ML20044B912
| ML20044B912 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 03/06/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20044B911 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-83-37, NUDOCS 9303120168 | |
| Download: ML20044B912 (2) | |
Text
un ueu
[
'o UNITED STATES
~,t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y,
.E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g... + +./
i SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS.163 AND 145 TO -
FACILITY OPFRATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-51 AND NPF-6 ENTERGY OPERATIONS. IPC,
ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE. UNIT N05. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-313 AND 50-368
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated September 28, 1992, as supplemented by letter dated January 26, 1993, tntergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee), submitted a request for chs,ges to the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit Nos. I and 2 (ANO-l&2),
Technical Specifications (TSs). The requested changes would add limiting conditiens for operation end surveillance requirements for each unit's main steam line radiation monitors in accordance with Generic Letter (GL) 83-37.
L The January 26, 1993, letter provided clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
2.0 BACKGROUND
In respoide to the GL 83-37 request for licensees to submit proposed TSs as appropriate for NUREG-0737 items, the licensee proposed by "0CAN038401, Application to Amend Licenses DPR-51 & NPF-6,changing Tech Specs Re RCS vents,post-accident sampling,long-term [[system" contains a listed "[" character as part of the property label and has therefore been classified as invalid. Sys Evaluation,Noble Gas Monitor & Iodine Particulate Sampling,Per NUREG-0737 Items|letter dated March 16, 1984]], that no TS changes for NUREG-0737, Item II.F.1.1 (noble gas monitors) were necessary since TS requirements for noble gas monitors were previously submitted under the Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications (RETs) effort.
RETs were subsequently approved by Amendments 88 and 60 to the ANO-1 and '.N0-2 TSs, respectively. However, the RETs did not include TSs for the main steam line radiation monitors. Accordingly, by letter dated September 28, 1992, the licensee submitted proposed TSs for these monitors.
3.0 [yALVATION The licensee has proposed to have one main steam radiation monitor operable per main steam line. With any channel (a channel includes a monitor) inoperable, the licensee proposes to initiate the preplanned alternate method of monitoring the appropriate parameter, within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> and 1) either restore the inoperable channel to operable status within 7 days, or 2) prepare and submit a special report to the Commission within 14 days which outli".es the actions, plans, and schedule for restoring the system to operable status. The licensee also proposed surveillance requirements for these monitors.
9303120168 930306 PDR ADOCK 05000313 P
PDR l
The staff has reviewed the proposed TSs and finds them to be consistent with those proposed in GL 83-37 and' therefore acceptable.
4.0 EIATE CONSULTATION In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Arkansas State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment.
The State official had no comment.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments change a requirement with respect to installation or use of a i
facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and change surveillance requirements.
The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a pro-posed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding (58 FR 6996).
Accordinply, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
6.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
i Principal Contributor:
T. Alexion Date:
March 6, 1993 t
I
(
f r
- - - - -