ML20083E295
| ML20083E295 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 09/18/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20083E291 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9110020269 | |
| Download: ML20083E295 (2) | |
Text
.
f[onaso,Ie v
UNITED STATES e %.
(h NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/
wassiNo ton. D. C. 205b5
,,* v 4 /
5AFETY EVt.iUATIC"
'Y THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.1?5 10 I
FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-6 i
ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.,
ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNIT NO. 2 1
DOCKET NO. 50-368 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated April 9, 1991, as revised August 30, 1991 Entergy Operations, i
Inc. (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 2 (ANO-2) Technical Specifications (TS).
The requested changes would allow continued plant operation for 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> with more than one full length or part length Control Element Assembly (CEA) inoperab'e due to an electronic or electrical problem in the Control Eletnent DrNe Mechanism Control System, provided that all affected CEAs remain trippable.
The August 30, 1991, letter provided clarifications to the 15 providing e <aitorial distinction between the actions for untrippable and trippable CEAS that did not change the action noticed in the Federal Register on June 12, 1991 and did not affect the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
2.0 EVALUATION The existing Technical Specification requires the plant to be in hot standby in 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> with more than one CEA electrically inoperable.
A CEA that is inoperable dut to being untrippable is a more significant failure than a CEA that cannot be moved due te an electrical failure but is still trippable.
The chanbe in the action statements distinguishes between these failures and requires the existing restrictive action for the former while allowing more timt for repair of the CEA(s) that cannot be moved because of an electrical failure, but are still capable of tripping.
Extending the diagnosis / repair titie would accomplish several things.
It would allow sufficient time to evaluate the failure, and to develop a systematic work plan without the distraction of making shutdown preparations at the same time.
It would also allow time for the most experienced people to travel to the plant (on weekends or nights) and allow time to obtain a part if necessary.
Additionally, it would reduce the potential for requiring the plant to go through an unnecessary shutdown because of electronic failure in CEAs that does not affect the trip capability.
The staff has previously reviewed and approved similar action statements for other plants and finds this request essentially the same.
Since the extension of the allowable outage time only applies to CEAs which remain trippable, assurance of the CEA's primary safety funtion of shutting down the reactor upon initiation of a reactor trip signal is maintained.
9110020269 910910 PDR ADOCK 0500 0
P
.g.
Therefore, the staff finds the Technical Specification proposed changes to be 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 a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The NRC staff has determined that the amendment 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 ic no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiatit exposure.
The Connission has previously issued a proposed 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 eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in ;onnection 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 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: September 18, 1991 L
i l
l
.