ML14183A040
| ML14183A040 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Robinson  |
| Issue date: | 05/06/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML14183A039 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8605150187 | |
| Download: ML14183A040 (3) | |
Text
0 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR PFACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 98 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-23 CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY H. B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. ?
DOCKET NO. 50-261 Introduction During the staff review of the H.B. Robinson-2 cycle-10 reload, the Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L) committed to include in the Technical Specifications of the H. B. Robinson-2 plant a low reactor coolant loop flow trip setpoint which is not greater than 90 percent of the measured RCS flow less uncertainties (Ref. 1).
The purpose of the commitment was to assure that the existing low flow trip setpoint bounded the design flow used in safety analyses, thus making it unnecessary to specify the design flow as a Technical Specification LCO. Shortly after the cycle-10 startup, a calorimetric flow determination was performed and the results were reported to the staff (Ref. 2).
By letter dated August 28, 1985 (Ref. 3), CP&L requested a change in Technical Specification (TS) 2.1 to include specification of the minimum coolant flow assumed in the development of the core protection boundary operating limits in the basis of 2.1.
By letter dated November 11, 1985, CP&L added the minimum flow to Figure 2.1-1 of the TS.
Evaluation The H.B. Robinson-2 plant has an approved measured flow uncertainty of 1.8 percent (fog the calorimetric method). Therefore, the minimum measured flow is 105.8x18 ibm/hr and the value which corresponds to10 percent6below that is 95.2x10 ibm/hr. The thermal design. analysis flow is 97.30%10 1bm/hr and the minimum flow trip setpoint used in the analysis is 87.6x10 1bm/hr, i.e.,
10 percgnt below the thermal design flow. The actual flow at trip is 95.2x10 ibm/hr.
The results of the flow measurements (Ref. 2) indicate that the low flow trip setpoint does not prevent operation with actual flow less than the design flow. The proposed Technical Specification change identifies the design flow assumed in the definition of Figure 2.1-1 6operating boundaries and thus requires that the minimum flow of 97.3x10 ibm/hr be maintained by administrative controls.
We conclude that the proposed Technical Specification chance provides appropriate assurance that steady-state reactor coolant flow is maintained within the bounds of the safety analyses and is, therefore, acceptable.
8605150187 860506 PDR ADOCK 05000261 P
Environmental Consideration This amendment involves a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Sec 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 this amendment.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on 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 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.
Dated:
May 6, 1986 Principal Contributor:
L. Lois
REFERENCES
- 1. Letter from A. B. Cutter (CP&L) to S. A. Varga (NRC), dated October 1?, 1984.
Serial: NLS-84-442.
- 2.
Letter from S. R. Zimmerman (CP&L) to S. A. Varga (NRC), dated May 6, 1985.
Serial:
- 3. Letter from A. B. Cutter (CP&I) to S. A. Varga (NRC), dated August 28, 1985.
Serial:
NLS-85-262, and November 11, 1985, Serial: NLS-85-398.