ML20084D222
| ML20084D222 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 04/13/1984 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20084D218 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8405010237 | |
| Download: ML20084D222 (2) | |
Text
- -
p" "%
J^
UNITED STATES J
), q'J ^;
NUCLE AR REGULATCRY COMMISS'ON
(,]gj j WA3HINGTOV O. 0 20555
~'
' t, +.... f SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 55 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. NPF-6 ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-368 Introduction By letter dated October 23, 1979, supplemented by letters dated July 19, 1982, December 20, 1982 ano September 15, 1983, Arkansas Power & Light Company (AP&L) reouested an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-6 for operation of Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2.
Specifically, AP&L requested that the channel functional test interval for the 2XR-8350 Triaxial Pesponse-Spectrum Recorder be changed from semi-annual basis to at least once every 18 months. This recorder is located on the Containment Base Slab at elevation 335 feet 6 inches. The instrument is the model PSR 1200 recorder manufactured by Engdahl Enterprises of Costa Mesa, California.
Engdahl Enterprises has furnished the response spectrum recorders for a number of nuclear power plants both domestic and foreign. This recorder uses a vibrating reed to mark a scratch plate for twelve different frecuencies as a method of measuring the response spectra. This instrument provides the licensee with a direct response spectra for comparison with the design response spectra to determine i
the level of excitation in the event of an earthquake. This instrument com-pienents another type of instrument, the-time-history accelerogram, at the same location and would be used for quick determination of the earthouake level. This data would be used to deternine whether the design bases or safe shutdown earthquake has or has not been exceeded.
DISCUSSION The staff has reviewed the following infonnation:
1.
Technical Specification 3.3.3.3, 4.3.3.3.1 and 4.3.3.3.7 2.
Manufacturers Information for the Engdahl Enterprises 3.
Arkansas Power & Light Company Procedure Number 2304.58 Peak Shock Recorder Surveillance, Rev. 2 4
LLL Report ifCID-19470 Technical Evaluation Report on the Specification Changes on the Surveillance Pequirerents for the Response-Spectrum Recorder at Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 5.
Discussions with Engdehl Enterprises, c405010237 840413 PDR ADOCK 05000368 PDR p.
. Based on discussions with Engdahl Enterprises, a frecuent interval of cali-bration of the instrument would not improve the instrument reliability and accuracy, but would actually degrade its performance by the over testing.
Additionally, the provisions of ANSI 2.2-1978 Earthquake Instrumentation Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants require channel calibration on passive instrur7nts to be at 18 months or refueling, whichever occurs first. The revised draf t revision of Regulatory Guide 1.12 endorses the ANSI 2.2 standard and accepts the calibration intervals of 18 months or refueling.
The staff expects the revised regulatory guide to be accepted with calibra-tion interval of 18 months or refueling, whichever occurs first.
Findings The staff finds that the proposed modification to the technical specification for channel functional test of the non-annunciating response spectrum recorder is acceptable.
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 Q51.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
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 Commission'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: April 13, 1984 Principal Contributor:
H. Polk l