ML20003C942
| ML20003C942 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 03/10/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20003C941 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103180859 | |
| Download: ML20003C942 (2) | |
Text
. _.
6 O[e o
UNITED STATES
=
y
) ((g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666 g
g k*.8(o 8
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENTS NOS. 53 AND 21 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES N05. DPR-51 AND NPF-6 ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ARKA'ISAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNITS NOS.1 & 2 DOCKETS NOS. 50-313 & 50-368 Introduction By letter dated October 20, 1980, Arkansas Power & Light Company (the licensee or AP&L) requested amendnent of the Technical Specifications (TSs),
Appendix A, appended to Facility Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-51 and NPF-6 for Arkansas Nuclear One, Units Nos. I and 2 (ANO-1&2). The amendments would reflect a change in the Administrative Controls TSs for personnel entry into high radiation areas.
Discussion and Evaluation The current TSs provide for the access and control of personnel in high radiation areas in accord mee with 10 CFR Part 20.
In areas in which the dose rate is greater than 100 millirem per hour (mr/hr) control of per-sonnel is provided by appropriate posting, locked entrances, and frequent inspection and verification of locked entrances. This method of control unduly restricts access to vital components in areas in which the dose rates may vary from radiation area to high radiation area depending upon the operating mode.
The proposed change would replace the requirement for locked entrances in areas-in which the dose rate is greater than 100 mr/hr but less tha,1000 mr/hr with administrative control.
Such administrative controls include:
(1) conspicuously posting and barricading of high radiation areas, (2) special authorization through issuance of Radiation Work Pennits or Special Work Permits, and (3) presence of appropriate radiatfor: mnnitors or (4) accompaniment by a person trained in radiation protec. tion procedures. The capability to lock the entrance would still be maintained.
- The proposed change would also provide a clear. definitive condition of posi-tive access control for entry into high radiation areas when the radiation levels are in excess of 1000 mr/hr. This action considers the case where it is not reasonable to provide locked enclosures for small areas having radiation levels in excess of 1000 mr/hr. Such areas may be located in much larger areas such as a pressurized water reactor containment. The conditions for entry into such amas require radiation level measurements in the area and delineation of maximum allowable stay-times in addition to the use of.
barricades, posting and flashing lights as the alternative for locked enclosures.
8'10818 O M
6 J.
Positive exposure control can also be made by continuous surveillance over the activities within the area by personnel qualified in radiation protection.
We find the proposed changes would not reduce the control of personnel in high radiation areas,would conform to the NRC Standard TSs, and are there-fore acceptable.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendments do 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 furtner concluded that the anendments involve an action which is insignificant
, from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 151.5(d)(4),
that an environmental impact statement, or negative declaration and environ-rental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed ebove, that: " (1) because the amendmentssdo not involve a significant incraase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and do not involve a signi-ficant decrease in a safety margin, the amendnents do 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 these anendments will not be inimical to the l
common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated:
March 10, 1981 l
t
+
- ~
l l
l
.- -