ML14175A765
| ML14175A765 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Robinson  |
| Issue date: | 02/25/1983 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML14175A764 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8303110109 | |
| Download: ML14175A765 (2) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 75 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 letters dated October 22, 1982 and January 20, 1983 the licensee requested revisiop to their Technical Specifications to provide 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> to make operable essential features of the Auxiliary Feedwater Pumps and to clarify the limiting conditions of operation under which at least one pressurizer safety relief valve must be operable.
Evaluation The revisions requested and our conclusions are:
A. Auxiliary Feedwater System (AFW) Operability The Commission's Amendment No.
74 issued on January 6, 1983, provided 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> to make operable an inoperable AFW pump.
However, the essential features needed to support the operation of that pump in the AFW system were omitted from the 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> requirement.
As currently stated, the Technical Specifications would allow 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> to repair an inoperable AFW pump, but would require 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to restore an essential feature of that pump (such as a control valve) to operable status.
The intent of the specification concerns the operability of the train associated with that pump, and any component or feature in that train should have the same specification.
We have reviewed this request and find that requested change consistent with the definition of Operability as given in Standard Technical Specifications and in the Technical Specification 1.3 of the H. B. Robinson Technical Specifications and therefore conclude that the change is acceptable.
8303110109 830225 PDR ADOCK 05000261 P
-2 B. Limiting Conditions of Operation (LCO)
At each refueling outage, the three (3) Pressurizer Code Safety Valves (SVs) are all removed for bench testing and setpoint verification.
Because of the refueling floor equipment configuration at the start of a refueling outage, the SVs must be removed when the reactor head is still on the vessel.
However, as the licensee pointed out, this is not in literal compliance with TS 3.1.1.3.a which states that at least one Pressurizer Code Safety Valve shall be operable whenever the Reactor Head is on the vessel.
This LCO is required to provide a path for pressure relief in the event that all residual heat removal were lost. To correct this LCO the licensee recommended adding the words "...and the RCS is not opened for maintenance," at the end of the LCO sentence whenever the Reactor Head is on the vessel' We have reviewed the requested change and find that it is not the intent of the-specification to have one pressurizer safety valve operable when the RCS is inoperable, i.e., opened for maintenance, and therefore conclude that the recommended change is 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 §51.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement cr negative declaration and environ mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
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:
February 25, 1983 Principal Contributor:
G. Requa