ML14183A352
| ML14183A352 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Robinson  |
| Issue date: | 08/09/1996 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML14183A351 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9608120284 | |
| Download: ML14183A352 (3) | |
Text
SptREG&~
1 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-W001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 173 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 6, 1996, the Carolina Power & Light Company (licensee) submitted a request for changes to the H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (HBR), Technical Specifications (TS). The requested change would allow a one-time TS change to defer the inspection of flywheels in reactor coolant pump (RCP) motors from refueling outage 17 scheduled to begin on September 7, 1996, to refueling outage 18 scheduled for the spring of 1998.
The licensee's June 6, 1996, submittal is related to WCAP-14535, "Topical Report on Reactor Coolant Pump Flywheel Inspection Elimination," which was developed by the Westinghouse Owners Group to provide a basis for the complete elimination of the RCP flywheel inspections for all operating Westinghouse plants and some Babcock and Wilcox plants. This topical report was submitted by Duquesne Light Company for Beaver Valley 1 & 2 as lead plants, and has been reviewed by the NRC staff. Because the projected date of issuance of the safety evaluation (SE) for the topical report does not allow the licensee to apply for the plant-specific applicability of WCAP-14535 to HBR before its 1996 outage, the licensee made this request for one-cycle deferral of the flywheel inspection.
2.0 BACKGROUND
The licensee has four RCP flywheels at HBR, three are installed and one is a spare. The licensee has performed 22 total flywheel inspections, two of which resulted in recordable indications. In 1984, a liquid penetrant testing on the "C" RCP resulted in an indication in the bore of the flywheel. The bore area that contained the indication was ground out and upon reexamination no additional indications were noted. In 1992, an indication was recorded on the spare RCP flywheel that the licensee determined through visual inspection to be a surface gouge mark. The licensee found the gouge acceptable for operation. All past-examinations, including the two mentioned above, were performed in accordance with Section 4.6.3 of the HBR TS, which specifies that
"...flywheels shall be visually examined after each ten year inspection. At the fourth refueling after each ten year inspection and at each fourth refueling thereafter, the outside surfaces shall be examined by ultrasonic methods."
9608120284 960809 PDR ADOCK 05000261 P
-2 3.0 EVALUATION In the submittal, the licensee stated that among the flywheels of the 28 plants that employ a four flywheel inspection program listed in WCAP-14535, the flywheels of HBR rank notably high with respect to inspection frequencies without any indications that would affect flywheel integrity. The staff agrees that this is consistent with what was reported in WCAP-14535, and has considered this operating experience in its evaluation.
In addition to the operating experience of the flywheels at HBR, the licensee also used WCAP-14535 to justify its request for TS change for this one-cycle deferral of the RCP flywheels inspection.. The staff has completed the review of WCAP-14535, but has not issued the SER yet. The licensee cited the results and conclusions from WCAP-14535 to support its statement that there are no significant mechanisms for inservice degradation of the RCP flywheels, no significant deformation of the flywheels at either normal operating speed or overspeed, and no appreciable fatigue crack growth for 60 years of operation.
Further, the submittal cited from WCAP-14535 that the ductile and brittle failure criteria of RG 1.14, Revision 1, have been satisfied. The staff concludes that these statements are in line with the conclusions made in WCAP 14535. Although certain plant-specificinformation is needed for the licensee's future submittal demonstrating the plant-specific applicability of the topical report to its plant, the staff determined that the proposed inspection deferment for one operating cycle would not affect the structural integrity of the flywheels. This decision is based on (1) the favorable results from previous volumetric examinations, (2) the fact that no plant specific information in HBR's submittal indicates a deviation from the assumptions made in WCAP-14535, and (3) the much shorter time involved in the requested one-cycle deferral as compared to what was requested in WCAP-14535.
Based on the evaluation, the NRC staff determined that the proposed inspection deferment for one operating cycle would not affect the structural integrity of the flywheels. Therefore, the flywheel inspection at HBR may be deferred one operating cycle from refueling outage 17 scheduled for the fall of 1996 to refueling outage 18 scheduled for the spring of 1998. The licensee may incorporate the proposed one-time change into the TS for HBR.
4.0 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.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes a Surveillance Requirement. 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
-3 consideration, and there has been-no public comment on such finding (61 FR 34888). 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.
6.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) there is reasonable assurance that 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 health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: S. Sheng Date:
August 9, 1996