ML19326B905
| ML19326B905 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 12/07/1976 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19326B896 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004180629 | |
| Download: ML19326B905 (3) | |
Text
' $6 UNITE 3 STATES px
'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON g,
, Q WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%.....}
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMEN! NO.16 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. DPR-51 ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE - UNIT N0. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-313 INTRODUCTION By letter dated September 30, 1976, Arkansas Power & Light Company (AP&L) requested changes to the Technical Specifications appended to Facility License No. DPR-51 for the Arkansas Nuclear One - Unit No.
1 (AN0-1) facility. The proposed changes consist of revisions to the Administrative Controls, Sections 6.1 to 6.11. The licensee's September 30, 1976 request supersedes their previous request dated December 10, 1975 (except as it related to Reporting Requirements -
Section 6.12). The Reporting Requirements were revised in Amendment No. 9 (issued January 23,1976) to the license.
DISCUSSION By letter dated October 15, 1974, the Commission requested that AP&L revise the Administrative Controls section of the AN0-1 Technical Specifications "to be consistent with the form and content" of the corresponding section of the NRC's Standard Technical Specifications enclosed in the letter. The proposed changes are administrative in nature and are intended to provide uniform license requirements.
Areas covered by the proposed spec 1ficatier.5 include plant staff and mar.agement organization, qualifications, training, and responsi-bilities, actions to be taken in the event of a reportable occurrence or safety limit violation, plant procedures, record retention, and plant radiation and respiratory protection programs.
EVALUATION The significant specification changes proposed by AP&L include:
1.
Update of the qualifications of the Health Physics Supervisor to meet the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.8, Sep+emNr 1975.
(Specification 6.3.1)
I h 004180 82p l
,. 2.
Update of the minimum shift crew composition (Table 6.2-1) to meet present NRC requirements.
3.
Revision of Figures 6.2-1 (Management Organization Chart) and 6.2-2 A and B (Functional Organization for Plant Operation) to reflect current management and staff organizations.
4.
Delineation of the audit responsibilities of the Safety Review Committee (Specification 6.5.2.8).
5.
Ch ges to the Respiratory Protection Program to update the specifications (6.11) to present NRC requirements.
6.
Revision of all Section 6 specifications to be consistent with the format and content of the NRC Standard Technical Specifications.
During our review of the proposed changes, we determined that certain modifications to the proposed specifications were necessary to conform with NRC requirements. These changes were discussed with and accepted by the licensee's staff and have been incorporated into the amendment.
These modifications include:
1.
A requirement for all applicable procedures recommended in Appendix A of Ragulatory Guide 1.33, November,1972, and 2.
elimination of the Superintendent of Power Plant's authority to make temporary changes to procedures which changes the intent of the proce'dures without being reviewed by the Plant Safety Committee.
We have reviewed the proposed specifications, as modified, and concluded with Regulatory Guide 1.8, (2) qualifications and training program conform that:
(1) the facility staff the administrative precedures and facility review and audit are consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.33, and (3) the administrative controls are consistent with the requirements being incorporated in Technical Specifications for new licensec' facilities.
On this basis the proposed technical specifications, as n.,dified are acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact.
Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant 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 probability or consequences of accidents previously 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 r cydlations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the PJblic.
Date:
December 7, 1976
.