ML14183A343
| ML14183A343 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Robinson  |
| Issue date: | 07/08/1996 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML14183A341 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9607100282 | |
| Download: ML14183A343 (3) | |
Text
SRE(;(,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-4001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.
170 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 March 29, 1996, 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 allow a period of 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to complete a surveillance requirement upon the discovery that the surveillance has been missed. The request states that these changes are. needed to avoid unnecessary shutdowns caused by inadvertently exceeding a surveillance interval. Pertinent Bases are also revised to clarify the criteria for incorporating portions of NUREG-1431, Revision 1, "Standard Technical Specifications - Westinghouse Plants," April 1995, (improved STS) into the licensee's plant TS.
2.0 EVALUATION In Generic Letter (GL) 87-09 the staff stated that it is overly conservative to assume that systems or components are inoperable when a surveillance requirement has not been performed, because the vast majority of surveillances demonstrate that systems or components in fact are operable.
Because the allowable outage time limits of some Action requirements do not provide an appropriate time limit for performing a missed surveillance before shutdown requirements apply, the TS should include a time limit that would allow a delay of the required actions to permit the performance of the missed surveillance. The time limit should be based on consideration of plant conditions, adequate planning, availability of personnel, the time required to perform the surveillance, as well as the safety significance of the delay in completion of the surveillance.
After reviewing possible limits, the staff concluded that, based on these considerations, 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> would be an acceptable time limit for completing a missed surveillance when the allowable outage times of the Action requirements are less that this time limit or when shutdown Action requirements apply.
The 24-hour time limit would balance the risks associated with. an allowance for completing the surveillance within this period against the risks associated with the potential for a plant upset and challenge to safety systems when the alternative is a shutdown to comply with Action requirements before the surveillance can be completed.
9607100292 960709 PDR ADOCK 05000261 P
-2 The failure to perform a surveillance requirement will continue to constitute noncompliance with the operability requirements. Thus, a failure to meet a surveillance requirement due to a failure to schedule a surveillance will result in entering the applicable action requirement for the affected equipment.
Based on the above, the following addition to TS 4.0 is acceptable:
If it is discovered that a Surveillance Requirement, as defined by Specification 4.0 and 4.0.1(e), was not performed within its specified frequency, then compliance with the requirement to declare that the Technical Specifications requirements are not met may be delayed, from the time of discovery, up to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or up to the limit of the specified frequency, whichever is less. This delay period is permitted to allow performance of the Surveillance.
If the Surveillance is not performed within the delay period, then the Technical Specifications requirements must immediately be declared not met, and the applicable action requirements must be undertaken.
When the Surveillance is performed within the delay period and the Surveillance is not met, the Technical Specifications requirements must be immediately declared not met and the applicable action requirements must be undertaken.
The Bases change to support the TS change is also appropriate.
A new TS Section 4.0.1(e) will.be added to clarify that TS Section 4.0 is applicable to inservice inspection surveillance test intervals. The proposed change is consistent with the guidance of the GL and the improved STS, and, thus, is acceptable.
Additional changes proposed for TS Sections 4.5.1.6, 4.8.1, 4.8.2, 4.8.3, and 4.16.2.A replace the wording "not to exceed" and "not greater than" with words consistent with the improved STS and GL guidance on interval descriptions. The wording changes also describe the surveillance intervals (e.g., monthly and semi-annual intervals) in a manner consistent with other TS Section 4 surveillances. Therefore, the proposed changes are acceptable because they are consistent with NRC guidance.
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
-3 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 (61 FR 25699). 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:
July 8, 1996