1CAN018602, Application to Amend License DPR-51,revising Tech Spec 3.5.3 Re Safeguards Actuation Sys Low RCS Pressure Setpoint Required by Modified Craft 2 Thermal Hydraulic Analysis Code.Fee Paid

Application to Amend License DPR-51,revising Tech Spec 3.5.3 Re Safeguards Actuation Sys Low RCS Pressure Setpoint Required by Modified Craft 2 Thermal Hydraulic Analysis Code.Fee Paid

ML20140B481
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	01/17/1986
From:	Tison Campbell ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20140B485	List: 1CAN018602, Application to Amend License DPR-51,revising Tech Spec 3.5.3 Re Safeguards Actuation Sys Low RCS Pressure Setpoint Required by Modified Craft 2 Thermal Hydraulic Analysis Code.Fee Paid ML20140B488
References
RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737, TASK-2.K.3.30, TASK-TM 1CAN018602, 1CAN18602, NUDOCS 8601270025
Download: ML20140B481 (5)

Text

ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY FIRST COMMEACIAL BUILDING /PO. BOX 551/LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72203/t5011371-7901 January 17, 1986 T. GENE CAMPBELL Vice President Nuclear Operations 1CAN018602 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ATTN: Mr. J. F. Stolz, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #4 Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

SUBJECT:

Arkansas Nuclear One - Unit 1 Docket No. 50-313 License No. DPR-51 Proposed Technical Specification For ESAS Low RCS Pressure Setpoint Gentlemen:

In conjunction with our response to NUREG 0737 Item II.K.3.30, a modified version of the CRAFT thermal hydraulic analysis code (CRAFT 2) was submitted foc NRC review and approval. In support of the new code, analyses of small break LOCA's were presented. The results demonstrated the superiority of the revised code in most aspects; however, in one case it demonstrated the need for a possible change in the setpoint for high pressure injection (HPI) initiation upon low RCS pressure. Because the revised code was unapproved, no change in technical specification setpoint was warranted.

Upon NRC approval of the CRAFT 2 code however, AP&L initiated actions to observe the new setpoints. Since the actual in plant setpoint was already conservative with respect to the newly required value, no hardware changes or modifications were required; however, AP&L initiated actions to administratively observe the new technical specification setpoint as required by the new CRAFT 2 analysis. Consequently, AP&L is submitting the attached technical specificatica change for your approval at this time.

In accordance with 10CFR50.92(c), we have determined the proposed amendment to involve no Significant Hazards Consideration (SHC) and are including the basis of our SHC determination as an attachment to the proposed change.

Also, a copy of this amendment package is being forwarded to Mr. E. Frank Wilson, Director, Division of Environmental Health, State of Arkansas.

g , p, CueTCHFtkl.D IIlf *"l#

g3 (w. JtntNSTON)

• %??vN>

,e.....-> p ' fI50 g ,gi 8601270025 860117 PDR ADOCK 050 33 ususen vioote sours uriuries sysreu

T Mr. J. F. Stolz 'Janusry 17, 1986 Pursuant to 10CFR170.12(c), we are including payment in the amount of

$150.00 as the application fee for the processing of this amendment.

Very truly yours, JA "'

T. Gene Camp

. TGC/JTE/CHT/sg Attachment e

I 1

1 STATE OF ARKANSAS )

) SS COUNTY OF PULASKI )

I, T. Gene Camtbell, being duly sworn, subscribe to and say that I am Vice President, Nuclear Operations for Arkansas Power & Light Company; that I have full authority to execute this oath; that I have read the document numbered ICAN018602 and knew the contents thereof; and that to the best of I

my knowledge, information and belief the statements in it are true.

JAM _n

] T. Gene Camp l-

}

l 1

I

] SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN T0 before me, a Notary Public in and for the County nd State above named, this d day of (1,tum ,

198/.

/g / .

k V\ .d F ) -

, Notary Publgi'c [m -

,r. ,

My Commission Expires:

0 Ou $ IW

- f

. y

DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT REQUEST The current technical specification low RCS pressure setpoint of 1500 psig for ESAS High Pressure Injection initiation is based on a safety analysis assumption of 1365 psig. This provided adequate margin (150 psig) for loop error / accuracy considerations. The value provided was high enough to provide protection for the entire spectrum of break sizes yet far enough below normal operating pressures to prevent spurious initiation.

As a result of the recent re-analyses of certain small breaks, the previous safety analysis value was demonstrated to be inadequate; therefore, a higher value was provided by B&W. Following detailed loop error / analysis calculations by B&W, a new value of 1526 psig was established. AP&L's existing plant setpoint for this variable is greater than 1530 psig; however, a formal technical specification change is required to reflect the new minimum acceptable value of 1526 psig.

BASIS FOR PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION The technical specification change requested involves only a change in the setpoint as reflected by computer simulations of various design basis accidents. The computer analysis supports establishment of a different setpoint than that previously required by earlier analysis; however, the new setpoint is still within currently established plant setpoints; therefore, the change in the technical specification setpoint does not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. In either case, the safety system actuation would have occurred at the same point.

The change merely affects the value at which the safety system is required to actuate in response to postulated accidents; therefore, it in no way creates the possibility of new or different kind of accidents from any previously evaluated.

The previous setpoint was established by adding the estimated accident error allowances to the specific safety analysis assumed value. Since this is the same method utilized in calculating the proposed setpoint,_the margin of '

safety has not been reduced.

Based upon the above, it can be seen that the proposed amendment request does not involve a Significant Hazards Consideration.

The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of the Significance Hazards Consideration Determination by providing certain examples (40 CFR 14870). Since the computer re-analyses which resulted in the need for the proposed change was a result of changes in regulations (NUREG 0737 item II.K.3.30), this proposed amendment matches item (vii):

(vii) "A change to make a licensee conform to changes in the regulations, where the license change results in very minor changes to facility operations clearly in keeping with the regulations."