ML14183A319
| ML14183A319 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Robinson  |
| Issue date: | 04/27/1995 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML14183A318 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9505040285 | |
| Download: ML14183A319 (2) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 164 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 November 4, 1994, as supplemented April 6, 1995, 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 change the testing frequency of the turbine overspeed protection valves from monthly to quarterly.
As documented in Generic Letter (GL) 93-05, "Line-Item Technical Specifications Improvements to Reduce Surveillance Requirements for Testing During Power Operation," dated September 27, 1993, the NRC has completed a comprehensive examination of surveillance requirements in TS that require testing at power. In addition, several changes in surveillance intervals for tests performed during shutdown were recommended. Specifically, GL 93-05 recommended a reduction in turbine valve testing frequency in cases where the turbine manufacturer will agree. The Westinghouse Owners Group recommended the adoption of quarterly testing in WCAP-11525, "Probabilistic Evaluation of Reduction of Turbine Valve Test Frequency," for turbine building block 95/96 turbines. The NRC issued a safety evaluation for WCAP-11525 on November 2, 1989. Consistent with GL 93-05, the licensee is requesting a change to the TS Table 4.1-3, "Frequencies for Equipment Tests." The letter dated April 6, 1995, provided clarifying information that did not change the scope of the original November 4, 1994, application and the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
2.0 EVALUATION The proposed change to the testing frequency for the turbine valves is consistent with the intent of GL 93-05. NUREG-1366, "Improvements to Technical Specifications Surveillance Requirements," dated December 1992, concluded that the monthly turbine valve testing should be extended because the surveillance test has caused a significant number of reactor trips, and causes wear on the turbine valves along with added stress on the steam system.
NUREG-1366 further indicates that, to avoid reactor trips, steam flow must be reduced by reducing power or dumping excess steam to the condenser, resulting in a reduction in capacity factor and potential damage to the turbine or condenser.
9505040285 950427 PDR ADOCK 05000261 P
-2 NUREG-1366 concluded that the surveillance interval could be increased from one month to quarterly without any decrease in plant safety. The postulated accident of concern is a turbine overspeed with missile generation impacting safety-related components or structures. The evaluation in WCAP-11525 concluded that the requested reduction in frequency of the turbine overspeed protection valve surveillance test will have a negligible effect on the probability of a turbine overspeed event. The licensee submitted a comprehensive analysis that demonstrated that WCAP-11525 conclusions are applicable to the.HBR turbine overspeed protection system as operated by the licensee. Based on the above, the staff finds the proposed changes 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 (j9 FR 63115). 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: April 27, 1995