ML20245H678
| ML20245H678 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 04/24/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245H676 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8905030473 | |
| Download: ML20245H678 (3) | |
Text
_ _ - -
j#
%*o UNITED STATES y
?,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h
j WASHING TON, D. C. 20555 s
%,,, f*
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT N0. 129 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-71 AND AMENDMENT N0. 159 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-62 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY et al.
BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-325 AND 50-324 l
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated September 19, 1988, Carolina Power & Light Comparty (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications (TS).
The amendments revise the actions associated with TS 3/4.6.4 (Drywell -
Suppression Chanter-Vacuum Breakers) to clarify the alternative actions to be taken if the existing actions cannot be taken.
Specifically, existing action 3.6.4.1.d will be incorporated into actions 3.6.4.1.a, 3.6.4.1.b., and 3.6.4.1.c and present action 3.6.4.1.d will be deleted to clarify that in the event any of these action statements applies, the unit will be placed in hot shutdown within twelve hours and in cold shut-down within the next twenty-four hours.
2.0 EVALUATION Technical Specification 3.6.4.1 requires that all drywell-suppression chanter vacuum breakers be OPERABLE and in the closed position with the position indicator OPERABLE, and with an opening setpoint of less than or equal to 0.5 psid. This requirement applies in Operational Conditions 1, 2, and 3.
Four action statements are currently associated with TS 3.6.4.1.
Action 3.6.4.1.a applies if no more than two drywell-suppression chamber vacuum breakers are inoperable for opening, but are known to be in the closed position. Action 3.6.4.1.b applies if one drywell-suppression chamber vacuum breaker is in the open position, as indicated by the position indicating sy::cm. Action 3.6.4.1.c applies if the position indicator of any drywelb mppression chamber vacuum breaker is inoperable. Action 3.6.4.1.d states, "Otherwise, be in at least HOT SHUTDOWN within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> and in COLD SHUTDOWN within the next 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />."
The aurpose of Action 3.6.4.1.d is to provide alternate action requirements if t le requirements specified in Action 3.6.4.1.a, 3.6.4.1.b, or 3.6.4.1.c cannot be met.
For example, 'f the circumstances described in Action 3.6.4.1.a apply, but Surveillance Requirement 4.6.4.1.a cannut be performed on the vacuum breakers within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />, Action 3.6.4.1.d applies.
k ch P
The licensee believes that the way in which the existing actions are listed could imply that if the circumstances of Actions 3.6.4.1.a, 3.6.4.1.b, or i
3.6.4.1.c do not apply, then TS 3.0.3 should be followed instead of following the requirements of Action 3.6.4.1.d.
The TS 3.0.3 requirements are that the unit be placed in at least hot shutdown within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> and in cold shutdown within the following 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> unless corrective measures are completed that permit operation under the permissible action statements.
These TS actions need further clarification to remedy such confusion in interpretations of TS.
The licensee concludes that the proposed changes will eliminate confusion over the interpretation of TS 3.6.4.1 acticn statements.
The requirement described in Action 3.6.4.1.d will be included in each of the previous action statements, 3.6.4.1.a, 3.6.4.1.b, and 3.6.4.1.c, so that it is clear that the alternative action is not TS 3.0.3, but to be in at least hot shutdown within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> and in cold stutdown within the next 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
The original purpose of Action 3.6.4.1.d was to define the licensee's course of action if Action 3.6.4._ a, or 3.6.4.1'.b, or 3.6.4.1.c could not be met.
The present Action 3.6.4.1.d was originally placed in the TS because we did not intend that the six hour hot shutdown requirement of TS 3.0.3 be required.
Our position for Action 3.6.4.1.d is only clearer by the proposed changes.
On this basis, the changes are clarifications in TS which are acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
S These amendments change a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted areas as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has determined that these amendmer,ts involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released off site; and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards consider-ation, and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accord-
)
ingly, these amendments meet the eli ibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(g)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
c no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Comission made a proposed determination that this amendment involves l
l no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (54 FR 9915) on March 8,1989, and consulted with the State of North Carolina.
No public comments or requests for hearing were received, and the State of North Carolina did not have any comments.
l l
y i
- 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 eet be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and2) suc 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:
E. Tourigny Dated: April 24,1989 i
l 1
l
_ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _