ML20082H058
| ML20082H058 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 11/10/1983 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20082H055 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8312010015 | |
| Download: ML20082H058 (3) | |
Text
- _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -_ - __ _ -
pa "* n i, o
8
'g UNITED STATES o
!\\
'h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y-
<j W ASHING TON. D. C. 20555
\\..... p!
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 49 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-6 ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNIT 2 DOCKET N0. 50-368 Introduction By le'ters dated February 23 and April 18, 1983, Arkansas Power & Light t
Company (the licensee or AP&L) requested an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-6 for operation of Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (AN0-2),
located in Pope County, Arkansas. This Safety Evaluation (SE) addresses a j
number of changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) as discussed in each of the following sections.
In addition, the basis for denying the proposed change to the incore detector surveillance requirements is provided. The changes which were proposed to reflect the reorganization of the Energy Supply Department of Arkansas Power and Light Company are being reviewed separately.
1.
Pressurizer Spray Water Temperature Differential The licensee proposed to revise TS 4.4.9.2 and the corresponding TS bases pertaining to a surveillance of the pressurizer spray water temperature differential. The proposed changes would delete the aforestated surveillance requirement from TS 4.4.9.2 and revise the corresponding TS bases accordingly.
In support of the proposed changes, the 1,1censee states that the pressurizer spray water temperature differential limits are addressed elsewhere in the
.TS, namely, Section 5.7, " Component Cyclic or Transient Limits". Moreover, the licensee notes the fact that the pressurizer spray water temperature differential, per se, is not a limiting condition for operation.
We have reviewed the proposed changes and find them acceptable based on the fact that Section 5.7 of the TS adequately addresses the pressurizer spray water temperature differential limits to assure that the pressurizer is
. operated within the design criteria.
2.
Miscellaneous Changes
- Amendment No. 24 to the license issued on June 19, 1981 revised the allowabic values for the reactor protective instrumentation trip set-point limits for the Linear Power Level-High to 110.712%, the Pres-l surizer Pressure-High to 2370.887 psia and the Pressurizer Pressure-Low to 1712.757 psia. However, the changes were not reflected in the cor-responding TS bases. Therefore, with the issuance of this amendment, TS Bases 2.2.1 is revised to reflect the aforestated changes.
8312010015 831110 PDR ADOCK 05000368 P
- j
- s.. The licensee submitted an interim document describing the methodology for detennination of the Cnre Protection Calculator (CPC) addressable constant values on May 26, 1981 and committed to provide a final document by August 17, 1981. The interim document is referenced in the TS Bases 2.2.2.
Subsequently, in August 1981, the licensee submitted the final document. Therefore, with the issuance of this amendment, the final document would be referenced in TS Bases 2.2.2.
Four typographical errors which have been identified would be corrected with the issuace of this amendment.
3.
Incore Detector Surveillance The licensee proposed to change TS 4.3.3.2.a which states that the incore detection system shall be demonstrated OPERABLE by performance of a CHANNEL CHECK within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> prior to its use and at least once per 7 days when required for monitoring the azimuthal power tilt, radial peaking factors, local power or DNB margin. The proposed change would replace "and" with "or" in this specification.
We have reviewed the proposed change and found, based on our discussion with the licensee, that the change was requested in order to avoid performing a channel check within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> prior to performing a periodic surveillance if the system was in continuous use and channel checks were being performed every 7 days.
It is our interpretation of the present TS (with "and") that, if the system is in continuous operation, a channel check every 7 days is sufficient. There is no need to perform additional checks. We have dis-cussed this interpretation with the licensee and he has agreed that the proposed change is riot needed. On this _ basis, we are not approving the pro-posed change.
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 in-significant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 951.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuar.ce of this ameninent.
w p
,u.-
y
Conclusion We have 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, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission'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.
Date: M0V 10 1983 Principal Contributors:
M. Chatterton R. S. Lee i