ML19351A049
| ML19351A049 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 06/16/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19351A048 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8106250117 | |
| Download: ML19351A049 (2) | |
Text
.
~
,.r i# parog'o[
UNIIED STATES -
L"~:y\\
o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
(
j E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\
/
4ggg#.
-SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF djCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 57 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-51'
~ ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY e
ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNIT-NO. 1 7
DOCKET NO. 50-313 Introduction
- By letter; dated November 28, 1980, Arkansas Power and Light Company
. (the licensee or AP&L): requested amendment to Facility Operat.ing 7
License:No. DPR-51 for-Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No.1, which would
>~
change the. Technical-Specifications (TSs) to' redefine the term OPERABLE and add' general-Limiting Conditions for-Operation (LCOs).
Be._. 3round '
s i
By;1etter dated April'~10, 1980, the-NRC requested all power reactor
- licensees to_ submit proposed TSs related to preserving the single i
failure criterion for systems that'are. relied upon in the licensees' Final Safety Analysis Report -(FSAR). By and large, the single failure criterion is preserved in the TSs by; properly defining the term OPERABLE and by specifying~ LCOs that require all redundant components of safety.'related systems to be OPERABLE. Our April 10 letter-trtnmitted Model TSsf for use t,y the licensees, Evaluation u
~
L The NRC.Model TSs consisted of three secti6ns:
(1) a-definition of.
P Operable,.(2) an LCO providing an Action Statement for circumstances in excess ~ of those addressi.1 in an existing-plant TS, and (3) an LCO L.
l:
- concerning unavailability of emergency power or normal power. The i -
211consee proposed a~ general section to the Limiting Conditions for
[-
0peretic, section of the TSs which included the NRC Model TSs and the associated TSs similar to the NRC : Standard Technical Specifications-L_
.(STS)-(NUREG-0103, Revision 4). Many of the current TSs defining LCOsoprovide for no action fstatament if the I CO is not met. The
-licensee's proposed TS changes would apply separate action statements h.
where the NRC Model-TS action. statement would not apply and would
[
apply an exception to the NRC Model TSs where no action statement is l-a ppl i ca bl e.- These proposed changes were made in an acceptable manner.
I-4 L
?"82spil 7
,r* '
The NRC staff requested the. licensee to.ra ::e the definition of Operable to' implicitly state that a system is capable of performing
. its specified. function when a11' necessary instrumentation, controls, normal and emergency electrical power sources, cooling or seal water, lubrication or other auxiliary equipment that are required for the system to perform its function are also capable of performing their related support function. We have _ reviewed the licensee's definition and have determined that it is consistent with our request and is
- therefore acceptable.
lAfter our. letter of. April 10,- 1980,-and the licensee's application dated Nobember. 28,1980, we' have determined that the time allowed to come to-hot standby were too restrictive and could, if problems arise during. shutdown,~1ead to a reactor trip. To avoid unnecessary reactor trips, we have proposed to lengthen the times to come to hot standby and to modify the TS accordingly. The licensee agreed to this
~
modi fication.
The licensee's proposed TSs, as modified for the LCOs, for the most part, are similar or identical to the NRC Model TSs and the.NRC STS.
We have discussed with the licensee's staff the areas of deviation and omission from the Model TSs. The licensee's staff agreed -to moalfications to the proposed TSs which would_ be consistent with the intent of the Model TSs. We, therefore, find the proposed TSs, as modified, acceptable.
We co'nclude that the redefinition of OPERABLE and the addition of LCOs, described above, will aid in preserving the safety related systems single failure criterion and are thus acceptable.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in of t iuent 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.
I 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 l
does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance thct the health and safety of the public will
.not be endangered by operation in the proposed mannec, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: Jur.c 16,1981
- -