ML20246P557
| ML20246P557 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 07/13/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20246P548 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8907200244 | |
| Download: ML20246P557 (2) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _ _
. # O HQuq
. [4 k
UNITED STATES
(
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 53 2j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655
\\**../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR RECULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.135 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-71 AND AMENDMENT NO.165 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
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated June 22, 1988, Carolina Power & Light Company submitted a request for changes to the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2.
l The amendments would delete the residual heat removal (RHR)/ service water discharge differential pressure inst-rument (transmitter and indicator) i from the Technical Specifications (TS) for each unit.
]
i 2.0 EVALUATION Each Brunswick unit has a remote shutdown panel located in the reactor building at the twenty foot level. The panel is utilized to shut down i
the unit and maintain shutdown conditions in the event control room habitability is lost. TS are in place for each panel's monitoring
)
instrumentation, which identifies operability requirements, action state-ments, and surveillance.
One indication on each panel is differential pressure between the shell, or RHR side, and the tube, or service water side, of the RHR heat exchanger. The RHR heat exchanger serves as the heat sink for suppression pool cooling and shutdown cooling.
The differential aressure indication does not provide the operator any indication that tie RHR and/or RHR service water system are operating or "in service." The instrumentation provides information on relative system pressures only; it does not enhance the operation of the RHR heat exchanger or RHR service water system with respect to establishing or maintaining hot or cold shutdown conditions.
The licensee's procedure entitled " Plant Shutdown from Outside Control Room" provides specific instructions for placing the RHR' and RHR service water systen into suppression pool cooling and shutdown cooling modes.
Both modes of cooling are established and maintained by setting the RHR service water booster pump run currents and the RHR system flow to predetermined values. The differential pressure indication is not used 3907200244 890713 f
PDR ADOCK 05000324 l
P PDC L
1 l
. \\
to establish or verify flow rates and reference to RHR heat exchanger tube-to-shell side pressure differential is not made in the procedure.
The differential pressure indication does provide useful information such as relative pressure between systems, but this indication is not required i
for safe operation.
l Based upon the above evaluation, the staff concludes that the subject differential pressure indication is not necessary, and the TS regarding the indication may be deleted. We find the amendment request acceptable.
3.0,ENVIRONMEN_TAL CONSIDERATIONS 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 exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, these amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusionsetforthin10CFR51.22(c)(9).
Pursurit to 10.CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environment) J,ssessment need be prepared 1'n connection with the issuance of these amendments.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission made a proposed determination that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register'(54 FR 23308) on May 31, 1989, and consulted with the Slate of Rorth Carolina.
No public comments 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 ublic will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and p(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:
E. G. Tourigny Dated: July 13,1989 i