ML20059D599
| ML20059D599 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 12/22/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059D597 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9401100010 | |
| Download: ML20059D599 (3) | |
Text
i W M%q It UNITED STATES
('
.j NUCLEAR REGULATORY _ COMMISSION c
WASHINoToN, D.C. 20666-0001
,A,.....f SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.1 ;4 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE'NO. NPF-6 ENTERGY OPERATIONS. INC..
ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE. UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-368-
~
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated July 22, 1993, Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee).
submitted a request for changes to the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 2
.(ANO-2) Technical Specifications (TSs). The requested changes would relocate the containment isolation. valve table from the containment systems specification'to plant procedures, in accordance with Generic Letter-
-(GL) 91-08.
2.0 EVALUATION The licensee has proposed the removal of Table 3.6-1, " Containment Isolation
-Valves," which is referenced in TS 3/4.6.3, " Containment Isolation Valves."
With the removal of this table, the licensee has also removed-the reference to it in the limiting Condition for 0peration (LCO) for-TS 3.6.3.1 and replaced it with the following:
"Each containment isolation valve shall be.0PERABLE.*"
In addition, the licensee.has revised.the definition of Containment Integrity (TS 1.8), the demonstration of Containment Integrity (TS 4.6.1.1.a), the.
action requirements under TS 3.6.3.1,; and TSs.4.6.3.I'.1 through' 4.6.3.1.4,: to remove all references Lto Table 3.6-1.
The. revised definition and-demonstration of Containment-Integrity refer 'to TS_3.6.3.1 for an exception-that is 'now covered by a footnote.to TS LCO 3.6.3.1' ratherlthan by the table removed from the TSs. With the removal'of the reference'to Table 3.6-1, the
. licensee has proposed to' state this exception as: 1"...
except for valves that are open under administrative control as permitted by TS 3.6.3.1."
-The. surveillance' requirements of TSs 4.6.3.1.1 through 4.6.3.1.4 have been revised to state "Each containmenteisolation._ valve shall..." or "...each power operated or automatic containment isolation valve..." or."...the containment' purge supply and exhaust isolation valves..." rather than stating the?
. requirements in relation to the valves'specified in Table 3.6-1.
The table of containment isolation valves identified specific valves.with a footnote stating that these valves may be opened on an intermittent basis-9401100010 931222 PDR ADDCK 05000368 P
PDR a.
i 1 K
under administrative control. With the removal 2of the table of containment -
isolation valves,.the operability requirements have been stated in general terms that apply to all containment isolation valves including those that are locked or sealed closed.
These valves are locked or sealed closed consistent with the regulatory requirements _ for manually-operated valves that are used -as containment isolation valves. Because opening these valves would be' contrary to the operability requirements of these valves, th'e following footnote to the LCO has been proposed:
"* Locked or sealed closed valves may be opened on an intermittent basis under administrative control." This change 'is consistent:
with the guidance in GL 91-08 and is, therefore, acceptable.
The footnote to Table 3.6-1 identifies valves that are not subject.to 10 CFR Appendix J requirements for " Type C" leak testing. This footnote would be_-
deleted with the proposed change.
In GL 91-08, the NRC concluded that the:
deletion of this note.does not alter the TS requirements, since the note merely clarified-where the NRC granted exemptions _to Type C testing or.where-Appendix J does not' require this testing.
Some of the valves listed'in Table 3.6-1 have accompanying valve closure -
times. The proposed change would delete this information; however, _ the inservice testing requirements referenced by TS 4.0.5 include verificationLof-valve stroke times for containment isolation valves.
In GL 91-08, the NRC concluded that removal of the duplicate requirement from LCO 3.6.3.1-and Table 3.6-1 does not relax TS requirements to verify containment isolation valve.
The licensee has proposed changes to the above TSs that'are consistent _with i
the guidance provided in GL 91-08. The licensee has also.provided an updated a
copy of the Bases section of TS 3/4.6.3 that addresses appropriate considerations for opening locked or sealed closed valves on an intermittent basis.
In addition, the licensee has confirmed that with the proposed-changes, these new TSs apply to all valves classified as containment isolation valves by the plant licensing basis.
Finally, the licensee has confirmed that the TS Bases are amended to include a reference to the new containment isolation valve table in-Procedure. 2203.005, " Loss of Containment Integrity," ~
1 and that the new list will be subject to the Administrative Controls of the.
TSs and 10 CFR 50.59.
~
On the basis of'its review of th'is matter, _ the staff finds.that' the proposed changes to the TSs for ANO-2 are primarily.an administrative change that'does-
- not alter the requirements set forth in the existing TSs. However,:the_'
1 applicability of the operability requirements will extend to all containments isolation valves as noted in this evaluation. Overall, these changes will l
allow licensees to make corrections and updates to the list of. componentsLfor '
which these TS requirements apply, under the provisions that control-changes-to plant procedures as specified in the Administrative Controls Section of the TSs. Therefore, the staff finds that the proposed TS_ changes are acceptable.
P
+
r 1
g*i 0
_3-
3.0 STATE 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-comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within'the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes surveillance requirements.
The NRC staff 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 exposure. The Commission has previously issued a pro-i posed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on s,ch finding (58 FR 46231). Accordingly, the amendment meets 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 i
prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
5.0 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 amendment will not be inimical to the common i
defense and security or to-the health and safety of the public, Principal Contributor:
T. Dunning, OTSB T. Alexion, PD IV-1 Date: December 22, 1993 1
l