ML19327B439

Application for Amend to License NPF-6,increasing Surveillance Interval for Spent Fuel Storage Pool from Once Per 18 Months to Once Per 5 Yrs,Based on Past Insp Results

ML19327B439
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	10/19/1989
From:	Tison Campbell ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML19327B440	List: ML19327B439 ML19327B441
References
2CAN108903, NUDOCS 8910310204
Download: ML19327B439 (9)

Text

'"1 , w. >

33 , , .o;

' t; , , ,

• J~ -

3lhdf: '

, , )' Power b Light Company

' 825 West C: pitot

. - - m -s. -_

.@ . i . V- '

P.O. Box 561

( g Little Rod " ansas 72203 Tel 5013D . V.4 m

T.o.C'mpbeN b! p-

.n ,

lL"l? "

October- 19, 1989-

• '2CAN188983

, ., - U.-[ShNuclearRegulatoryCommission

Ducument Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 SUBJECTi Arkansas Neclear One - Unit 2-Docket No. 50-368 License No. NPF-6 Proposed Technical Specification Change -

1

' Spent Fuel Storage Pool Surveillance Interval l

Gentlemen:

Arkansas Power & Light Company requests an amendment to the Arkansas Nuclear

One, Unit 2 Technical Specifications. The proposed change would increase the surveillance interval for the spent fuel storage pool from once per 18 months to 'once per 5' years, based upon past inspection results.

AP&L requests that the effective date for this change be 30 days after NRC

. issuance of the amendment to allow for distribution and procedural revisions necessary to implement this change.

Very' truly yours, ,

JW T. G. Campbell TGC/1w

' Attachments cc: Mr. Robert D. Martin, Administrator U. S. Nuclear eleculatory Commission Region'IV

, 611 Ryan Pla2.a Drive, .,uite 1000 Arlington, TX 76011 d

NRC Senior Residerit Inspector Arkansas Nuclear One - ANO-1 Number 1, Nuclear Plant Road Russellville, AR 72801 8

8 I U'

09103i0204 891019 PDR.ADOCK0500g8

~

An Entergy Company P

, '1 ' , . - , -

. ,. o. . .

.l

-l^ , (.9

+

. "t .

,: ' -U..S. NRC-

'ar . .

Page 2 0ctober 19, 1989

?

9 cc: Mr. C. Craig Harbuck NRR Project Manager, Region IV/ANO-1 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Coiamission i NRR Mail Stop 13-D-18 One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike-

, , , Rockville.. Maryland 20852 i Nr. Chester Posiusny NRR Project Manager, Region IV/ANO-2 )

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRR Mail Stop 13-D-18 ,

'One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 Ms. Greta Dicus, Director Division of Raciation Control and Emergency Management Arkansas Departa.ent of Health 4815 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 i

i l

l-l l

1' 1'

l-i l^

l 1'

l w .. ( '

.=-y .

ye ,.x-" .

[,.; i STATE OF ARKANSAS. )

) SS'

f. . COUNTY OF PULASKI -)'

I, T G. Campbell, being duly sworn, subscribe to and say that I am j Vice President, Nuclear (or Arkansas Power & Light Company; that I have full authority to execute this oath; that I have read the document numbered 2CAN198973 and'know the contents thereof; and that to the best of my knowledge, information and belief the statements in it are true, s

JWW '

/

T. G. Campbell SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN T0 before me, a Notary Public in and for the County and Stato above named, this M ay of M 2J ,

1989.

Dso )

Notary Public

(

My Commissior Expires:

Qhk

".+.

gl , 3. ;[ir?

y;,;r . ' ,

~

.+ , e ,.

V p

kVJ i~

illl[

' lf;tL '

ATTACHMENT PROPOSED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE LICEllSE AMENDMENT REQUEST IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING LICENSE NO. HPF-6 -

l ARKAt:SAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-368  ;

OCTOBER 17, 1989 1

l l'

i 1

/

l.

>s t

. ./

y<

DESCRIPTION OF AMENOMENT REQUEST BACKGROUND During construction of the ANO-2 Spent fuel Pool, a construction error occurred which raised the concern of structural integrity. The horizontal reinforcing steel on the ir. side face of the Spent Fuel Pool was incorrectly detailed. This ' stalling resulted in insufficient anchorage at the 'nside corners. As p m cf the resolution to this concern, a survaillance program This program included the v , developed w acify structural adequacy.

following:

1. An extensive computer t.malysis was performed This analysis concluded thct' the north separation wall between the centra'. spent fuel pool and the fuel tilt pit needed additional reinforcement, while the remainder of the structure was adequate.

