ML20004A960
| ML20004A960 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 05/15/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20004A955 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8105270046 | |
| Download: ML20004A960 (2) | |
Text
-
- H%
,(p
,0, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION y b' q 3 g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 p
/
- ..../
s, v SAFETY E'/ALUATION SY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENCMENT NO.55 10 CACILITY CPERATING LICENSE NO. 3PR-51 ARXANSAS PCuER & LIGHT CCMDANY ARXANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNIT NO. 1 CCCXET NO. 50-313 Introduction By letter dated April 2,1979, Arkansas Power and Light Company (the
- icensee or AP&L) requested amendment of the Technical Specifications, Appendix A, appended to Facility Operating License No. DPR-51 for Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No.1 (ANC-1). The change would limit reactor building purging to 90 hours0.00104 days <br />0.025 hours <br />1.488095e-4 weeks <br />3.4245e-5 months <br /> per calendar year whenever reactor building integrity is required. The proposed change would also provide surveillance requirements for the purge valves.
Subsequently, by letter dated December 12, 1979, the licensee responded
(
to our letter dated October 25, 1979, with a commitment to maintain the ANO-1 purge valves closed whenever the reactor is not in a cold shutdown or refueling mode. We discussed this commitment with the licensee's staff and they agreed to modify the request for amendment such that the comitment relating to the purge valves would be implemented in the Technical Specifications. By letter dated October 31, 1980, the licensee modified the proposed amendment with proposed Technical Specification changes which would require the purge velves be closed whenever the reactor coolant temperature is equal to or greater than 200*F. The licensee also proposed surveillance requirements which would I
require the purge valves be determined to be closed at least once every
(
31 days when containment integrity is required and prior to heating the l
reactor above 200*F.
Discussion and Evaluation Our letter dated October 25, 1979, requested in a position statement, 9 it l
the licensee maintain containment purge and vent isolation valves cle a
whenever the reactor is not in the cold shutdown or refueling mode until such time that operability requirements for these valves on be demonstrated and certain actuation signal configurations re assured.
t 4
\\
810sno Ok
The licensee's letter dated December 12, 1979, would administratively satisfy our request. However, the proposed amendment as mcdified by the licensee's October 31, 1980, submittal would implement our request in the licensea's Facility Operating License.
The current Technical Specifications provide for no limitations on containment purging during reactor operation. Therefore, the limitation on purging as proposed would provide no decrease in the margin of safety or increase the probability or consequences of an accident.
We have determined the proposed amendment to be responsive to our request and to be acceptable.
En tironmental Consideration We have determined that the amendment dot.s not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not r::sult in any significant environmental impact. Having made this deternination, we have further concluded that;the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact ard, pursuant to 10 CFR 151.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement, or negative declaration and environ-mental 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 healtr and safety of the public i
will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) l sun activities will be conducted in compliance with the Ccmission'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.
[
l Dated: May 15,1981 s
l l
)
'l 4
L