ML20059K731
| ML20059K731 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 09/13/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059K696 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9009240204 | |
| Download: ML20059K731 (2) | |
Text
i
~
- UNITED STATES
[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
a WA SHING TON, D. C. 20555
%,,g, SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REG'JLATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.135 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-51 ENTERGY OPERATIONS. INC.
ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE. UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-313 INTRODUCTION By letter dated August 9, 1989, as supplemented b Arkansas Power and Light Company (y letters dated March 30 and-AP&L) requested an amendment June 15, 1990, to the Technical Specifications appended to Facilit No. DPR-51 for Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 (ANO-1)y Operating License The proposed amendment would (1) add the Seismic Monitoring Instrumentation with a measurement range of 0.01 to 1.0 g to Technical Specification (TS) Section 3.5.1, Operational Safety Instrumentation; (2) add a basis and an appropriate FSAR reference to the corresponding TS Bases section; (3) add the specific instrumentation required (Triaxial Time-History Accelerographs Triaxial Peak Accelerographs, and Triaxial Response-Spectrum Recorders) to TS Table 3.5.1-1 with the appropriate annotations; and (4) change the current surveillance requirements of. TS Table 4.1-1, item 42, for clarity and to achieve consistency with the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2) TS requirements. The proposed TS change will upgrade the ANO-1 Technical Specifications to comply with Safety Guide 12 and to be consistent with the ANO-2 Technical Specifications.
EVALUATION The seismic monitoring instrumentation, addressed by this proposed amendment, is shared with ANO-2. The limiting conditions for operation and t-eporting requirements proposed were compared with the existing TS requirements for ANO-2, and were found to be. identical. Since the proposed amendment simply adds reporting requirements for inoperability and requires testing consistent with vendor recommendations, both of which are already required by the ANO-2 TSs, it is acceptable.
In addition, consistency between the ANO-1&2 TS regarding
- ~
the shared seismic monitoring instrumentation provides assurance that this important instrumentation will be properly maintained and function as designed.
The March 30, 1990, supplement provided a page that was inadvertently omitted in the original application. Only the page number is revised due to the 1
amendment (the content of _ this page is not affected by the amendment). The staff finds this change to be acceptable.
i
$,8f ASSEA oS0h3 f
9 2
The June 15, 1990, supplement clarified the background and discussion sections of the original application regarding the surveillance frequencies to highlight the differences between the current and the proposed TSs and to clarify that the proposed TSs meet Safety Guide 12. The June 15, 1990 supplementalsorevisedtheTSpagesproposedintheoriginalapplicatIonto define what "$A" means (the use of "SA" was aroposed but it was inadvertently not defined), and to annotate more clearly tie instrumentation located in ANO-2. The staff finds these clarifications and changes to be acceptable as well.
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 l
defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes in surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change 0, the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or l
cumulative occupational radiation exposures.
The Comission has previously i
issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly.
l the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set l
forthin10CFRSection51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental i
impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
i CONCLUSION The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
will not be endangered by operation in the pro)osed manner, and (2) public (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the such activities will be conducted in compliance wit 1 the Commission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: September 13, 1990 Principal Contributor:
T. Alexion 1
l y
.,