ML20065R305
| ML20065R305 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 09/21/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20065R299 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8210290146 | |
| Download: ML20065R305 (2) | |
Text
l" pm natu g.
UNITED STATES N s.([ g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
^L 8
wasmwoTow. o.c.zoses
\\,ones/
JN SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDHENT NO. 69 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. OPR-51 ARKANSAS POWER AND LIGHT C0f1PANY ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-313 l
Introduction By letter dated July 14, 1982, supplemented by letter dated August 24, 1982, (the licensee or AP&L) requested amendment Arkansas Power and. Light Company (TSs) appended to Facility Operating License of the Technical Specifications No. DPR-51. for Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No.1 ( ANO-1). The amendment would require chlorine detection and protection capability for the control room.
Discussion and Evaluation In our Safety Evaluation dated flarch 24, 1978, we determined that the control room habitability systems for Units flos.1 and 2 were adequate for protec-tion of personnel against the effects of accidental release of toxic and radioactive gases with one exception. This exception concerned the habitability of the control room with respect to chlorine whenever Unit 1 is operating and Unit 2 is shutdown.
This issue was also identified in our Safety Evaluation for the resolution of liUREG-0737 Item III.D.3.4, " Control Room Habitability", which was trans-r l
mitted to the licensee by letter dated February 12, 1982.
In that Safety Evaluation, we determined that the licensee should modify the ANO-1 TSs so l
that the existing chlorine detection and protection system is equally effec-tive whenever either unit is at power. We have evaluated the proposed TSs and have determined that the proposed operability requirements, limiting conditions of operation, and surveillance requirements.are similar to those of AH0-2 and would provide for the chlorine detection and protection system to be equally effective for ANO-1. This would satisfy.the concerns identified in our letters dated March 24,1978,.and February 12, 1982, including the complete resolution of NUREG-0737 Item III.D.3:4. Therefore, we find the proposed TSs are acceptable.
8210290146 820921 PDR ADOCK 05000313 P
l.
l 2-Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts por an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4), that an l
environmental impact statement, or negative declaration and environ-mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, does not create the possibility of an accident of a type different from any evaluated previously, and does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the
~
issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated:
September 21, 1982 The following NRC personne1 have contributed to this Safety Evaluation:
G. S. Vissing.
9
/
l
-"v v
_ ___