ML19320A485
| ML19320A485 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 06/12/1980 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19320A484 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006250291 | |
| Download: ML19320A485 (2) | |
Text
.
f UNITED STATES qg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS!ON o
un j
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k...../
I l
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFIC'E OF NUCLEAR' REACTOR' REGULATION
' SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 4 5 TO FACILITY'0FERATING LICENSE'NO. 'DPR-51 ARKANSAS' POWER'&' LIGHT' COMPANY
' ARKANSAS NUCLEAR'ONE, UNIT'H0; 1 DOCKET N0;'50-313 I
Introduction By letter dated October 22, 1979, Arkansas Power & Light Company (licensee or AP&L) requested amendment of the Technical Specifications appended to Facility Operating License No. DPR-51 for Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No.1 j
(ANO-1 ). The requested amendment was clarified and corrected through dis-
)
cussions between the NRC. staff and the licensee. The proposed amendment, as clarified, would change Table 3.16-1 of the ANO-1 Technical Specifications as follows:
1.
Ten hydraulic snubbers would be deleted from the table becaus. they 'were e
replaced by mechanical snubbers.
2.
Five hydraulic snubbers classified as "espacially difficult to remove" would be removed from this category. This would make three of the five subject to selection for functional testing during refueling shutdowns.
The other two snubbers would not be selected for functional testing during refueling shutdowns since they still would be classified as "in high radiation areas during shutdown".
3.
Two hydraulic snubbers would be 'added to the table because they were in-advertently omitted.
Discussion and Evaluation As a result of a reanalysis of the main steam line support system for ANO-1, it was found that ten hydraulic snubbers for the main steam line were not adequate.
These ten hydraulic snubbers were then replaced by adequately sized mechanical snubbers. Since Table 3.16-1 of the Technical Specifications only identifies hydraulic snubbers, we find it acceptable to remove the ten hydraulic snubbers from Table 3.16-1.
During the last refueling outage, 48 hydraulic snubbers which were classified as "especially difficult to remove" on the basis that rigging and scaffolding would be required h-their removal were all removed and futictionally tested.
The licensee has determined that nine of these hydraulic snubbers could be 800e259 j
l l
~.
ANO-1.
reclassified from the "especially difficult to remove" category because of the way the snubbers were removed.
However, four of these nine snubbers were removed from Table 3.16-1 because they were part of the. group of snubbers which were replaced by mechanical snubbers.. This loaves five snubbers which could be removed from tne "especially difficult to remove" cat.egory. Removi.ng the five snubbers from the "aspecially difficult to remove" cat.egory would result in three of these snubbers being subject to selection for functional testing during refueling shutdown.
On the basis that the proposed change would increase the number of snubbers susceptible to functional testing, we find it acceptaole to remove the five hydraulic snubbers from the classification of "especially difficult to renove".
Environmental Consideration _
We have determined that tha amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power levels and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having nade this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant I
from the standpoint of environmental impact,. and pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4),
that an environmental impact statement, or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the prcbability or con-sequences of accidents prev'iously considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: June 12, 1980
+
1 l
,