2. A 'ull water pressure test on the pool was conducted to demonstrate the intagrity of the pool walls and verify the results of the above analysis through deflection and strain measurements. From the in place test, it was concluded that the structure has arr.ple reserve capacity to resist all loading conditions.

3. In accordance with Technical Specification 4.7.12.1, an inspection is currently being conducted every eighteen (18) months. The purpose is to evaluate the need for continuation of these inspections on such a '

frequent interval. ihis on going visual inspection program is covered under Plant Procedure 2306.1's which requires a periodic inspection of four grid zones laid out on the pool's concrete surface. Upon completion of these inspections, Plant Engineering reviews the inspection team's comaents and completes an Engineering Evaluation Report.

The bases for Technical Specification 3/4.7.12 states:

"The reinforcing steel in the walls of the Spent Fuel Pool was erroneously terminated into the front face instead of the rear face of the adjoining walls during construction of the Spent Fuel Pool. Therefore, the specified si,ructural integrity inspections of the Spent Fuel Pool are required to be performed to ensure that th pool remains safe for use and that it will adequately resist the imposed loadings. If no abnormal degradation is obser/ed during the first five inspections, the inspection interval for subsequent routine inspections may be extended to at least once per 18 months or lopr if justified by observed performance of the pool."

\

USCUSSION A Bechtel calculation dated December 23, 1975, evaluated the Spent Fuel Pool using finite elemerit computer modeling to verify the structural adequacy.

The evaluation included the inadequate reinforcing steel anchorage and shear concerns. The results of this extensive analysis was the addition of two i

t.

• struts and eighteen bolts at the north separation wall. With the addition of these structural members, the analysis proved complete structural integrity for the Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool.

To verify the results of the design analysis, a ft11 water pressure test was conduct.ed by Bechtel on the Spent Fuel Pool. Dial indicators in conjunction with deflection mersurement devices were used to record 'ateral :.nd angular movements. Weldable strain gauges were used to measure , trains in the stataless steel liner plate. Concrete surface crack patterns were mapped in celected areas.. As a result of this test, all secorded measurements were found to be well below acceptance values specified. The maximum deflection and angle change were only about 8% and 11% of the acceptance values, respectively. No significant cracks were found oeing the te,t. In the '

Bechtel test report (dated November,1976), it was " concluded that there is ample reserve capacity in the structure to resist all loacHng conditions."

3- '

The report also stated.that "the test clearly demonstrated the integrity of the pool structure."

Plant Procedure 2306.10. " Spent Fuel Pool Crack Mapping and 'Jisaal Intpection", provides the instructions for a long-term inspection program to ensure that the structural integrity of the ANO-1 Spent Fuel Pool is intact.

This procedure requires a periodic inspection by maintenance personnel of four grid zones laid out on the pool's concrete surface--two along the concrete slab, Elev 404', and two on the external face of the pool wall along Column Line 4. All cracks discoverea within these grids are to be clearly marked if the width exceeded 0.010 inches, and ANO Engine

• ring is to be promptly notified of these findings. Upon completion of each inspection, ANG Engineering reviews the inspection data and completes an Engineering Evaluation Report.

Since the initial issue of Plant Procedure 2306.10, twelve inspections have been conducted. The inspections prior to 1981 are noted for completeness, although no irradiated fuel was stored in the pool during that time. The following is a summary of these inspections.

.Q n

f w,.' [ 4' o

DATE- PERFORMANCE OBSERVED ENGINEERING EVALUATION 03/18/79 No cracking observed. -------

- 11/06/79 No cracking obterved. - -------

'03/13/81 No cracking observed. -------

06/09/81 No cracking observed. -------

09/10/81 No cracking observed. -------

12/11/81 No cracking observed. ------"

=

12/29/81 No cracking observed. -------

,- 03/18/82 Spalling noted on surface Spal'ing was the result of at Elev. 404' along joint surface material being between exterior wall and placed over an expansion

> floor slab at Column Line 4. joint. No detrimental cracking occurred, c

10/12/S? Some spalling on Elev. 404' Spalling and cracking noted Zone 1 and some minor cracks, in Zone 1 are insignificant 1 0.010" which app.sar to be surface cracks in concrete surface cracks in the upper- that do not impact the most level of concrete. structural integrity of the r r201. No repairs are required.

