ML20133G341
| ML20133G341 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 07/30/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20133G326 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8508080642 | |
| Download: ML20133G341 (2) | |
Text
.
[C.
UNITED STATES
[
P( i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION v,
5
'-l WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 r
%...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 87 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. DPR-71 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-325
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated March 18, 1985 the Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L/ licensee) r_equested an amendment to Facility Operating License No.
DPR-71 for the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP) Unit 1.
The amendment changes Technical Specification Tables 3.3.3-1, 3.3.3-2, and 4.3.3-1 to reflect modifications to the Automatic Depressurization System (ADS) by removing the high pressure trip from the logic sequence and adding a manual inhibit switch thus eliminating the need for manual actuation to ensure core coverage.
2.0 Background
By letter of March 17, 1983, the licensee provided the means by which it proposed to conform to the intent of the requirements of TMI Action Item II.K.3.18 (ADS Logic Modifications). By letter of June 3,1983, the staff position on compliance to these requirement was outlined to CP&L.
Subsequently, by a July 26, 1983 letter to D. B. Vassallo, CP&L stated that NRC did not appear to take into account its earlier submittal in forming the basis for staff decision and requested that we do so.
The licensee's position, to maintain the logic without modification, was one of the options presented by the BWR Owners Group which was previously reviewed by the staff and found not acceptable. On February 2, 1984 the NRC wrote a letter restating the staff position that CP&L comply with the requirements in the June 3, 1983 letter. The Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed in the February 2,1984 letter addressed the specific points of the licensee's March 17, 1983 letter. The conclusion of the SE is that the staff position remains unchanged.
As a result, CP&L submitted a letter dated March 9, 1984 that committed the utility to modifying the ADS Logic by eliminating the high drywell pressure permissive and adding manual inhibit switches. This modification was found acceptable by the staff. Based on the March 9,1984 connitment the staff found the CP&L action regarding NUREG-0737 Item II.K.3.18, ADS Logic Modification, acceptable. This was related to the licensee in a letter dated May 18, 1984 l
B500080642 850730 PDR ADOCK 05000325 P
. 3.0 Evaluation The ADS modifications were made in response to NUREG-0737, Item II.K.3.18
" ADS Logic Modification," and were found to be acceptable in a letter to E. E. Utley from D. B. Vassallo, dated May 18, 1984. The basis for these modifications was in the June 3,1983 letter discussed above.
In addition, the Safety Evaluation dated February 2,1984 reviewed the licensee's March 17, 1983 letter. The June 3,1983 and February 2,1984 letters with accompanying evaluation are incorporated here by reference.
The requested Technical Specification changes remove the ADS high drywell pressure instruments and add the manual inhibit switches to ADS logic in Technical Specification sections 3.3.3 and 4.3.3.
The ADS logic has been modified to eliminate the high drywell pressure permissive and to add the inhibit switch in the control room. Therefore, the proposed Technical Specification changes are consistent with the approved design change and are acceptable.
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 Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment 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 amendnent will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
W. Hodges and M. Grotenhuis Dated: July 30, 1985 4