ML14183A057
| ML14183A057 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Robinson  |
| Issue date: | 09/18/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML14183A056 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8609260321 | |
| Download: ML14183A057 (3) | |
Text
ot UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 103 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-23 CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY H. B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-?61
- 1. INTRODUCTION By letter dated November 6, 1985, Carolina Power and Light Company (the licensee) submitted proposed changes to the technical specifications for the H.B. Robinson nuclear power plant. These changes include numerous editorial changes, the elimination of the requirement for shutting down the ventilation system in the fuel.handling building on a high radiation signal, the reduction of the waste gas decay tank radioactivity limit and a correction of the bases for control of explosive gas mixtures in the waste gas decay tanks.
- 2.
EVALUATION 2.1 Editorial Changes These changes do not have a significant impact on the substance of the technical specifications. The proposed changes are:
(a) In numerous places in Table 3.5-6, Table 3.5-7 and Section 3.17.2 reference to specific subsections (6.9.1.d.4, -6.9.1.d.b, etc.) would be replaced with more general references to the section addressing the Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report (6.9.1.d).
(b) The requirement of Table 3.5-7 for analysis of grab samples from the plant stack would be changed from "analyzed for radionoble gases once per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />" to "within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />."
(c) Item 1.c.b of Table 3.5-7 is changed from "as provided by" to "as required by."
These proposed changes have been reviewed. It is concluded that the chanqes are not substantive but constitute minor improvements in.phraseology. Therefore, these proposed changes are acceptable.
2.2 Lower Level Fel Handling Building (FHB) Ventilation Isolation The ventilation system for the lower level of the fuel handling building is now required to be shutdown if there is a high radiation signal. In response to an NRC Inspector Follow-Up Item (IFI 81-07-34) the licensee reevaluated the desirability of ventilation system deactivation.
8609260321 860918 PDR ADOCK 05000261 P
PDR-LX9
-2 The principal-considerations were:
(1) the only significant potential accident in this area is an inadvertent release from a waste gas decay tank; (2) the acceptance criteria for a waste gas decay tank failure accident are met without credit for holdup in the building; and (3) the fuel handling building is not leak-tight, so shutdown of the ventilation system would not contain the radioactive gases but would change the release pathway so the release would be unmonitored and unfiltered.
The licensee thus concluded that deactivation of the ventilation system on a high radiation signal was neither necessary nor desirable. The system was then modified to eliminate the automatic trip capability. A corresponding change in the technical specifications is now requested.
The staff evaluated the licensee's proposal and found that it-meets the acceptance criteria of Branch Technical position ETSR 11-5 and, therefore, is acceptable.
2.3 Waste Gas Decay Tank Radioactivity Inventory Limit Technical Specification 3.16.5 requires that the content of each waste gas decay tank be limited to 60,000 curies Xe-133 equivalent. The-purpose of this limit is to ensure that inadvertent release of the contents would not result in an off-site dose of more than 0.5 rem. The licensee has reevaluated this limit and concluded that it should be reduced to 19,000 curies Xe-133 equivalent.
The proposed technical specification change so reduces the limit.
The staff evaluated this proposed change and concluded that its only significant impact is to reduce the possible consequences of an accident. The change, therefore, is acceptable.
2.4 Waste Gas Decay Tank, Hydrogen and Oxygen Technical Specification 3.16.4 limits the concentrations of hydrogen and oxygen in the waste gas decay tanks to prevent explosions. The control system and the technical specification requirements have been evaluated by the staff and found acceptable. The "bases" discussion, however, was found to include reference to automatic control features that are neither necessary nor present at the Robinson plant. The licensee now proposes to change the "bases" to more accurately reflect plant systems.
The staff evaluated this proposal and concluded that it does not change the requirements and, therefore, is acceptable.
- 3. 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
-3 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). 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.
- 4. 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: September 18, 1986 Principal Cohtributor:
C. Willis