ML20245K084
| ML20245K084 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 04/25/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245K064 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8905040320 | |
| Download: ML20245K084 (3) | |
Text
_ _.
r a ea uq#(
UNITED STATES l-
{
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r,,
j WASHING TON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
l SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.128 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-71 AND AMENDNENT NO.158 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. OPR-62 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY et al.
BFl!NSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKETNOS.50-325AND.J0-324
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated October 24, 1984, as supplemented February 27, 1985, July 8, 1985 and March 17, 1987, Carolina Power & Light Company submitted a request for changes to the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2.
The amendments change the limiting condition for operation (LCO) and surveillance requirements for TS 3/4.6.1.3, Primary Containment Air Locks, to address the air lock door interlocks specifically. Additionally, the Technical Specifications (TS) for air locks would be reformatted to follow more closely the guidance of NUREG-0123, Standard Technical Specifications.
2.0 EVALUATION The licensee's request for a change to TS 3.6.1.3, Action Statements a and c, is consistent with the General Electric (GE) Standard Technical Specification 3.6.1.3.
Action Statements a and c are acceptable. Action l
Statement 3.6.1.3.b of the licensee's submittal delineates the action to be taken in the event an in' operable air lock door interlock is identified.
Upon identification of an inoperable air lock door interlock, the actions required are as follows:
1.
Lock the inner air lock door closed.
2.
Continue plant operation provided the inner air lock door is verified to be lected closed at least once per 31 days.
3.
Otherwise be in at least Hot Shutdown within the next 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> and Cold Shutdown within the following 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
l 8905040320 890425 PDR ADOCK 05000324 P
PDC 1
1 2
The function of the air lock door interlock is to prevent the inadvertent opening of both the inner and outer air lock doors simultaneously while containment integrity is required.
Locking the inner door closed and verifying the door remains locked closed is considered adequate protection against the simultaneous opening of both doors while permitting access to the air lock to perform leakage rate testing.
Therefore, action statement b is acceptable.
]
The licensee also requested changes to the surveillance requirements.
Surveillance a addresses the seal leakage rate test requirements. A new condition is added to perform the seal rate test (1) when the air lock seal has been replaced and (2) prior to establishing primary containment integrity when the air lock has been used and no maintenance has been performed in the air lock. This change is acceptable because it p mvides added assurance of the air lock sealing capability. Surveillance b addresses the overall air lock leakage test at 49 psig. A new condition has been added to perform this test prior tn establishing containment integrity when maintenance (except for seal replacement) has been performed on the air lock that would affect the air lock sealing capability. This change is acceptable because it provides added assurance that primary containment integrity is in effect when needed.
Surveillance c is a new surveillance which addresses the air lock interlock operability. The surveillance provides adequate assurance that the interlock is operable and is 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 and changes to the surveillance requirements.
The staff has determined that these amendments 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 enosure.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that tiese amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on seeb N ding. Accordingly, these amendments meet the eligibility criteria categorical exclusion set forth in 10 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 these amendments.
l
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission made a proposed determination that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register originally on March 27,1985 (50 FR 12139), and subsequar:tly on August 27, 1985 (50 FR 34934), and September 23, 1987 (52 FR 35786), 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.
u.
~,;
3 l
The staff has concluded, based un 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 inimical to the coninon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
H. Whitener, RII E. Tourigny, PD21 Dated:
April 25, 1989 I
i I
h--..-m____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
m_.mm______..___._,._._2