ML20135A734
| ML20135A734 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 09/03/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20135A725 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8509100250 | |
| Download: ML20135A734 (2) | |
Text
-
o,,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
o B
- 1 WASHING TON. D. C. 20555
%, *..../
SAFETV EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLFAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPr0RTING AMENDMENT NO. 90 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. OPR-71 AND AMENDMENT NO.115 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. OPR-62 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY I
BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 l
DOCKET NOS. 50-375 AND 50-324
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated June 18, 1985, the Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L, the licensee) recuested a change to the limiting conditions for operation (LCO) for Brunswick Stean 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 proposed changes are to eliminate redundancy in specification requirements relating to radioactive liquid effluent monitoring instrumentation (Specification 3/4.3.5.8 with its associated Tables 3.3.5.8-1and4.3.5.8-1). The proposed changes implement technical changes and clarifications that eliminate unnecessary requirements for liquid process monitors and modify notations to reflect current plant configuration in line with NUREG-0473, " Standard Radiological Technical Specifications for BWRs," Revision 2, February 1, 1980.
A 2.0 EVALUATION In discussions with the licensee prior to issuance of the Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications (RETS) in Amendment Nos. 62 and 88, ret.ctor building component cooling water (service water) lines were l
identified as potential radiological effluent release paths. These included effbents from residual heat' removal (heat exchangers A and 8),
reactor building closed cooling water heat exchangers, Division I residual heat removal pump seal coolers, and Division II heat removal pump seal coolers. Commitments to monitor these five effluents were included in the TS for each unit although it was understood and recorded that "these monitors were to be installed pending completion of future plant modifications."
In the present submittal, the licensee points out that potential radioactivity in service water from any of these five sources is detected by the main service water effluent monitor for each unit.
In effect, these five lines are process lines that lead into the one service water effluent line for each unit.
0509100250 050903 PDR ADOCK 0D000324 P
PDH
i We find that the requirements for radioactivity monitors on individual i
branches of the Reactor Building Component Cooling Water (Service Water)
{
System may be deleted. This deletion is acceptable because these monitors l
would be process monitors, not effluent monitors, and as such should not be
]
covered by the RETS according to current criteria. Potential radioactivity j
in the final service water effluent would be detected by the main service water monitor required operable for each unit by Item 3 in Table 3.3.5.8-1.
The accompanying adjustment of Table notations to reflect i
current plant configuration is also acceptable, j-Based on the foregoing evaluation, we find that the proposed changes are l
1 acceptable and that the proposed changes as stated may be incorporated in
{
the TS.
j i
i
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
S t
t l
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 i
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 1
i 3
cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Comission has previously j
issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant harards j
consideration and there has been no public coment on such finding.
Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical 1
exclusionsetforthin10CFR51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared i
in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
j i
t
4.0 CONCLUSION
l i
j We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) 1 there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public i
i will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations 4
and the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the comon defense
)
and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
W. Meinke Dated: September 3,1985 l
I l
l i
i I
_.___.-~--,,,._,.___._,_.J
.. _ _.. - _ ~,, _,
_