ML18010A896
| ML18010A896 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 11/10/1992 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18010A894 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9211160358 | |
| Download: ML18010A896 (2) | |
Text
~
g \\
~p,g RE0II~
P 4V 0
0
+>>*+~
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED 0
AMENDMENT NO.
TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-63 CAROLINA POWER
& LIGHT COMPANY SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 1
DOCKET NO. 50-400 1,0 INTRODUCTION By letter dated September 8,
- 1992, the Carolina Power
& Light Company (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (SHNPP), Unit 1, Technical Specifications (TS).
The requested change would decrease the sum of the minimum surveillance flow requirement, with a single Charging/Safety Injection pump running for the high head safety injection system (HHSI), as described in TS Surveillance Requirement 4.5.2.h. I.a from "greater than or equal to 379 gpm" to "greater than or equal to 348 gpm."
- 2. 0 EVALUATION The licensee's submittal provided an assessment of the impact of this change on licensing basis events.
In its assessment, the licensee identified that the most limiting event in determining the HHSI minimum flow surveillance requirement is a small break loss-of-coolant accident (SBLOCA).
To justify the proposed value (348 gpm), the licensee stated that this value'is consistent with the HHSI injection flow input to the current SHNPP small break
- analyses, and therefore, would not impact SBLOCA calculated results, and that for all other events, LOCA and non-LOCA, the change has no impact.
In addition, the licensee also stated that the proposed change is accommodated by the current ECCS-LOCA analysis without altering its analyzed consequences, i.e., there are no changes in the limiting case LOCA consequences for minimum HHSI flow and the existing margins to the 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance limits for the core cooling are preserved.
The staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and finds the results acceptable.
Therefore, the proposed change is acceptable".
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the State of North Carolina official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment.
The State official had no comments.
92ii16035EI 92iii0 PDR ADOCK 05000400 P
- 4. 0 ENVIRONNENTAL CONSIDERATION The amendment changes surveillance requirements.
The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant ohange 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 (57 FR 45078).
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:
F. Orr Date: November 10, 1992