1CAN068808, Application for Amend to License DPR-51,revising Channel Description of Radiation Monitoring Sys to Identify Subparts,Process Monitoring Sys & Area Monitoring Sys. Fee Paid

Application for Amend to License DPR-51,revising Channel Description of Radiation Monitoring Sys to Identify Subparts,Process Monitoring Sys & Area Monitoring Sys. Fee Paid

ML20150C275
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	06/16/1988
From:	Tison Campbell ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Calvo J NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20150C277	List: 1CAN068808, Application for Amend to License DPR-51,revising Channel Description of Radiation Monitoring Sys to Identify Subparts,Process Monitoring Sys & Area Monitoring Sys. Fee Paid ML20150C280
References
1CAN068808, 1CAN68808, NUDOCS 8807120398
Download: ML20150C275 (6)

Text

_

(

N ,

N ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY CAPIT0L TOWER BUILDING /P. O. B0X 551/LITTLE h0CK. ARKANSAS 72203/(501) 077 3525 T. GENE CAMPBELL vice President - Nuclear June 16, 1988 1CAN068808 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Attn: Mr. Jose A. Calvo, Director Project Directorate IV Division of Reactor Projects III, IV, V and Special Projects

SUBJECT:

Arkansas Nuclear One - Unit 1 Docket No. 50-313 License No. DPR-51 Technical Specification Change Request:

Radiation Monitoring System Surveillance Requirements

Dear Mr. Calvo:

The Arkansas Power and Light Company hereby requests an amendmer.t to its Operating License DPR-51 for Arkansas Nuclear One - Unit I with the enclosed submittal of a proposed change to the Technica' Specifications. Tne proposed change revises the "Cnannel Description" of the Radiation Monitoring Systems to identify the two subparts: Process Monitoring System and Area Monitoring System. The proposed change also assigns instrument surveillance requirements consistent with the type and purpose of each system as well as compatibility with the Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications.

In accordance with 10CFP50.91(a)(1), AP&L has evaluated the roposed change I using the criteria in 10CFR50.92(c) and has determined that said change l involves no significant hazards considerations. Also, in accordance with l 10CFR50.91(b)(1) a copy of this amendment request with attachments has been sert to Ms. Greta Dicus, Director, Division of Radiation Control and Emergency Management, Arkansas Department of Health.

l

' \

8807120398 esoo16 W Secko PDR

• ADOCK 05000313 *h"Ugo PDC veceswoote soum uver Es systsu u

,4

Mr. Jose A. Calvo- '

June-~16, 1988=

The circumstances of this proposed amendment to the Technical Specifications are'not of-an exigent or emergency nature. A check.in.the amount of $150.00

. is included herewith as-an application fee in'accordance with _

10CFR170.12(c).

Very truly.yours, i- WWT. Gene Campbe)

?

TGC:TRP:ji Attachments

-cc: Ms. Greta Dicus,_ Director Division of Radiation Control and Emergency Management Arkansas Department of Health-4815 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72205

4 STATE OF ARKANSAS ) '

) SS COUNTY OF PULASKI )

I,'T. Cene Campbell, 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; tht I have read the document numbered ICAN063808 and know the contents thereof; and that to the best of my knowledge, information sud belief the statements in it are true.

AWm ~

a T. Gene Campbell f

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN T0 before me, a Notary Public in and for the County and State above named, this 16th day of June, 1988.- ,

kA4CK Y .t /)

Notary Public i

My Commission Expires:

?-$h

PROPOSED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING LICENSE NUMBER DPR-51 ARKANSAS POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE - UNIT 1 DOCKET NUMBER 50-313 June 16, 1988

PROPOSED CHANGE Change Item 28 of Table 4.1-1 (Page 71) as shown on the marked up copy attached to this transmittal.

DISCUSSION This proposed change relates to surveillance requirements for verifying the prcper operation of instrt..nentation for radiation monitoring systems (other than containment high range monitors). This change would clarify and denote.

the constituent r, arts of the Radiation Monitoring System and assign applicable surveillance requirements to the respective parts, as opposed to the entire system. Therefore, Table 4.1-1, Item 28.would be revised to add two subpa r.s: Process Monitoring System and Area Monitoring System.

For each of the subparts, the proposed change also includes revised surveillance frequencies commen: urate with the type and purpose of the 1

respective system and consistent with the Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications (RETS). The RETS insc~rument surveillance requirements for the liquid and gaseous effluent radiation monitors, which constitute the major process monitors, currently indicate that a Channel Functional Test is required on a quarterly (Q) frequency. As a result, a quarterly Channel Function Test is proposed for the Process Monitoring System. For the Area Monitoring System, the Channel Functional Test frequency on a monthly basis l is proposed as currently required for the entire system. I For both the Process Monitoring System and the Area Monitoring System, the Channel Check surveillance frequencies are proposed on a weekly basis as currently required for the enti.e system.

The surveillance calibration frequency for the Process Monitoring and Area l Monitoring Systems is proposed to be performed on an 18-month basis. This j change from the urrent quarterly requirement is justified as follows:

l 1'

1. Repetitive testing of such components which hcve a demonstrated history of reliable performance as validated by a review of surveillance data sheets can be increased to a longer frequency while maintaining sufficient surveillance control.

1. This change would make the calibration frequency consistent with the frequencies specified for the RETS instrumentation, for the containment high range radiation monitors, and in the Standardized Technical Specifications.

DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS Arkansas Power and Light Company has performed an analysis of the proposed change in accordance with 10CFR90.91(a)(1) regarding r.o significant hazards l c nsideration, using the standards in 10CFR90.92(c).  !

A discussion of those standards as they relate to this amendment reqwst

! follows:

1

4 d-Criterion 1 - Does not involve a significant increase ir, the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

The' proposed change would not increase the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated since it does not affect previously analyzed accidents associated with plant operations and does not affect any information required to safely shut down the plant.

Criterion 2 - Does not create _ the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

The proposed' change woJ1d not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously analyzed since the change does not allow the instrumentation to be operated in any new or different wry from what is currently allowed.

Criterion 3 - Does not involve a:significant reduction in a margin of

-safety.

The proposed change would not involve a significant. reduction in the margin of safety since it does not. impact plant operatiun or involve any plant modifications.

Therefore, based on the reasoning presented above and the previous discussion of the amendment request, AP&L has determined that the requested changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration.

1

)

k i

r _  !-

-,c' l