ML14183A046
| ML14183A046 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Robinson  |
| Issue date: | 07/30/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML14183A045 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8608120466 | |
| Download: ML14183A046 (2) | |
Text
g S
tp5 REG&/4.
0 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 101 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 In a letter dated October 9, 1985, Carolina Power and Light Company requested a license amendment to change the Technical Specifications for H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2. The proposed changes are:
- 1. In a number of places in the TechnicalSpecifications the phrase "90 percent or 0.9 x APL (whichever is less) of rated power" is replaced with "90 percent of rated power or 0.9 APL (whichever is less)."
(APL is Allowable Power Level).
- 2. The wording used in a previous change to the Technical Specifications inadvertently prohibited calibration of the excore detectors at power ranges above 90 percent rated power or 0.9 APL. This restriction is removed.
- 3. This change corrects reference from Figure 3.10-4 to Figure 3.10-5.
- 4. This change reduces the required minimum number of operable incore detector thimbles from 16 to 15 during recalibration of the excore detectors.
- 5. This change revises the method used to calibrate the excore detectors to that contained in WCAP-8648-A "Excore Detector Recalibration Using Quarter-Core Flux Maps."
- 6. This change incorporates a reference to the above report.
Evaluation Items 1, 3, and 6 are purely editorial changes addressing consistency of terminology, correcting a figure number, and adding a reference document.
They are therefore acceptable. Item 2 also corrects an error, but as a result of the complexity of the circumstances leading to the change, the licensee provided further justification that the change is acceptable. This consists of requiring that the axial flux difference be maintained within specified limits above 90 percent power or 0.9 APL (as well as at lower power levels). The Technical Specification preceding the previous change allowed calibration at any power regardless of axial flux band deviation.
8608120466 860730 PDR ADOCK 05000261 P
We conclude the proposed change is acceptable because the axial flux difference limits required for normal operation will be maintained. Item 4 is in conformance with the requirements of the approved topical report WCAP-8648, and is therefore acceptable. In fact, the topical report specifically shows the Robinson core layout with a requirement for only 15 detector strings.
Items 5 and 6 specify the Technical Specification bases that the methodology of the approved topical report WCAP-8648-A will be used for calibration of the excore detectors. Since the quarter-core flux map methodology for calibration of the excore detectors is approved, this is acceptable.
Summary As detailed above, we conclude the proposed Lhanges to the Technical Specifi cations for H. B. Robinson are acceptable, and will not result in a reduction of the safety margins of H. B. Robinson, Unit 2.
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 51.22(c)(9). This amendment also involves changes in recordkeeping, reporting or administrative procedures or requirements. Accordingly, with respect to these items, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10).
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: July 30, 1986 Principal Contributor:
M. Dunenfeld