ML14183A240
| ML14183A240 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Robinson  |
| Issue date: | 12/10/1992 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML14183A239 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9212220347 | |
| Download: ML14183A240 (2) | |
Text
epjREGU o
JNITED STATES 11 aNUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 143 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-23 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY H. B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-261
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated June 5, 1992, the Carolina Power & Light Company (licensee) submitted a request for changes to the H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Technical Specifications (TS). The requested changes would clarify a footnote associated with calibration of the containment vessel (CV) high-range radiation monitors R-32A and R-32B.
The proposed amendment would change a footnote to TS Table 4.1-1 associated with the refueling interval calibration of the CV high-range radiation monitors. The current footnote limits the licensee to an alternative calibration methodology as described in the licensee's letter dated April 28, 1982.
The change would allow the licensee the flexibility to use the special calibration methodology provided in the NRC's guidance of NUREG-0737, Item II.F.1, Attachment 3, and associated Table II.F.1-3.
2.0 EVALUATION On November 1, 1983, the NRC issued Generic Letter (GL) 83-37, "NUREG-0737 Technical Specifications," that provided guidance and model TS for the containment high-range radiation monitors. The NRC-preferred calibration methodology involves in situ calibration. In response to the GL, by letter dated February 7, 1984, the licensee submitted proposed TS for the CV high range monitor. The licensee's proposed TS met the criteria of Table II.F.1-3 of NUREG-0737 with the exception that the licensee would perform the calibration of the instruments in the plant's test lab rather than in the installed location. The footnote to Item 44 of TS Table 4.1-1 referenced the alternative methodology provided by the licensee on April 28, 1982. That letter was in response to an NRC request that the licensee ensure that the entire channel was functioning after re-installation following calibration at the test facility. In the safety evaluation related to Amendment No. 94 issued on August 29, 1985, the NRC approved the licensee's TS, including the exception to perform the calibration in accordance with the April 28, 1982, letter.
Recently the licensee became aware that the literal reading of the TS footnote required that the CV high-range monitors be calibrated in accordance with the April 28, 1982, letter. Although the NRC-preferred calibration method is that described in NUREG-0737, either calibration method will ensure the operability 9212220347 921210 PDR ADOCK 05000261 P
-2 and availability of the CV high-range monitors. The licensee has proposed wording which clearly reflects the acceptability of the approved alternative calibration while allowing the option to use the NRC-preferred in situ calibration. The NRC finds the revised footnote to be acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the State of South Carolina official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes the surveillance requirements. The NRC 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 the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (57 FR 28196). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 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 the amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has 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, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: B. Mozafari Date: December 10, 1992