ML20082D242
| ML20082D242 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 07/05/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20082D232 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9107230309 | |
| Download: ML20082D242 (2) | |
Text
_ _. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,o n eg,,
UNITED STATES
[
3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
. J WASHING T ON, D. C. 70666 e...+
SAFETY EVALVATION BY THE OFFICE OF_ NUCLEAR REACTOR REGUL ATION RELATED TO AMENDHENT NO.149 TO FAClllTY OPERATING LICENSE NO. OPR 51 ENTERGY OPERATIONS. INC.
ARKANSASNUCLEARONE._UNITJ0.1 DOCKET NO. 50-313
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated April 18, 1991 Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee) sub-mitted a request-for changes to the Arkanses Nuclear One, Unit No. 1 (ANO-1)
Technical Specifications (TSS)-
The requested changes woulo revise the list of radioactive material sources in TS 4.14 subject to the 18-month periodic leak test by deleting the four area radiation monitor sources located inside the reactor building from TS 4.14, 2.0 EVALUATION By letter dated April 18, 1991, the licensee informed the NRC staff that the reactor building area monitors were modified in 1986 to replace their sources with Strontium 90 sources. -These sources have an activity of 1.0 microcurie beta and no alpha.
TS 3.12.1 discusses source leakage tests and it also states that " Sealed sources are exempt from such leak tests when the source contains 100 microcuries or less of beto and/or gromma emitting material or 5 microcuries or less of alpha emitting material." As the replaced sources have less activity (1 microcurie) than the requirement (100 microcuries) for leakage tests, the deletion of the four reactor building sealed sources listed in TS 4.14 is acceptable.
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 o-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 amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significert change in the types, of any effluents that moy be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission hos previously issued a l
9107230309 910705 DR ADOCK 050 13 b -
2 proposed finding that the anendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (56 FR 22464). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categoricalexclusionsetforthin10CFR51.22(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.
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 amendrent will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public, principal Contributor:
T. Alexion Date:
July 5.1991 l
l
.~
.. _...... _ _.. _ _ _... -..... - _. _ -. - - - _-. - -. - - - -, _ -