ML19326B919
| ML19326B919 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 08/07/1978 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19326B911 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004180639 | |
| Download: ML19326B919 (3) | |
Text
s
/
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e*
j j
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20066 E
%.'..../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 34 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-51 ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ARKANSAS flVCLEAR ONE, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-313 Introduction By letter dated January 20, 1978, Arkansas Power and Light Company (the 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 (ANO-1). The change would reflect a change in the licensee's organization structure.
On November 29, 1976, the Comission published in the Federal Register an amended Section 20.103 of 10 CFR 20, which became effective on December 29, 1976. One effect of this revision was that in order to receive credit for limiting the inhalation of airborne radioactive material, respiratory protective equipment must be used as stipulated in Regulatory Guide 8.15.
Another re-quirement of the amended regulation is that licensees authorized to r.ake allowance for use of respiratory protective equipment prior to December 29, 1976, must bring the use of their respiratory pro-tective equipment into confonnance with Regulatory Guide 8.15 by December 29, 1977.
The licensee is presently authorized by the Technical Specifications for ANO-1 to make allowance for use of respiratory protective equip-ment at that facility.
The present program, however, differs from that stipulated in Regulatory Guide 8.15.
Accordingly, by letter dated August 12, 1977, we advised the licensee that if they desired to receive credit for use of respiratory protective equipment at Atl0-1 a fter December 28, 1977, such use must be as stipulated in Regulatory Guide 8.15 rather than as specified in the current Technical Specifications.
8 00418n h3) t
Also, based on the revocation provision of the current Technical Specifications on respiratory protection and in the absence of written-objections from the licensee, we advised the licensee that we would delete this specification in an amendment of the Technical Specifications for AMO-1 after December 28, 1977.
No written objections have been received from the licensee.
Evaluation The evaluations relating to the proposed organization change and the deletion of the Respiratory Protection Program are discussed separctely below.
A.
Proposed Organization Changes We have reviewed the proposed changes to the ANO-1 Administrative Controls Section of the Technical Specifications.
This change involves a reorganization in the Generation and Construction Department and changes to the AU0-1 plant organization. As a consequence of this reorganization, changes have also been proposed to the Plant Safety Conmittee (PSC) and to the Safety Review Committee (SRC). Additional information related to these changes used in our review is contained in Amendnents 44 and 45 to Section 13.1 of AP&L's FSAR for Arkansas One, Unit 2.
We have evaluated these changes in terms of the relevant portions
-of Regulatory Guide 1.8 and 1.33 and find the proposed changes provide no decrease in safety margin and are acceptable.
B.
Deletion of Respiratory Protection Deletion of current Technical Specification requirenents, Section 6.11, regarding respiratory protection is necessary to eliminate
~
-conflict with 10 CFR 520.103, as revised November 29, 1976.
This1 agrees with the revocation provision in Section 6.11.3 of the current Technical Specifications which requires that Section 6.11 be revoked upon adoption of the proposed change to 10 CFR 520.103.
In the future, as specified in the regulations, allowance may be made for the use of respiratory protective equipment only 4
if its use is as stipulated in Regulatory Guide 8.15, Acceptable Programs for Respiratory Protection.
Based on the above, we 1
find this change acceptable.
. Environmental Consideration We have detennined 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 environ-nental 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 Comnission's regulations and the issuance of this aniendnent will not oe inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of
~
the public.
Dated: August 7, 1978
.