ML20072B073
| ML20072B073 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 08/04/1994 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20072B071 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9408150364 | |
| Download: ML20072B073 (3) | |
Text
-
p* #fGu ly h
a gf E
UNITED STATES (ijg f
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'C e
WASHINGTON. D C. 2055b0001
...e SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFlCJ OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.173 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. OPR-51 ENTERGY OPERATIONS. INC.
AR"ANSAS NUCLEAR ONE. UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-313
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Entergy Operations, Inc, the licensee for the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 (ANO-1) plant, is planning to move spent fuel shipping casks by means of the auxiliary building crane.
Presently, Technical Specification 3.8.15 states that "The spent fuel shipping cask shall not be carried by the Auxiliary Building crane pending the evaluation of the spent fuel cask drop accident and the crane design by AP&L and NRC review and approval.
The provisions of Specifications 3.0.3 are not applicable."
In a submittal dated March 3,1994, the licensee proposes to delete this Specification and to renumber the specifications that follow to account for this deletion.
2.0 EVALUATION 2.1 Auxiliary Buildina Crane Franklin Research Center (FRC), acting as a consultant for NRC, reviewed the auxiliary building crane and reported its findings in a Technical Evaluation Report dated September 24, 1984.
The licensee reported that this crane was designed in accordance with the then extant <riteria of EOCl-61,
" Specifications for Electric Overhead Travel mg Cranes."
In addition, the licensee conducted a detailed comparison of the design of the fuel handling crane with the criteria of CMAA-70, " Specifications for Electric Overhead Cranes." Based upon this, the FRC reviewer concluded that the design is consistent with Guideline (7) of Section 5.1.1 of NUREG-0612, " Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants.
Guideline 7 states:
The crane should be designed to meet the applicable criteria and guidelines of Chapter 2-1 of ANSI B30.2-1976, " Overhead and Gantry Cranes" and of CMAA-70, " Specifications for Electric Overhead Travellirg Cranes." An alternative to a specification in ANSI B30.2 or CMAA-70 may be accepted in lieu of specific compliance if the intent of the specification is satisfied.
The NRC, in a safety evaluation dated October ll,1984, concurred with the findings of the consultant.
9408150364 940804 PDR ADOCK 0500031".)
P PDR
. 2.2 Cask Drop Analyses The licensee provided an analysis of a hypothetical cask drop on the floor above the control room as the most critical location in the path from the shipping cask area in the spent fuel pool (SFP) to the cask's exit from the auxiliary building. At the request of the staff, the licensee also provided an analysis of a hypothetical cask drop in the shipping cask area in the SFP and an examination of areas in the path of the cask from the shipping cask area to the auxiliary building exterior.
2.2.1 Cask Dron On Floor Above Control Room In the submittal dated March 3,1994, the licensee provided an analysis of a cask drop on the floor above the control room.
This analysi:: has been reviewed and the consequences of that drop have been found to be acceptable in that neither spent fuel nor redundant trains of safe shutdown equipment is adversely affected.
it is noteworthy that the licensee plans to raise the cask no higher than nine inches above the floor in its movement path with three inches of honeycomb energy material (260 psi) attached to the bottom of the cask to reduce the impact load on the floor in the event of an actual drop. These considerations were included in the calculations.
2.2.2 Cask Drop in Shinoina Cask Area in SFP The licensee calculated that the drop of a cask in the shipping cask area would severely damage that area. However, there would be no adverse effect on the adjacent SFP because the shipping cask area of the SFP is supported by the bedrock underneath.
The loss of water in the cask shipping area resulting from damage to that area would not affect the SFP coolant in the pool proper because of the watertight barrier installed between the SFP and shipping cask area. This barrier is installed whenever a shipping cask has to be introduced into or removed from the shipping cask area.
Furthermore, there is no safety-related safe shutdown equipment in the shipping cask area of the SPF.
2.2.3 Areas in Path of Cask The licensee examined the rest of the path of the cask from the shipping cask area in the SFP to the building exterior and declared that neither spent fuel nor dual trains of safe shutdown equipment would be adversely affected by a cask drop in those areas.
2.3 Technical Sonifications (TSs)
As noted in Section 1, above, " Introduction," removal of this TS hinges upon the staff's approval of the crane design (see Section 2.1 above) and upon approval of the spent fuel cask drop accident (See 2ections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2, above).
l
r
- The crane design has been reviewed and found consistent with applicable guidelines; the design is hereby approved.
The drop of a shipping cask on both the floor above the control room and in the SFP shipping cask area will not adversely affect either spent fuel nor redundant trains of safe shutdown equipment. The licensee has examined other areas in the path of the movement of the cask and found that neither spent fuel nor redundant trains of safe shutdown equipment would be affected adversely, by a cask drop in those areas.
Therefore, TS 3.8.15 may be removed since the licensee has complied with the guidelines for its removal when moving a cask weighing 100 tons or less.
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.
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 proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (59 FR 17598). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set fcrth in 10 CFR 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.
i
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 defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
N. Wagner J. Ma Date: August 4, 1994 i
t I
,