ML20237F635
| ML20237F635 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 08/10/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237F623 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8708130107 | |
| Download: ML20237F635 (3) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _ -. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l l
Sateog o
UNITED STATES g
['
p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 I
,o SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.110 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-71 AND AMENDMENT NO.137 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-62 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-325 AND 50-324
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated August 29, 1986, as supplemented July 16, 1987, Carolina
~
Fower & Light Company (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications (TS) to permit operability testing of the primary con-tainment isolation valves during any mode of reactor operation. 1he amendment would delete the words "during cold shutdown or refueling" from the surveillance requirements for containment isolation valves in TS Section 4.6.3.2.
The staff noted in the August 29, 1986 application that the licensee inadvertently left out a paragraph on the corrected TS page 3/4 6-13 for Brunswick Unit 1.
By letter dated July 16, 1987, the licensee provided the corrected TS page to the staff. Therefore, the supplemental letter corrected an administrative error to the original application and does not change the initial no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
2.0 EVALUATION TS 4.6.3.2 requires that each primary containment isolation valve listed in TS Table 3.6.3-1 be demonstrated operable during " cold shutdown or refueling" at least once every 18 months. This operability test should verify that the valve actuates to the appropriate position upon receipt of a test signal. The licensee stated that this requirement limits the operational flexibility of the plant for those valves that are capable of being tested during power operation. The Brunswick Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, paragraph 7.3.1.1.9, states "The primary con-tainment isolation and NSSS Shutoff System is testable during reactor operation.
Isolation valves can be tested to assure that they are PDR P
e e
. gVI capable of closing by operating manual switches in the Control-Room and observing the position lights and any associated process effects."
The proposed revision to the Ors.nswick TS, if approved, would delete the phrase "during cold shutdown and refueling" from Surveillance Requirement 4.6.3.2 and would read "Each isolation valve specified in Table 3.6.3-1 shall be demonstrated OPERABLE at least once per 18 months by verifying that on a containment isolation test signal each isolation valve actuates to its isolation position." The proposed TS amendment does not change the test interval and the staff, therefore, finds it acceptable. The proposed amendment makes Brunswick Units 1 and 2 TS consistent with the Standard TS for BWR-4s.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
S The amendments change the 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
. hat may be released offsite; and that there should be no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Comission has previously published a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public coment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR $51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 651.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Comission made a determination that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER (51 FR 36084) on October 8, 1986, and consulted with the State of North Carolina.
No public coments or requests for hearing were received, and the State of North Carolina did not have any comments.
l l
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 Com-mission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendments will not be i
inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of tae public, i
Principal Contributor:
J. Pulsipher Dated: August 10, 1987 1
I
e DISTRIBUTION
% Docket File d NRC PDR Local PDR PD21 r/f
-SVarga Dliagan Glainas ESylvester 0GC-B PAnderson EJordan BGrimes TBarnhart (8)
Wanda Jones JPartlow ACRS (10)
GPA/PA ARM /LTMB EButcher RBernero JPulsipher
.---------__--;