ML20099H563
| ML20099H563 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 03/04/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20099H545 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8503190412 | |
| Download: ML20099H563 (2) | |
Text
-
'y UNITED STATES
{
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g'
7 l WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NilCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 95 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-51 ARKANSAS POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-313 l
Introduction By letter dated February 29, 1984, as resubmitted and revised by letter dated Auaust 15, 1984, Arkansas Power and Light Company (APAL or the licensee) reouested amendment of the Technical Specifications (TSs), Appendix A, appended to Facility Operating License No. DPR-51 for Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 (ANO-1). The proposed change would require additional operating restrictions and testino of the Low Temperature Overpressure Protection (LTOP) System.
Specifically, the proposed amendment would require (1) the core flood tank discha ge valves be closed and the circuit breaker for the motor operators be opened before depressurizing the reactor coolant system (RCS) below 600 psig, (2) the four high pressure injection motor-operated valves be closed with their opening control circuits for motor operators disabled when the RCS is less than 280*F, (3) the plant not be operated in a water-solid condition when the RCS pressure boundary is intact except as allowed by Emergency Operating Procedures or during system hydrotest, (4) surveillance of the LTOP alarm logic and (5) the power operated relief valve be exercised at the end of each. refueling outage.
Discussion As a result of car review of the LTOP system in ANO-1, we requested by letter dated November 4, 1983, that the licensee develop TSs for this system. The licensee has proposed all of our requested TSs except one which would require that the LTOP system be enabled when the RCS temperature is below 280 F.
We have discussed this with the licensee's staff who have indicated that the LTOP system is manually enabled because the plant operating procedures call for manual enabling and, if the system is not enabled, an alarm will sound in the control roon. We have verified this throuah review of Plant Operating Procedure 11.07.10 Section 8, "Depressurization and Cooldown of the RCS for Refuelino/
Maintenance." Step 8.9.33 requires:
When PCS temperature is less than 350 F but greater than 280*F, verify RCS pressure is less than 475 psig and place HS 1013 in 525 psig position.
A.
Close HPI valves CV1219, CV1270, CV1727 A CV1278 and open respective breakers.
We have also confirmed that an alarm will sound in the control room if the above procedure is not performed when required.
8503190412 850304 PDR ADOCK 05000313 P
Evaluation With the verification of the procedure to enable the LTOP system when the RCS is below 280 F and the sounding of an alarm in the control room.if the LTOP is t
not enabled as required by the procedure, we find that the proposed TSs for LTOP in ANO-1 are adequate for meeting General Design Criteria 15 & 31 and are, therefore, acceptable.
Environmental Consideration This amendment involves a change in the installation or use of:a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes in surveillance requirements. We have 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 is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this 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 prepare,d 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 sin 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.
Dated: March 4,1935 Principal Contributor: Guy Vissing l
l i
J P
S 4
-