ML20078H921
| ML20078H921 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 10/07/1983 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20078H909 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8310170106 | |
| Download: ML20078H921 (2) | |
Text
- .--..-
. -.. - - ~
ase UNITED 5TATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
i j
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20586
%*ttt*j
=
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 81 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-51 1
i ARKANSAS POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-313 l
1.
Introduction u
By letter dated August 8,1983, Arkansas Power and Light Company (AP&L or j
the licensee) requested amendment to the Appendix A Technical Specifications (TSs) of the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No.1 (ANO-1), Facility Operating License No. DPR-51. The proposed amendment would change the TSs to require a a
delay in the installation in the Davis-Besse 1 (DB-1) reactor of the ANO-1 1
reactor vessel materials properties capsule ANI-F from prior to the fourth DB-1 cycle to the fifth DB-1 cycle. Additionally, capsule ANI-D, which is scheduled for insertien in the DB-1 reactor prior to the fourth DB-1 cycle, would be inserted in DB-1 location YZ rather than WZ, and the capsule ANI-F, which would be scheduled for. insertion in the DB-1 reactor prior to fifth DB-1 cycle, would be inserted in location YX instead of YZ.
2.
Discussion This change would allow the Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) Owners Group researchcapsuleDB-LG1,whichisinlocationgZ,t 2 remain in the DB-1 g
reactor and accumulate neutron fluence (7.8x10 n/cm, E>l MeV) equivalent to the fluence at the 1/4 T location of a typical B&W 177FK plant at the end of life. However, only one space would be available for the ANO-1 capsules.
Capsule ANI-D would be able to be inserted in location YZ prior to DB-1 fourth cycle and capsule ANI-F would not be able to be inserted until prior to 08-1 fifth cycle when space would be made available due to the removal of other capsules.
i After insertion, the ANI-F capsule would be irradiated to a level l
approximately equivalent 'to the expected peak fluence at the end of life at l
the inside surface of the ANO-1 reactor vessel and then held as a standby capsule as specified by 10 CFR 50, Appendix H, and ASTM E-185.
Capsule ANI-F contains only base and heat affected zone material but no weld metal. The limiting material in the ANO-1 reactor vessel beltline is a weld metal produced using Linde 80 flux. Since capsule ANI-F does not contain the limiting ANO-1 reactor vessel beltline material, the licensee indicates that delay in insertion and testing of the materials in the capsule is not expected to affect the operating limits of the reactor vessel.
8310170106 831007 PDR ADOCK 05000313 p
4 4
The licensee indicates that the change in location of the capsules within the DB-1 reactor will facilitate efficient handling and will have no effect on the ANO-1 reactor vessel surveillance program (RVSP) since the new locatior s are in the same relative positions to the core as those in the current TSs.
3.
Evaluation The data from the ANO-1 RVSP provides the basis for the operating limits of the ANO-1 reactor which are related to the safety' settings. However, because capsule ANI-F is a spare capsule and does not contain samples of weld material, which is controlling, the data resulting from ANI-F capsule samples after irradiation in the DB-1 would not change the basis for the operating
- limits of ANO-1. This information is obtained from other capsules unaffected by the proposed amendment. Also, since the proposed change in location of the ANI-D capsule would be in the same relative position of the core, there would be no effect.on the ANO-1 RVSP. Therefore, the proposed amendment would not 4
provide a relaxation of the bases for limiting safety settings. Furthermore, the amendment has no effect on the present operation of the facility, and thus would not result in a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously considered, or a significant reduction in a margin of safety, nor create the possibility of an accident new and different from an accident previously considered.
4.
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 551.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement, or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared
~
in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
5.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1)
I there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) 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.
l Dated:
October 7,1983 The following NRC personnel have contributed to this Safety Evaluation:
Barry Elliot and Guy S. Vissing
_ _ - _ _.. _, - _. _. - _. _. _ _ - - _ ~ _ - - _ _ _. _.,.