ML20073C092
| ML20073C092 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 04/04/1983 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20073C090 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8304130017 | |
| Download: ML20073C092 (2) | |
Text
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
- ene E(
- o, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (g*
W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
~%... + **'l s'&
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION.
SUPPORTING AMENDMENTS N05.75 AND 42T0 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES NOS. DPR-51 AND NPF-6 ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-313 AND 50-368 INTRODUCTION By letter dated May 28, 1982, as modified by letter dated January 14, 1983, Arkansas Foxer and Light Company (the licensee or AP&L) proposed amendments to the Technical Specifications (TSs) appended to Facility Operating Licenses Nos. OPR-51 and NPF-6, for Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2 (ANG-1 & 2).
i The amendments would modify the TSs with wording to clarify the operability i
status of equipment with the timely completion of the surveillance requirements i
for that equipment.
I BACKGROUND With !&E Inspection Report 50-368/81-24, a Notice of Violation was issued for ANO-2 which concerned the operability status of components which were not tested and inspected according to the frequency required by the TSs.
This violation and the licensee's response to it revealed a difference in interpretation of the Technical Specifications for Unit 2 regarding the relationship between successful completion of surveillance tests and operability.
In subsequent discussions between the Arkansas Power and Light Company and NRC staf f, the NRC staff position was explained.
By letter dated January 25,1982,.we discussed the staff position and requested the licensee to propose TS cha'nges for ANO-l.ana 2 concerning the surveillance requirements and operab'ility status. Specifically, we requested the licensee to incorporate the wording of paragraph 4.D.3 of NUREG-0212, Revision 2, " Standard Technical Specifications for Combustion Engineering Pressurized Water Reactors."
EVALUATION Operability of a system, subsystem, train, cpmponent or device (hereafter called equipment) is the state of said equipment in which it will perform its specified function when called upon to do so.
Surveillance requi rments are the equipment checks, tests, calibrations, positionihq'and/or operations by.which operability is demonstrated.
Surveillance requikents are repeated at specified. time intervals.
The successful completion of required surveil-lance tests is a prerequisite to ehuipment operability, and, in the absence of contradictory eviaence, may be used to infer equipnient operability for the specified surveillance time interval.
8304130017 830404 PDR ADOCK 05000313 P
f The licensee's proposed TS change clearly states the relationships between successful completion of surveillance testing and operability.
The proposed wording is taAen verbatim from NUREG-0212, Revision 2. " Standard Technical Specifications for Combustion Er.gineering Pressurized Water Reactors." This wording has been found acceptable in the past for Combustion Engineering pl ants.
Since the revised wording is, in effect, a definition of a general nature and not specific to plant design, it can be applicable to both Unit 1 (a Babcock and Wilcox-designed pressurized water reactor) and Unit 2 (a Combustion Engine'ering-designed pressurized water reactor).
Mo reover, defining the relationship between surveillance testing and operability in the same words for both site units could preclude potential confusion.
The proposed change. does not decrease the margin of safety nor increase the probability of consecuences of an accident since it is administrative
.in nature, and it does not change any. limit or setpoint associated with operation of either unit.
We conclude that the proposed Technical
~
Specification change is acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIGN We have determined that the amendments do not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result 1n any significant environmental impact. Having
~
made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendments e
involve an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(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 these amendments.
CONCLUSION We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above', that:
(1) because the amendments do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, do not create the possibility of an accident of a type different from any evaluated previously, and do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, the amendments do 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 these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: April 4, 1983 The following NRC personnel have contributed to this Safety Evaluation:
J. P. Jaudon, G. S. Vissing, LIE
_ - _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. -. _ _