ML14183A288
| ML14183A288 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Robinson  |
| Issue date: | 12/28/1994 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML14183A287 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9501060054 | |
| Download: ML14183A288 (2) | |
Text
S REU -.
UNITED STATES o
NUCLEAR REGULATORY CQMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 155 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 August 11, 1994, Carolina Power & Light Company (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (HBR2), Technical Specifications (TS).
The requested changes would delete the requirement in Section 4.1.3, Table 4.1-3, Item 11, from the HBR2 TS.
2.0 EVALUATION The requirement in Section 4.1.3, Table 4.1-3, Item 11, of the HBR2 TS pertains to the performance of a TS hydrostatic test at a 5-year interval on the auxiliary coolant system critical headers at 100 psig. The HBR2 TS, Section 4.0.1, requires that the inservice inspection and testing provisions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code (ASME Code),Section XI, be met in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a. The ASME Code,Section XI, requires that a system pressure test be performed on the auxiliary coolant system critical headers once every 40 months. The system pressure test is conducted at the nominal operating pressure of the headers, which is approximately 95 psig.Section XI also requires an ASME Code hydrostatic test of the auxiliary coolant system headers at approximately 110 psig once every 10 years.
According to the licensee's procedures, the corrective actions that the licensee would take upon the discovery of leakage during the conduct of the 5-year interval TS hydrostatic test of the auxiliary coolant system critical headers are the same as those required under the pressure testing rules of the ASME Code.
Industry experience has demonstrated that leaks are not being discovered as a result of the 10-year ASME Code hydrostatic test pressures propagating a preexisting flaw through wall.
The ASME Code hydrostatic test pressures are greater than either nominal operating pressures or design pressures.
Experience indicates that when leaks are found, in most cases, they are found when the system is at nominal operating pressure. This is largely due to the fact that ASME Code hydrostatic pressure testing is required only upon installation and then once every 10-year inspection interval, while system pressure tests at nominal operating pressures are conducted a minimum of once each 40-month inspection period for Class 2 and 3 systems. In addition, leaks may be identified by plant operators during system walkdowns that may be f5 0 10 6 0054 94122 PDR ADOCK 05000261
-2 conducted as often as once a shift. On that basis, there is no significant difference in the assurance provided by performing these pressure tests at 95 psig versus 100 psig or 110 psig. The TS hydrostatic test, therefore, is redundant to the ASME Code required pressure tests.
The 5-year interval hydrostatic test required by the TS is redundant to the pressure tests already required by the ASME Code and performed by the licensee. Therefore, the TS requirement does not provide any significant increase in the level of safety over that already provided by the ASME Code.
Accordingly, the licensee's request to delete Item 11 from Table 4.1-3 of TS Section 4.1.3 is approved.
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 (59 FR 60379). 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: E. Sullivan Date: December 28, 1994