ML14183A296
| ML14183A296 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Robinson  |
| Issue date: | 02/10/1995 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML14183A295 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9502170210 | |
| Download: ML14183A296 (2) | |
Text
pREG&l 0
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 157 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 December 12, 1994, Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L or the licensee) requested an amendment to the Facility Operating License DPR-23 for H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (HBR2). The proposed amendment would change the surveillance interval specified in TS 4.5.1.4 from 5 years to 10 years for performing an air or smoke flow test through the containment spray headers.
2.0 EVALUATION Existing HBR2 Technical Specification (TS) 4.5.1.4 requires that the licensee demonstrate that the containment spray system is operable at least once per 5 years by performing an air or smoke test through each spray header and verifying that each spray nozzle is unobstructed. Such testing provides no quantitative data on flow rates exiting the spray nozzles and only verifies that there is flow.
The NRC staff studied industry experience regarding problems revealed by means of this testing and found that the only problems in pressurized water reactor containment spray systems were those that were construction-related. Based on this investigation and other screening criteria established for evaluating surveillance requirements (SR), the NRC staff recommended that this test interval be extended to once every 10 years. This recommendation is documented in NUREG-1366, "Improvements to Technical Specifications Surveillance Requirements," December 1992.
In addition, the revised NUREG-1431, "Standard Technical Specifications for Westinghouse Plants," in the basis for the SR for the containment spray header smoke or air flow test state in SR 3.6.6A.9:
"With the containment spray inlet valves closed and the spray header drained of any solution, low pressure air or smoke can be blown through test connections. This SR ensures that each spray nozzle is unobstructed and provides assurance that spray coverage of the containment during an accident is not degraded. Due to the passive design of the nozzle, a test at [the first refueling and at] 10 year intervals is considered adequate to detect obstruction of the nozzles."
Surveillance air flow tests were performed at HBR2 in 1970, 1975, 1980, 1986 and 1991. All tests demonstrated that obstructions did not exist in any of 9502170210 950210 PDR ADOCK 05000261 P
-2 the nozzles involved. Therefore, CP&L plant-specific operational experience regarding the containment spray header air or smoke flow tests is consistent with the findings and recommendations of NUREG-1366. The proposed reduced testing of the spray system's nozzles remains adequate to ensure operability of the nozzles to mitigate the consequences of a design basis accident. Based on the above discussion, the NRC staff finds that the proposed changes of the surveillance frequency for performing an air or smoke flow test through the containment spray headers for HBR2 from 5 years to 10 years is 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 (60 FR 497). 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.
Principle contributor: B. Mozafari Date: February 10, 1995