ML20204A359
| ML20204A359 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20204A355 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8605120118 | |
| Download: ML20204A359 (2) | |
Text
'
[ames UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
.a WASHWGTON, D. C. 20666
%%,..../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT N0.124 TO FACILITY LICENSE N0. DPR-62 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT C0MPANY BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT 2 DOCKET N0. 50-324
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated December 20, 1985 the Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L/ licensee) requested an amendment to Facility Operating License No.
DiR-62 for the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP) Unit 2.
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 staft position on compliance to these requirements 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 ~1n 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 comitted the utility to modifying the ADS Logic by eliminating the high drywell pressure pennissive and adding manual inhibit switches. This modification was found acceptable by the staff. Based on the March 9,1984 comitment 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
$[
[
P n-
. 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 accorpanyi:9 evaluation are incorporateci 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.
A similar change to the Unit 1 Technical Specifications was approved by NRC letter dated July 30, 1985. 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 ENVIR0f;ttENTAL CONSIDERATIONS The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes surveillance requirements. The staff has cetermined 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 previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public coment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendment reets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 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.
4.0 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 amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
G. Thomas Dated: April 30, 1986