ML20055F837
| ML20055F837 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 07/16/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20055F835 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9007190268 | |
| Download: ML20055F837 (2) | |
Text
.. _ -
. *[*
- k UNITED STATES r,
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
WA$mNGTON, D. C. 206b5 e.,,e
]
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.133TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-51 ENTERGY OPERATIONS. INC 1
ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO.60-313 INTRODUCTION requested an amendment to the Yechnical Specifications (TSs)pany (AP&L)
By letter dated April 20, 1990 Arkansas Power and Light Com appended to i
Facility Operating License No. DPR-51 for Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 'l (ANO-1).
The proposed amendment would modify Surveillance Requirement 4.6.1.3 to permit i
anextensionoftherequired18-monthdieselgenerater(DG)inspectionswhich are required to be performed by' September 12, 1990 for DG "A" and September.9 1990, for DG "B."
This one-time interval extension would allow the next surveillance inspections to be performed during the refueling outage scheduled to begin on October 1, 1990, but no later than December 1, 1990. The performance of the DG inspections during plant operation could result in the plant entering LimitingConditionsforOperation(LCOs)andrequireaplantshutdown,and would increase the risk of a total loss of AC power.
1&qKGROUND Surveillance Requirement 4.6.1.3 of the TSs requires an inspection of each diesel generator once every 18 months following the manufacturer's reconnenda-tions for this class of standby service. The surveillance inspections were last performed on October 27, 1988 for DG "A" and October 24, 1988 for DG "B."
In ofder to meet the 18-month surveillance interval,.the inspections-would be due in June 1990 (or in September 1990 considering the TSs allowed 25% surveillance interval extension).
The' diesel generators are designed to turnish reliable in-plant AC power adequate forsafeplantshutdownandforoperationofengineeredsafetyfeaturesupon loss of off-site power. The reliability of DG A" and DG "B" over the last 156 and 163 start demands, dating back to January 1985, is 98.7% and 97.5%, respec-tively.-
The 18-month inspection interval for the diesel generators was selected to be consistent with the normal 18-month fuel cycle so that' the surveillance activi-ties which could impact plant operation, as discussed above, may be performed during refueling outages. However, the present ANO-1 operating cycle has been extended because of the existing 80% power limitation due to a design deficiency intheECCSHighPressureinjection(HPI) piping.
1 9007190269 90071A P
ADOCK0500g3 DR
~
i j,
t In its application, AP&L indicated that the diesel generator vendor has evaluated i
and approved the inspection interval extension up to 26 months. With the extension, the DG vendor reconenended that the inspection required by the surveillance requirements can be extended on a one-time basis assuming the licensee is performing trending of certain data to verify that there is no degradation of key diesel generator components that would interfere with the safety function of the diesel generators.
l EVALUATION AP&L requested an extension of approximately 3 months from the currently required date for the surveillance inspection. This 3 month extension would permit the unit to continue operation at power until the scheduled refueling outage in October 1990.
Considering the high reliability of the diesel generators and the relatively short extension requested, the proposed change should not significantly affect the safety function of the diesel generators. Therefore, the staff concludes that the proposed extension of the diesel generator inspections until the October 1990 refueling outage, but no later than December 1, 1990, is acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION The amendment involves a change in a requirement with respect to the installa-tion or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes in surveillance requirements. The staff g
has determined that the amendment involves 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 exposures. The Coasnission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comunent on such finding.
Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility) criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR section 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 amendment.
CONCLUSION The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) public such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health ano safety of the public.
Date:
July 16, 1990 Principal Contributors:
L. Tran T. Alexion
__,.,_ _.