ML20237G457
| ML20237G457 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 08/20/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237G442 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8709020260 | |
| Download: ML20237G457 (3) | |
Text
- - _ _ - - - - - _ _
~ h?'O%
UNITED STATES 4
[
p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\***.*/
q SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION l
1 SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 111 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-71 I
l AND AMENDMENT NO.138 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-62 j
i CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-325 AND 50-324
1.0 INTRODUCTION
l By letter dated March 27, 1987, Carolina Power & Light Company, (the licensee), submitted a request for changes to the Technical Specifi-cations (TS) for the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2.
The proposed changes incorporate requirements for nitrogen backup system operability, as requested by the NRC in accordance with guidance of Generic Letter (GL) 84-09 which requests removal of potential oxygen sources from the primary containment.
2.0 BACKGROUND
In response to GL 84-09, the licensee made several submittals (dated June 8, 1984. June 27, 1984, March 1, 1985, July 18, 1985, and March 20, 1986), in which they attempted to demonstrate that Brunswick i
Units 1 and 2 do not require hydrogen recombiners to control combustible gases after an accident. The intent was to demonstrate compliance with the guidance of GL 84-09 without hydrogen recombiner capability.
As a result of the NRC staff's review of information supplied by the licensee, a Safety Evaluation (SE) was issued on October 30, 1986.
The NRC staff evaluation outlined five additional actions that, if comitted to, would show compliance with the intent of the generic letter. These actions would be in addition to the previous information and commitments provided to the NRC staff. The licensee responded to the NRC staff's concerns by addressing the five actions in a letter dated December 19, 1986. A meeting was held on March 18, 1987 between the NRC staff and the licensee, to clarify the December 19 letter and discuss incorporating the nitrogen backup system into the TS. On March 27, 1987, the licensee submitted an amendment request reflecting discussions and agreements from that meeting.
prosBasBl88$g4 P
1 l
l 0
c.
c o 3.0 EVALUATION j
For clarity, this evaluation addresses, in order, the five actions estab-11shed in the October 30, 1986, SE. The first and most significant action j
was to require automatic isolation of the non-essential instrument air system upon receipt of a containment isolation signal. The licensee responded by indicating that a direct acting solenoid valve will isolate the system upon receipt of a LOCA signal.
In addition, a second identical valve will be added during the next refueling outage to accomodate a single active failure.
Both valves, however, will retain an override function to allow the operator to reopen the valves with a LOCA signal received.
The NRC staff concludes that the licensee has met the intent of this action. Although signal override would not normally be viewed as satisfying this condition, the backup nitrogen system is of safety grade quality and has been designed for maximum availability. This causes the staff to view the override option as a last resort action and, therefore, it is acceptable.
The second action, which was requested by the NRC staff, was to provide verification that the essential nitrogen supply is a safety grade system which automatically supplies the instrument air system upon receipt of a containment isolation signal. The licensee has shown that all aspects of this action have been met.
The third and fourth actions concern the testing, surveillance and limiting conditions of operation (LC0) for the essential nitrogen system for incorporation into the TS.
The licensee has responded positively to these requests by submitting proposed TS changes via the letter dated Mar::h 27,1987.
Nitrogen pressure will be verified every 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to be at least 1130 psig and a complete system leak check coupled with a functional logic check will be performed at least once per 18 months.
Additionally, two LC0's have been added to the TS. With both nitrogen systems inoperable, one system must be restored within 7 days or the plant
.^
will shutdown. Witn only one system operable, the other system must be returned to operability within 31 days or the plant will shutdown.
The NRC staff has reviewed the proposed TS changes and concurs with the licensee's requested changes. The times associated with the LCOs appear to be appropriate since the systems that are supplied with the nitrogen supply remain operable through the normal instrument air system.
The final action requested by the NRC staff was the verification that the r' ant operating procedures are consistent with the committed actions listed above. All procedures that call for supplying air into the contain-ment after receipt of the containment isolation signal were to be removed.
l The licensee has indicated that a review of the operating procedures has demonstrated consistency with the above actions with these exceptions:
the recognized need for air supply to the MSIVs and emergency depres-surization for specific transients. These operations are in accordance
,..q 4
d b with the BWR Owners' Group Emergency Proceaurc Cuidelines.
I The NRC staff has reviewed these deviations and agrees that these actions are needed to improve the safety of the plant and do not violate the intent of the above requested actions. The need for the air into the containment is for a limited time period. Once the component is actuated, the need for the air supply is eliminated, and the air can be reisolated from the contain-ment. The brief time the air is required in the containment is more than I
offset by the benefits gained by restoration of the component in question.
Based on the above, the staff concludes that the licensee has removed all credible oxygen sources from the containment and has demonstrated compliance with the guidance contained in GL'84-09, "Recombiner Capability Requirements of10CFR50.44(c)(3)(ii)." Therefore, the licensee has shown that the existing systems are adequate to accommodate possible transients without the need for the added recombiner capability.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
S The amendments change 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 change surveillance requirements. The staff has deterriined that 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 cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously published a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 551.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 551.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environ-mental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
5.0, CONCLUSION The Commission made a determination that these Amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the FEDERAL REGISTF.R (52 FR 18973) on May 20, 1987, 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.
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the p(ublic will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, a i
- 2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Com-mission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
J. Kudrick, Plant Systems Branch, NRR Dated: August 20, 1987
.