ML20044D095

Application for Amend to License NPF-6,correcting Typos

ML20044D095
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	05/07/1993
From:	Yelverton J ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML20044D097	List: ML20044D095 ML20044D100
References
2CAN059302, 2CAN59302, NUDOCS 9305170227
Download: ML20044D095 (9)

Text

.

$= ENTERGY coi.,,, on.,cito ,, i .

l"1 5 2sm Td 50Vi4SSB3 Jerry W. Yelverton VaRamn cwan uc May 7, li 3 2CAN059302 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Mail Station PI-137 Washington, DC 20555

Subject:

Arkansas Nuclear One - Unit 2 Docket No. 50-368 License No. NPF-6 Technical Specification Change Request Correcting Typographical Errors Gentlemen:

Attached for your review and approval is a proposed Arkansas Nuclear One - Unit 2 (ANO-2) Technical Specification (TS) change correcting typographical errors. These errors were introduced in the original ANO-2 TS and in subsequent amendments. This change is administrative in nature and is intended to improve the legibility of ANO-2 TS.

The proposed change has been evaluated in accordance with 10CFR50.91(a)(1) using l criteria in 10CFR50.92(c) and it has been determined that this change involves no  !

significant hazards considerations: The bases for these determinations are included in the enclosed submittal.

Entergy Operations requests that the effective date of this change be upon issuance ofthe amendment. This request is neither exigent nor emergency. I i

140117  !

j i 9305170227 930507 o I l

PDR ADOCK 05000368  !

P PDR

.-' j

._ U. S. h%C  :

May 7,1993  !

2CAN059302 Page2 Very truly yours, JWY/dbm f To the best ofmy knowledge and belief, the statements contained in this submittal are true.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, a Notary Public in and for Logan County ,

and the State of Arkansas, this fg[_ day of ///d</ ,1993.  !

f r bea{i}/lhwr/Muu Notarytublic' / [

My Commission Expires 9/I7,/// SSBO ,

wg /-

i Attachments  !

cc: Mr. James L. Milhoan  !

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,

Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 l Arlington, TX 76011-8064  ;

NRC Senior Resident Inspector Arkansas Nuclear One - ANO-1 & 2  ;

Number 1, Nuclear Plant Road  ;

1 Russelhille, AR 72801 Mr. Roby Bevan NRR Project Manager, Region IV/ANO-1 l U. S. Nuc!-ar Regulatory Commission NRR Mail Stop 13-H-3 One White Flint North  ;

11555 Rochille Pike  ;

Rockville, MD 20852 l l

l l

. U. S. NRC May 7,1993

- 2CAN059302 Page 3 1

Mr. Thomas W. Alexion NRR Project Manager, Region IV/ANO-2 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,

NRR Mail Stop 13-H-3 One White Flint North 11555 Rochille Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Ms. Greta Dicus Arkansas Department ofHealth <

Division of Radiation Control and Emergency Management 4815 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 i

a

[

I i

r t

l l

t b

~l e

t

i

~

i

.I ATTACHMENT PROPOSED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION  ;

RESPECTIVE SAFETY ANALYSES

[

IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING >

t LICENSE NO. hTF-6 ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.

ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNIT TWO DOCKET NO. 50-368  !

t l

[

I t

(

f k

I

-t t

t I

i

Ds:cription of Ch ng:s to ANO-2 Technical Specificctions

~

l LOCATION DESCRIPTION BACKGROUND I DISCUSSION I

Sections 1.36 and 1.37 Change definition number 1.36 to 1.35 and Typographical error in submittal for amendment 60 Page 1-7 defmition number 1.37 to 1.36. to incorporate Radiological EfIluent Technical Specifications.

Surveillance Place paragraph designator in parentheses. Parentheses were omitted in original Specification.

Requirement 4.1.1.1.1.d This change is made for consistency.

Page 3/41-1 3.1.2.2 Action Place paragraph designators in Parentheses were omitted in Amendment 82 to Page 3/41-8 parentheses. reduce the required boron concentration in the Boric Acid Makeup Tanks. This change is made for consistency.

Section 4.1.2.8.a Replace "one" with "once" Misspelling in original ANO-2 Specification.

Page 3/41-16 Sections 3.1.3.1.b & Replace " Action a" with " Action (a)" Parentheses were omitted in original Specification.

3.1.3.1.c This change is made for consistency.

Page 3/41-17 Action 5.b.3 ofTable Remove space from paragraph designator The extraneous space was inadvertently inserted in 3.3-1 "2. a)" the submittal for amendment 79 to incorporate Page 3/4 3-Sa portions of the Core Protection Calculator Improvement Program.

Table 3.3-4 Replace " STREAM" with " STEAM" Spelling error was introduced in submittal for Page 3/4 3-17 amendment 137 to change Containment Building Pressure Trip setpoints.

