ML14175A668
| ML14175A668 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Robinson  |
| Issue date: | 01/16/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML14175A667 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8101300057 | |
| Download: ML14175A668 (2) | |
Text
UNITED STATES 4?
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 55 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-23 CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY H. B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-261 Introduction By letter dated December 3, 1980, Carolina Power & Light Company (the licensee) requested an amendment to License No. DPR-23 for H. B, Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2. This change will add a requirement related to operability of the Boron Injection Tank (BIT) heat tracing channels.
Discussion and Evaluation On November 25, 1980, the H. B. Robinson staff discovered that one of the re quired channels of heat tracing associated with the BIT had failed. The Tech nical Specifications require two channels of heat tracing when the reactor is critical.
Since the Technical Specifications concerning the BIT make no allow ance for repair time of these specific heat tracings, a plant shutdown was begun.
In the meantime, it was determined, with agreement by the NRC, that the intent of the Technical Specifications was to provide an allowance for repair in the BIT section as with other sections of the Technical Specifications and the plant stopped the shutdown. In fact the chemical and volume control system (CVCS) which has operability requirements for heat tracing, provides for one channel to be out of service for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
This change involves adding the same action statement for the heat tracing channels for the BIT as that for the CVCS, thus clarifying the intent of the Technical Specifications. We find this change to be acceptable.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 951.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environ mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
-2 Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date:
January 16, 1981