ML20038A754
| ML20038A754 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 11/03/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20038A752 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111160390 | |
| Download: ML20038A754 (3) | |
Text
c y
'0, UNITED STATES U
' g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
,3
(
C WASHINCTON, D. C. 20$$5
..... f SAFETY EVALUATI0ll Br THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTI lG A!1ENDfiENT NO. 61 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-51 ARKAtlSAS POWER & LIGHT C0f1PANY ARKAtlSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-313 Introduction By letter dated June 6,1979 (Reference 1), supplenented by letters dated February 12, 1930, January 29, 1981, and May 29,1931, (References 2, 3 and 4, respectively), Arkansas Power and Light Company (the licensee or AP&L) requested amendnent to Facility Operating License ilo. DPR-51 for Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit Nn.1 (AN0-1). The proposed amendment would modify the Technical Specifications (TSs) by adding operability requirements, limiting conditions for operation, and surveillance and test requirements relating to the Anticipatory Reactor Trip Systen (ARTS) on loss of nain.*eedwater and/or turbine trip.
Background
In response to our Order of May 17,1979 (Reference 5), the licensee implemented-a control grade ARTS and submitted a preliminary design of the safety grade ARTS by letter dated October 8,1979 (Reference 6). We approved the prelininary dest'gn of the ARTS by letter dat]d December 20,1979 (Reference 7), and the licensee subsequently submitted the final design of the ARTS by letter dated August 8,1930 (Reference 3). Our Safety Evaluation (SE) on the final design was issued December 16,1980 (Reference 9).
Eval uation The proposed TSs include a number of channels for system trip, ninimum operable-channels and total number of sensors.
Miainum degree of' redundancy is also
-listed, and the limiting conditions for operation are stated for cases where channel operability and redundancy requirenents are not net. Reactor power level for bypass of ARTS is listed as 10% Full Power (FP) and 20", FP for loss of nain feedwater pump and turbine trip respectively.
Functional testing of the ARTS would be performed on a mon +hly basis whereas the channel calibration and verification would be carried ouc during refueling outags.
The ARTS sensors, their number, independence and redundancy, frequency of
' functional test and channel calibration in the proposed TS change, conply with the NRC staff approvea figures in our SE (Reference 9).
A h K O! b f3 P
ppR
~
Aio-1 The power level figure in the proposed TS (for bypass of ARTS for loss of main feedwater pump) is the correct value (10% FP), whereas 20% FP value in the SE (Reference 9) was based on an error in the licensee's submittal (Reference 10).
Based on our review of the proposed TSs in line with our approved modification and SE (Reference 9), we have detemined that the proposed modifications to the Atl0-1 TSs for ARTS would not iisvolve a decrease in the margin of safety or an increase in the probability of consequences of accidents and are, therefore, acceptable.
Environmental Consideration We have detemined that the amendment does 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 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 necative declaratien 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 dots not involve a sionificant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does 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 p oposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliu.ce with the Comission'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: flovenber 3,1981
I AN0-1 b
}
References j
f 1.
Letter, W. Cavanaugh (AP&L) to Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, (NRC), June 6, 1979, Proposed TSs.
b x
2.
Letter, ll. Cavanaugh (AP&L) to Director of fluclear Reactor Regula' tion, (NRC), February 12, 1980, Proposed TSs.
!}
3.
Letter, W. Cavanaugh (AP&L) to Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, (tiRC), January 29, 1981, Proposed TSs for the ARTS.
t{
4 Letter, W. Cavanaugh (AP&L) to Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, (NRC), May 29,1931, TS Change Request for Degraded Grid Voltage and ARTS.
5.
NRC Order for providing ARTS for loss of main feedwater and/or turbine trip, AN0-1, Docket No. 50-313, May ll,1979.
6.
Letter, D. Trimble (AP&L) to R. W. Reid (NRC), October 8,1979, Conceptual Design of Safety Grade ART.
7.
Letter, R. Reid (NRC) to W. Cavanaugh (AP&L), December 20,1979, SE for Preliminary Design of Safety Grade ARTS.
8.
Letter, D. C. Trimble (AP&L) to Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, (NRC), August 8,1980, ARTS.
9.
Letter, R. Reid (NRC) to W. Cavanaugh (AP&L), December 16,1980, SE for Final Design of Safety Grade ARTS.
10.
Letter, D. C. Trimble (AP&L) to Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, February 5,1981, Additional Informaticn on ARTS.