ML20138F230
| ML20138F230 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 12/10/1985 |
| From: | Cutter A CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Vassallo D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138F235 | List: |
| References | |
| NLS-85-444, NUDOCS 8512160042 | |
| Download: ML20138F230 (2) | |
Text
.
~
3 CD&L Carolina Power & Light Company SERIAL: NLS-85-444 DEC 101985 L
Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l
Attention:
Mr. D. B. Vassallo, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission s
Washington, DC 20555 BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NOS.1 AND 2 3
DOCKET NOS. 50-325 & 50-324/ LICENSE NOS. DPR-71 & DPR-62
't REQUEST FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT ADMINISTRATIVE CLARIFICATIONS - CORE SPRAY SYSTEM
Dear Mr. Vassallo:
SUMMARY
t In accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 50.90 and 2.101, Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) hereby requests a revision to the Technical Specifications (TS) for the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Unit Nos. I and 2. The proposed changes make administrative clarifications to ambiguous wording of footnotes in Specification 3/4.5.3.1.
DISCUSSION Specification 3.5.3.1 deals with the core spray system. Operability of the core spray system is required while in operational conditions 1,2,3,4, or 5. When in operational condition 5, the core spay system need not be operable provided that the reactor vessel head is removed, the cavity is flooded, the spent fuel pool gates are removed, and the water level is maintained within specified levels. The note allowing this exception currently states in part: "The core spray system is not required to be OPERABLE;when the suppression pool is inoperable provided...". This footnote is inconsistent with die guidance provided in the GE BWR/4 Standard Technical Specifications. The footnote is being revised to delete reference to suppression pool operability.
When the core spray system is inoperable in operational condition 5, adequate assurance of core flooding is provided by one low pressure cooling injection (LPCD toop or with the reactor vessel flooded and the fuel pool gates removed. The plant is in a'more conservative condition with the suppression pool operable than inoperable since an additional source of makeup water is available to the LPCI system. This is consistent with the basis of Specification 3.5.3.1 which does not consider suppression pool operability with regard to core spray system operability. Additionally, the revision of this footnote will minimize operator confusion and ensure operational flexibility for modification and maintenance of the core spray system. This change clarifies the footnote, removing the implication that core spray may not be inoperable while the suppression pool is operable and is therefore considered administrative in nature.
8512160042 851210
~
PDR ADOCK 05000324 P
PDR 411 Fayetteville Street e P. O. Box 15s1
- F,11eigh. N C. 27602 v= : a - M Q w'a v-nud?la V
m W
III (60 i
.i
- r. D. B.iVassallo 1
NLS-85-4'M / Page 2 s
SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS ANALYSIS The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists (~10CFR50.92(c)). A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facility involves no significant hazards consideration if operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) involve a si nificant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; g(2) create the
/. possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated;
,or (3) involvi a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Carolina Power & Light
' Company has evaluated this request and determined that:
y A
J.,
1)
The proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the changes do not result in any physical alterations of the plant configuration or changes to setpoints or operating parameters. All revisions are strictly administrative in nature.
2.
The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident than previously evaluated for the same reasons as stated in item 1.
3.
The proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because rewording of ambiguous statements will help to avoid the possibility of operator confusion, thereby increasing the margin of safety.
Based on the above reasons, the Company has determined that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION The proposed Brunswick-1 and Brunswick-2 TS pages, along with summary lists of revisions are included in Enclosures 1 and 2. Carottna Power & Light Company has evaluated this request in accordance with the provisions of 10CFR170.12 and has determined that a license amendment application fee is required. A check for $150 is enclosed in payment of this fee.
Please refer any questions regarding this submittal to Mr. Sherwood R. Zimmerman at (919) 836-6242.
Yours very truly, f ]4*
[.r A. B. Cutter - Vice President Nuclear Engineering & Licensing I
ABC/ MAT /mf- (3109 MAT)
Enclosure cc:
Mr. W. H. Ruland (NRC-BNP)
Dr. 3. Nelson Grace (NRC-Ril)
Mr. M. Grotenhuis (NRC)
Mr. Dayne H. Brown M.4. t2'CV(ie, e
A. S. Cutwr having been first duly sworn, did depose and say that the information
/
contained herein is true and correct to the best of his information, knowledge a tiefin,.
and the sources of his information are officers, employees, contractors, and a ofRA g %
Carolina Power & Light Company.
- "+Q([%,
be Yh,
WU '\\
\\
v J Notary beau i
no$
1 3
My commission expires: J//lfh6 0
1 5
L
\\ PU
%Q%'*...B U C.
E Q :,y d,hs.....no /q3-COUNQ m