De:criptien cf Ch:ng:3 to ANO-2 Tcchnic I Specific:tiana LOCATION DESCRIPTION BACKGROUND I DISCUSSION Section 3.3.3.9.a Place parenthetical text at end of Punctuation error introduced in amendment 60 to Page 3/4 3-45 preceding sentences. incorporate the Radiological Ellluent Technical Specifications.

Section 4.6.2.3.a.1 Rephrase requirement to read: This surveillance requirement was revised in Page 3/4 6-15 " Verifying that service water flow rate to amendment 29 to remove inconsistency in the each group of cooling units is 21250 gpm specification. The proposed change does not and that each unit in each group has an change the surveillance requirement, but removes operable fan; or that one unit in each ambiguity in the way the requirement is stated.

group has a service water flow rate of 2 1250 gpm and an operable fan."

Section 4.6.3.1.4 Replace "TS" with Specification. Abbreviations were introduced in amendment 46 to Page 3/4 6-17 accommodate modifications to containment purge valves. This change is made for consistency.

Section 4.7.12.1.a and Replace " internal" with " interval" Spelling error in original specification.

4.7.12.2 Page 3/4 7-38 Sections 3.8.1.2 and Replace " require" with " required" and Spelling and capitalization errors were present in 4.8.1.2 replace " requirement" with " Requirement". original specification.

Page 3/4 8-5 Section 3.10.3 Change reference from " Specification This reference error was present in the original Page 3/410-3 3.4.1" to " Specification 3.4.1.1" specification. Based on the reference in Specification 3.4.1.1 to special test exception 3.10.3 the special test applies to specification 3.4.1.1 and not to Specifications 3.4.1.2 and 3.4.1.3.

- _ - _ _ _ - , . ~ . .. -

De:cripti:n cf Ch ngra to ANO-2 Tcchnic 1 Specific ti:n3 LOCATION DESCRIPTION BACKGROUND I DISCUSSION Section 3.11.1.1 Delete hyphen from "2 x 10 Ci/ml." Ilyphen was inserted in amendment 60 to Page 3/411-1 incorporate the Radiological Ellluents Technical Specification. This change is made for consistency.

Tabic 4.11-2; Note "e" Replace " Specification" with Grammatical error in amendment 60 to incorporate Page 3/411-9 " Specifications" the Radiological Efiluent Technical Specifications.

Bases 4.0.3 Replace "24-hour" with "24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />". Ilyphens were inserted in Amendment 134 to Page B 3/4 0-3 incorporate the recommendations of Generic Letter 87-09. This change is made for consistency.

Bases 3.4.3.3 Replace "goldup" with " holdup" and Spelling and grammatical errors in submittal for Page B 3/4 3-4 replace " exists:" with " exist:" amendment 60 to incorporate Radiological Ellluent Technical Specifications.

Bases 3/4.4.1 Replace "TS" with " Specification" Abbreviation inserted in amendment 29. This Page B 3/4 4-1 change is made for consistency.

Section 6.8.2 Replace "the changes in intent thereto" Typographical error in amendment 85 to reflect Page 6-13 with "and changes in intent thereto" organizational changes.

t i

f An evaluation of the proposed change has been performed in accordance with  !

10CFR50.91(a)(1) regarding no significant hazards considerations using the standards in 10CFR50.92(c). A discussion of these standards as they relate to this amendment request  :

follows. [

I Criterion 1- Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequence of  !

an Accident Previously Evaluated.

l These changes do not affect the intent of any specification. Also, the proposed changes -

do not provide any relieffrom the requirements of the TS, or change the intended operation or administrative requirements of the plant or its design basis.

t The proposed changes clarify the existing specification requirements and are administrative in nature. Since they are administrative in nature, these changes do n91 -

significantly increase the probability or consequence of any previously analyzed accident  !

occurring .

Criterion 2 - Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident from Any Previously Evaluated. .

The proposed changes do not involve any design changes, plant modifications or changes i in plant operation; rather, they only reflect a more accurate description of the specification requirements.

The proposed changes clarify the existing specification requirements and are administrative in nature. Since they are administrative in nature, these changes do nel  ;

create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

i Criterion 3 - Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in a Margin of Safety. i The proposed changes only clarify the existing requirements. They do not relax any specification requirements. .

The proposed changes are administrative in nature and do not affect any plant safety  :

parameters, accident mitigation capabilities, or margin of safety. Since these changes are l administrative in nature, they do noi involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.  :

The commission has provided guidance in 51 FR 7750 dated March 6,1986, concerning the application of these 10CFR50.92 standards by providing examples of amendments ,

which are likely to involve no significant hazards considerations. The proposed  !

amendment most closely matches example (i): "A purely administrative change to technical specifications: for example, a change to achieve consistency throughout the  !

technical specifications, correction of an error, or a change in nomenclature."

f I

f I

i

\

i i

Therefore, based on the reasoning presented above and the previous discussion of the amendment request, Entergy Operations has determined that the requested changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration.

4 r

h i

i t

?

F t

I i

h i

t i

I I

L