ML20082R900
| ML20082R900 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 09/09/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20082R865 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9109160297 | |
| Download: ML20082R900 (2) | |
Text
. _.
l
/'pa er ow%;
UNIT ED STATES l'
^h NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3.,.q e
W ASHING ton. D. C. 20sb5
%'.... + /SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR PEGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 150 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. OPR-51 ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.
ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-313
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated June 18, 1991, Entergy Oparations, Inc. (the licensee) submitted a request for a change to the Arkansas N.. lear One, Unit No. 1 (ANO-1) Technical Specifications (TSs).
.'he requested change would revise TS 3.5.1.4 by adding the words "...except during channel testing" to the end of the requirement.
The revision allows for use of the shutdown bypass switch in each of the Reactor Protection System's (RPS) four channels when RPS channel testing is conducted during power operation.
- 2. 0 EVALUATION Each RPS ct.annel contains a shutdown logic circuit that requires use of the shutdown bypass switch for testing.
During RPS channel testing, the channel is rendered inoperable by placing the channel bypass switch in the bypass position.
As a result, the operation of the shutdown bypass switch located in the channel will have no effect on the output of the RPS channel.
Protection against inadvertent positioning of either switch is provided by alarms and an interlock.
The channel bypass switch and the shutdown bypass switch are key operated with the channel bypass switch interlocked to prevent more than one RPS channel being bypassed at any time.
Both switches are provided with alarms and lights to indicate when the bypass switches are being used.
Based upon its review, the staff concludes that operation of the shutdown bypass switch while testing the RPS channel during power operation poses no increased safety risk.
Therefore the requested change to TS 3.5.1.4 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, i
I 9109160297 910909 PDR ADOCK 05000313 l
P PDH
1
.. 4.0 EfjiRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component Iccated 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 significant change in the types, of any ef fluents that may be released of fsite, and that there is no significant increase in indisiGual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Commission has previoutly issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public ccwment on such finding (56 FR 37579).
Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant. to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmentei impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepered in connection with the ir.suance of the amendment.
i
- 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 issuar.ce of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
R. Twigg Date: September 9, 1991 e
a 7
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -