ML20079D655
| ML20079D655 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 07/15/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20079D653 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9107230365 | |
| Download: ML20079D655 (3) | |
Text
..
- 8 c%
i '! '
,le t UNITED STATES 3c% @IQ !
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20%6
%.~.
p
=
+
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RJLATED TO AMENDMENT N0.121 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-6 ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.,
ARKANSAS NUCLFAR ONE, UNIT NO. 2 00CKE NO.50-36B
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated May 9,1991, Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Arkanses Nuclear One, Unit No. 2 (ANO-2) Techniciil Specifications (TS). The requested charige would revise TS 5.6.3.1 on contain-ment isolation volves. The proposed change deletes the requirements of TS 3.0.4 un mode changes, when the action statements thot allow continued operation for an unlimited period of time are met. The proposed amendment is based on the recummendations provided by the staff in Generic Letter (GL) 87-09 related to the applicability of limiting conditions for operations (LCO) of TS 3.0.
2.0 EVALUATION On March 31, 1991, as a follow-up to IE Information Notice 88-73, " Direction.
Dependent Leak Characteristics of Containment Purge Valves," the licensee discovered that the volve body for each of the inboord containment purge isolation valves were orient;d in a direction which is less likely to seal when pressurized from the c itainment side. These volves are currently isolazed by at least one deactivated automatic valve. A Temporary Waiver of Compliance from the provisions of TS 3.0.4 for the inboard containment purge volves, noted in TS Table 3.6-1, was granted by the staff by letter dated April 10, 1991, for o duration of 120 days in order to allow the processing of d IS amendment request. The proposed IS amendment would delete the require-raents of TS 3.0.4 for the containment isolation valves in TS 3.6.3.1 to allow restart from a shutdown condition should the volves be inoperable, but action statements are met that allow continued operation for an unlimited periorl of time.
The dction required with one or more of the isolation valve (s) specified in TS Table 3.6-1 inoperable is to maintain at least one isolation volve (" CRABLE in each affected penetration that is open and either:
a.
Restore the inoperable valve (s) to OPERABLE status within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />; or b.
Isolate each affected penetration within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> by use of it least one deoctivated automotic valve secured in the isolation pcsition; or 9107730365 910715 PDR ADOCK 05000360 p
i !
c.
Isolate the affected penetration within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> by use of at least one closed manual valve or blind flange; or d.
Be in at least HOT STANDBY within the next 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> and in COLD SHUTDOWN within the following 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br />.
If action a, b or c is met, plant operation may continue. Currently there are no exceptions from TS 3.0.4 for this TS.
The wording of ANO-2 TS 3.0.4 precludes entry into an OPERATIONAL MODE or other specified anolicability condition unless the conditions of the LC0 are met without rt.! ence on provisions contained in the ACTION' statements.
- The application of TS 3.0.4 in this case unduly restricts ANO-2's operation when conformance with the action requirements provides an acceptable level of safety for continued operation. As a result, the licensee proposes to allow exceptions from the provisions-of 15 3.0.4 as it applies to TS 3.6.3.1 provided action statements are met that allow continued operation for en unlimited period of time.
The change proposed by the licensee has been reviewed considering the limitations set forth in GL 87-09 for TS 3.0.4.
GL 87-09 recognizes, in part, that Specification-3.0.4 unduly restricts facility operation when conformance to the Action Requirements provides an acceptable level of safety for continued operation in any mode.
For on LC0 that has Action Requirements permitting continued operation for en unlimited period of time, entry into en operational mode or other specified condition of operation should be permitted in accordance with_those Action Requirements. The restriction on change in operational modes or.other specified conditions should apply only where the Action Requirements establish a specified time interval in wnich the LC0 must be met or.a shutdown of the facility would be -required or where entry into that operational mode would result in entry into an Action Statement with such constraints.
However, nothing in the staff position stated in GL 87-09-should be interpreted as endorsing or encouraging plant startup with inoperable L
._ equipment. The GL 87-09 itself states that startup with inoperable equipment should be the exception rather than the rule, The proposed-amendment is intended to_ address the immediate_ concerns of the
- Temporary Waiver of Compliance issued on April 10, 1991.
In addition, the staff understands that the licensee will submit a permanent TS amendment L
request, fully implementing GL 87-09, in order to avoid similar situations in the_ future.
Based on review of the licensee's proposal, we find the partial exception-proposed in response to GL 87-09 to be acceptable. _
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
I 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.
L l
i
.- -.-=--
1 3
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 and changes in surveillance requirements. The NRC staff has determined that the an,endment 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 Comission has previously issued a pro-posed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (56 FR 27043). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eli forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)gibility criteria for categorical exclusion set 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.
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 reguletions, 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 Contributor:
S. Peterson Date: July 15, 1991
-r w.,,,
,-w--,ws,n.,,
4e,r---