ML20066A233
| ML20066A233 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 10/19/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20066A231 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8211050175 | |
| Download: ML20066A233 (2) | |
Text
Mag'
)
o UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
g j
% ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
~s.,...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 36 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. NPF-6 i
ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-368 Introduction The licensee proposed by letter dated August 29, 1980 to change the Technical Specifications (TS) for AN0-2 relating to testing and adjusting the pressurizer safety valve set point.
Pursuant to the surveillance requirements imposed upon these valves by TS 4.0.5, periodic testing of the valves' opening setpoint is required in accordance with Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. The current T.S.LCO 3.4.3 requires the valves to be operable for Modes 1, 2 and 3.
The current TS 3.4.3 Action Statement 3.4.3.b also provides for suspension of the LC0 for ip to 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> for entry into and operations in MODE 3 to test and aojust the valves. This verification of adjustment of the valve's setpoint at hot ambient MODE 3 conditions is performed subsequent to a preliminary setting made under cold conditions prior to heatup.
The licensee's proposed TS change would increase the 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> allowed for testing and adjustment up to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. The basis for the request is that 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> does not allow adequate time in all cases for.the testing / adjusting activities to be completed, particularly if problems are encountered with test equipment or procedures.
The staff requested additional information by letter dated April 10, 1981 to which the licensee responded by letter dated May.6, 1981. The response identified six instances of testing the valves. Five of these tests had been completed within the specified twelve hour period while one required sixteen hours. The licensee stated that only one of the two pressurizer j
safety valves would be inoperable at any one time for. testing and adjusting purposes. The licensee also stated that they are likely to minimize, l
to the degree practical, the time during which these valves are in a test status since the testing and adjustment activities are generally j
on the critical path for return of the plant to power operations.
In consideration of the importance of properly adjusted safety valves to the safe operation of the plant, the staff feels that the allowance of additional time to provide a margin for testing personnel to complete the l
testing activities, including resolution of some limited problems with l
test equipment and procedures, is appropriate. Based on the information provided, the staff concludes that the provision of an additional six hours for completion of these tests is sufficient to provide adequate okO@e PDR
margin to ensure'the accuracy and reliability of the testing and adjust-ment of the valve's setpoint. Accordingly, we conclude that an extension of the time allowed for the MODE 3 setpoint adjustment form 12 to 18 hours2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br /> is acceptable. This represents a modification of the licensee's proposed Technical Specification of 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. This modification has been discussed with and concurred in.by the licensee.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor 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 $51.5(d)(4), that an 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.
Date: October 19, 1982 Principal Contributors:
H. Shaw R. Martin o
+
4