ML18012A324
| ML18012A324 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 08/07/1996 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18012A323 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9608130137 | |
| Download: ML18012A324 (3) | |
Text
~8 A50y "o
~
Cy 0O I
g 0
Yg
~O
++*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMlSSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055&0001 4
SAF T EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RE D
0 MENDMENT NO.
66 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 May 31, 1996, the Carolina Power
& Light Company (the licensee) submitted a request for changes'o the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, (SHNPP) Technical Specifications (TS).
The requested change revises TS Table 3.3-7, Seismic Monitoring Instrumentation, and TS Table 4.3-4, Seismic Monitoring Instrumentation Surveillance Requirements, to correct the location described for one of the triaxial peak accelerograph (TPA) recorders.
- 2. 0 EVALUATION Section 3.7.4 of the SHNPP Final Safety Analysis Report describes the seismic monitoring instrumentation system installed to meet the requirements of Title 10 Code of Federal
'Regulations, Part 100, Appendix A, "Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants."
The instrumentation system follows the guidance contained in Regulatory Guide (RG)
- 1. 12 and includes a TPA mounted on the piping of a reactor coolant system.
This conforms with the RG position that a plant have a TPA on the reactor piping.
SHNPP TS Table 3.3-7 and Table 4.3-4 describe the locations of the TPA.
The location of one of the TPAs is described in the TS as "Reactor Coolant Pipe (Loop 1);" however, the TPA is actually installed on reactor coolant piping connected to Loop 2 (Loop B).
An "early plant design placed the TPA on Loop 1.
However, this was later revised and the TPA was installed on Loop 2.
The current plant drawings show the correct location, but the TS was not changed; The, staff finds the proposed TS change acceptable based on the following reasons:
, There is no physical alteration to the plant;
- hence, the change is'nly administrative.
W The change does not involve an increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated;
- hence, the TPA cannot initiate an accident or mitigate accident consequences.
9608130l37 960807 PDR ADQCK 05000400 PDR
1 0
"v
The possibility of a new accident or different kind of accident from those previously evaluated is not created by the change;
- hence, no physical alterations to plant equipment and no changes that alter how any safety related system performs its function are being made.
The change'ill not alter the quantity or quality of the data available following an earthquake;
- hence, the change is administrative and does not affect the number of instruments or where they are actually located.
3.0 STAT 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.
- 4. 0 E
V ONM NTAL CONSIDERATION The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
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
'ignificant 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 (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.
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:
'R. L. Rothman Date:
August 7, 1996