modifications are submitted in response to the staff requested dated March 19, 1984 which included a Safety Evaluation of the Mark I long Term Containment Program for the Brunswick facilities.
In that Safety Evaluation, the staff concluded that containment modifications made have restored the original design safety margin to the Mark I Containment at the Brunswick plant. That Safety Evaluation is incorporated by reference.
The submittal of these changes has provided an opportunity for the licensee to reformat TS Section 3/4.6.2 in order to make the section more closely conform to the format of the BWR-4 STS. An LCO and new action items have been added to ensure appropriate requirements exist for various plant conditions. The LCO and Surveillance Requirements pertaining to suppression chamber leakage have been moved from Section 3/4.6.4 to Section 3/4.6.2, consistent with guidance of the BWR-4 STS.
i Surveillance Requirement 4.6.2.1.b.2.b contains a 24-hour time restriction for suppression chamber temperature in excess of 95 F while in Operating Conditions 1 and 2.
This requirement is also covered by TS Section 3/4/6.2, Action Statement b.
Restating the 24-hour restriction is i
redundant and may mislead the operator. Therefore, the time restriction has been removed from Surveillance Requirement 4.6.2.1.b.2.b in the Brunswick Unit 2 TS.
In addition, the channel check for Item 4.3.5.3-1.4 is currently performed on a monthly basis. This requirement is being changed to daily in order to be consistent with TS 4.6.2.1.d.1.
A similar change is being made in the i
Brunswick TS to provide consistency.
Further, a footnote has been added in 1
Table 3.3.5.3-1 to ensure that the dual function of the system is readily apparent to operations personnel.
3.0 EVALUATION One of the requested changes was necessary to properly reflect the, 'resence of the new suppression pool temperature monitoring system. This new system meets the acceptance criteria of Regulatory Guide 1.97, NUREG-0661 and NUREG-0783. The SPTMS, which will be installed during the upcoming refueling outage, was reviewed and found acceptable as part of the Mark I long Term implementation program discussed in the Plant Unique Analysis Report (PUAR) in the March 19, 1984 Safety Evaluation. We find the proposed SPTMS TS consistent with the PUAR analyses and therefore, acceptable.
I
. The licensee also proposed the following additional changes to the TS:
1.
The channel check for Item 4.3.5.3-1.4 is proposed to be performed daily instead of monthly to be consistent with Specification 4.6.2.1.d.1.
This TS change is more restrictive than the original TS and, therefore, we find it acceptable.
2.
The Drywell Suppression Chamber Vacuum Breakers TS 3/4.6.2.1 and 3/4.6.4.1 have been modified to conform to the Guidance of the BWR-4 STS. These proposed changes are editorial in nature and, therefore, are acceptable.
3.
A new LCO 3.6.2.1.a.2.b and a new action statement have been added.
A corresponding Surveillance Requirement 4.6.2.1.b.2 has also been incorporated. These new additions have been incorporated in the TS to ensure appropriate requirements exist when the suppression pool temperature reaches 110 F, are consistent with the TS approved for Unit 1 based on the March 19, 1984 Safety Evaluation and the BWR-4 STS, and therefore are acceptable.
4.
The LCO and Surveillance Requirements pertaining to suppression chamber leakage have been moved from Section 3/4.6.4 to Section 3/4.6.2, consistent with the BWR-4 STS. This change is editorial in nature and, therefore, is acceptable.
The staff has reviewed the proposed changes as discussed above and has concluded that the proposed changes are acceptable. Therefore, the staff concludes that the proposed amendments are acceptable.
4.0 EN IRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS The amendments involve a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area'as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes in surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that the amendments involve 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 amendments involve no significant
[
hazards consideration and there has been no public coinment on such finding.
Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical i
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 amendments.
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 i-I
. activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
F. Eltawila and M. Grotenhuis Dated:
July 8,1985 4