03/20/85 Found five (5) surface cracks The surface cracks in in Zone 2 all exceeding the Zone 2 were inspected and 0.010" limit. Cracks are verified that they do not 1" long or longer. impact the structural integrity of the pool.

k 08/11/86 Found the grout topping in Surface cracks in Zone 2 Zone 1 cracked and pieces were inspected and verified broken out of it. Small that they do not impact tne ct?cks in Zone 2 appear to structural integrity of the be unchanged since the pool. The crack in Zone 1 m inspection. was inspected and found to

" be a crack in the grout topping only, with no impact on structural integrity.

05/04/88 Due to recent chipping and Zone 1 and 4 cracks were grinding for paint removal inspected and found not to irnpact the structural f in Zone 1 and 4, found cracks lass than 0.01", Zone 2 cracks integrity of the pool, r remain unchanged. None observed in Zone 3.

0 .

e ,I

Q ,} ,

.. +

j As a result of design analysis, in place testing, and periodic surveillances we have therefore concluded that the observed performance of the pool

%. justifies the longer surveillance frequency proposed since no ubnormal degradation or other signs of structural distre.,s have been identified.

Description of Amendment Request The proposed amendment would change Arkansas Nuclear One - Unit 2 Technical .

Specification 4.7.12.1.a (page 3/4 7-38) surveillance requirements on the '

spent fuel storage pool inspection frequency from once per 18 months to once per 5 years.

Bases for No Significant Ha7ards Determination The proposed change does not involve a significant hazards consideration because-

-(1) 'This change does not increase the probability and/or consequences of an accident, as previously evaluated in the Licensing Basis Documents.

The accident identified in Section 15.1 of the Unit 2 Safety Analysis Report (SAR) which could be affected by this change to the Technical Specifications is Section 1b.1.12, Internal ar.d External Events including Major and Minor Fires, Floods, Storms, and Earthquakes. As indicated in Section 3.1.6, Criterion 61 of the SAR, "the spent fuel pool is designed to withstand the postulated missiles and seismic events without loss of pool water or damage to stored fuel. Since the frequency of inspection interval remains adequate to ensure structural integrit,y and does not invalidate this statement, this accident evaluation remains accurate. Also, the technical specification requirement of visual inspection after a seismic event remains in place.

(2) No increase in the probability and/or consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to safety will occur as a result of the proposed.

Lechnical specification change. The " equipment" important to safety in this case would be the Spent Fuel Pool structure itself. The pool's structural integrity has clearly been demonstrated by analysis and testing. The visual inspection is simply a further verification tf this integrity. To increase the interval between inspections has no direct bearing on the structural integrity.

The accidents previously identified are the postulated events which could affect the structural integrity of the Spent Fuel Pool. The 1 increased inspection interval would not create a new or different accident possibility, since it is a passive activity which provides additional verification of structural integrity. Similarly, the possibility uf a malfunction of equipment important to safety (Spent Fuel Paol) dif ferent than previously evaluated is not created.

F

.~. .

T' e -

f .

u

\

(3). The basis for Section 4.7.12 of the technical specification will'not be  :

. changed by this recommendation. The margin of safety defined by this  ;

I f basis is "to ensure that the pool remains safe for use and that it will adequately resist the imposed loadings." Since pool performance has indicated that no abnormal degradation has occurred, this margin of safety is not jeopardized.

The Comnission has provided guidance concerning the application of the l standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists I by providing certain examples (51FR7750) of amendments that are considered l not likely to involve e, significant hazards. Example (iv) related to a .

relief granted upon demonstration of acceptable operation from an operating l restriction that was imposed beceuse acceptabic operation was not yet '

demonstrated. This assumes that the operating restrictions and the criteria to be applied to a request for relief have been established in a prior i l

review and that it is justified in a satisfactory way that the criteria have Deen met.

This proposed amendment to reduce the surveillance inspection frequency of the ANO-2 snent fuel storage pool from once per 18 months to once per 5 years is similar to Example (iv) in that demonstration of acceptable operation has been demonstrated by the results of past inspections.

I i

l l

l I

1.

1 1

1

.r.