ML14183A087
| ML14183A087 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Robinson  |
| Issue date: | 12/30/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML14183A085 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8701120052 | |
| Download: ML14183A087 (2) | |
Text
1 o
UNITED STATES A.0 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 111 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 August 28, 1986, Carolina Power and Light Company (the licensee),
requested a revision to the Technical Specifications to correct references cited in Section 3.3.1.2. These references were inadvertently not corrected in the-licensee's submittal dated November 13, 1985 in which several paragraphs were deleted from TS Section 3.1.1 and subsequent paragraphs renumbered.
Section 3.3.1.2 was not corrected at that time to reference the renumbered paragraphs. Also, by letter dated September 4, 1986, the licensee requested a change to Section 6.13.1 of the Technical Specifications. The change consisted of adding a specified distance of 18 inches at which dose rates must be measured for determining if an area is a High Radiation Area (HRA') or a Locked High Radiation Area (LHRA). The addition of the specified distance would be consistant with the Westinghouse Standard Technical Specifications (STS).
By letter dated November 25, 1986 the licensee supplemented the September 4, 1986 request by correcting an inadvertent miswording of the corrected TS page to clarify an undefined area at 1,000.mr/hr. This was clarified by adding the words "....
equal to or.... " to the second line of Section 6.13.1.a.
EVALUATION We have reviewed the requested change to correct an error in Section 3.3.1.2 This request is merely to correct a clerical error as discussed above and consequently clarifies the TS. Therefore, we find this change acceptable. We have also reviewed the changes to Section 6.13.1 requested by the licensee's submittal dated September 4, 1986 in which the licensee proposed to add a distance of 18 inches at which the dose rate must be measured. We find that the added requirement for the distance at which the dose rate must be measured clarifies the Technical Specification and prevents misunderstanding. In addition, we have compared the licensee's requested change with the STS and find that the addition is consistent with the STS.
8170 1120052i 861 23o0 PDR ADOCK 0=000261 PDR
-2 Therefore, based on the above discussion, we find the requested changes to the Technical Specifications acceptable.
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: December 30, 1986 Principal Contributor:
G. Requa