ML20003E269
| ML20003E269 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 03/23/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20003E268 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104020728 | |
| Download: ML20003E269 (2) | |
Text
-
amo o
Uh !TED STATES
!\\),,(/'j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h'-V. C WASMNGTON. D. C. 20555 0 %..v t,;
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATIO."
SUPPORTING AMENDMENTS NOS. 54 AND 22 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES N05. OPR-51 AND NPF-6 ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ARVANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNITS NOS.1&2 DOCKETS N05. 50-313 & 50-368 ht_roduction By letter dated June 26, 1980, Arkansas Power & Light Company (the licensee or AP&L, cequested amendment of the Technical Specifications (TS),
Appendix A, appended to -Facility Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-51 and NPF-6 for Arkansas Nuclear One, Units Nos.1 and 2 (ANO-l&2). The amendments would expand the Technical Specifications to accomodate the inspection of detectors located in relatively inaccessible areas such as inside the containment during periods of reactor criticality.
Discussion The current TS for each unit requires the testing of fire detection instrumentaticn at least once per six months by performance of channel-functional test.
For those fire detectors located in the reactor building the testing requires pe'rsonnel entry into the reacter building.
During reactor operation.such entry into the reactor building would expose the testing personnel to a radiation field of approximately
~
300 MR which the licensee finds inconsistent with ALARA practices.
The-intent of the proposed change would require the verification of the operability of the fire detectors during cold shutdown _unless testing had been performed during the previous six months.
However, the wording of the_. proposed change did not convey the' intent. We discussed this with the licensee's staff and the licensee's staff agreed to a modification to the proposed change which would require the verification of the operabili_ty of the fire detectors during each cold shutdown exceeding
.24Lhours unless' testing had been performed during the previous six months.
The licensee's staff also agreed to a modification to the proposed change which would require all fire detectors-located within the
. containment and their associated circuits to be verified as operable during each refueling outage.
LOMTY
. Evaluation We have reviewed the operating histories of ANO Units 1 and 2 during the post several years and 'have found that each of' the units generally has a cold shutdown frequency greater that once per six months.
We expect that future operating experience will be comparable to the experience of the past several years in this regard. Therefore, it is expected that although the licensee will have greater flexibility in scheduling the testing of the detectors inside containment the mean testing frequency will be comparable to the current Technical Specification requirements of once each six months.
The additional requirement to verify the operability of all detectors located inside containment during refueling shutdowns provides additional assurance that the required minimum number of detectors will be operable throughout each refueling cycle.
Therefore
. we conclude that (1) it is unlikely that any net reduction in the capability of the fire detection system to perform its function will result from the proposed changes and (2) it is appropriate to implement these changes to reduce the exposure of testing personnel to practices consistent with ALARA principles.
On these bases we conclude that the proposed changes, as modified, would not reduce the margin of safety or increase the consequences or probability of an accident and are therefore 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 further concluded that the amendments involve an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of e.nvironmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact f
statement, or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be' prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
Conclusion We have concluded,' based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) because the amendments do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and do not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendments 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 Comission's regulations and the issuance i
of these amandments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health acd safety of the public.
. Dated: March 23, 1981 L