ML20132B367
| ML20132B367 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1982 |
| From: | Speis T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20132B373 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-97-183 IEB-80-06, IEB-80-6, TAC-M48358, NUDOCS 8207120336 | |
| Download: ML20132B367 (2) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
s-
,=
pg}
/
Rc N 3 01982 3.,, g(,, p y
IEMORANDW FOR: Thomas M. Novak. Assistant Director Nr Operating Reactors Division of Licensing FROM:
Themis P. Spets.' Assistant Director for Reactor Safety Division of Systees Integration StBJECT:
ARKANSAS NUCLEAR DNE UNIT 2: ENGINEERED SAFETY FEATURES NESET CONTROLS. SUPPLDENTAL SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT (SSER)
Plant Name: Arkansas Nuclear One, hit 2 Docket No.: 50-368 i
Licensing Status: OR TAC No.: 48358 Respcnsible Branch: ORS #3 Project Manager:
C. Tresuell Review Branch: ICSB
= ' '
Review Status: Complete In msponse to TAC Ro. 48358, we are providing a Supplementary Safety l
Evaluation Report (SSER) of the licensee's April 16, 1982 response to IE Bulletin 80h-06 concerning their re-evaluation of *he Engineered Safety Features (ESF) Reset Controls for Arkansas Nuclear One, hit 2. Docket No. 50-368.
Our previous SER on this metter, dated Joe 3.1981. concluded that the licensee complied with IEB 80-06. However sesequent laE inspection found that certain licensee activities wem not conducted in full comp 11-ance with MRC requirements and other activities appeared to deviate from written couaritments to the Casurfssion. Refer to Region IV letters to AP&L dated April 9 and April 16, 1982 for details.,
1 tith this SSER. we conclude that the ESF reset controls for AM0-2 complies with NRC criteria, s4 ject to satisfactory completion of the 11cansee's casuritments noted homin.
j ortsun sien.a Br l
j namis P. spots 2
CP q o Z O 7 /2 05 3 & )(Ag Thesis P. Spets. Ksistant Director o r u.etor s.fet,
w Division of Systans Integretion Ta7ety Evalntion Report cc: See attached list ry, rp g, -,
- m.., C,,....tamf........ 7.mm&tmsii..?.(..
)....
.......... 229448................ RSan de r.:.c t....... IDunnla g...... F.Ros a..........
? " >
................................... h.h..m..... ta.M..m..L. i.1.<.m..s.!so.a2...
i acc ramm ass oenese nacu saae i
i 1
~
. _...__ _.. - _ _ - ~ _ -
i i >. n....
.. s'
..,,. } a, '...l,'
' f,f. ','. '.yO.
tj t;fj<l
. a. y..
3n 'l-,
'*[*'
~ >
' 'G,5 ey.. sl; *, ; c. y.
y,.
i.y. *
,.3
.3.
e
^
s.
T. Novak.
1 cc:
C. Trassell R. Clatt T. Ippolito J. Calvo S. R1ner M. Y111alva, IE E. Reeves F. Rosa T. Dunning J. Joyce R. Capra P. Bender J. Donohew E. Oberst, LLfil DISTRIBUTION:
M-ket File ICSB Reading File P. Bender (PF)
T. Speis ANO-1 Subject File i
i 4
4 3
- I 11 1
~.
2 :
i
/ M ICIATED ORICIr i
C m ified #_
j k
/
/
^
4 4
J j
j 4
I 2
1 1
1
+
J i
i 1
1 omct)
M
~%
4 y p Ag 43
..g
.Ai er 4
- 8'...*
-~
--^--~~~-~~~~^'~~~~~ ~^
) (,*
}
SUPPLEMINTAL SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE ' UNIT 2 i
4 I
LICENSE RESPONSE..TO I&E BULLETIN 80-06 ENGINEERED SAFETY FEATURES (ESF) RESET CONTROLS 1
i
=
' \\
u DESIGNATED ORIGIN 1Il
~
BACKGROUND:
Cort.id ed By' n/
i
/
)
In the Safety Evaluation Report on this matter, dated June 3,1981, we concluded
)
that the licensee satisfied the concerns and requirements of I&E Bulletin 80-06 i
for ANO-2, subject to co@letion of modifications to control circuits of eighteen j
1 valves found to change position upon ESF. actuation system (ESFAS) reset, and i'
subsequent testing. This conclusion was based on information and documents pro-i 3
vided by the licensee, and on our contractor's reps c (EGG 1183-4200), included with the SER.
I j
f Subsequent ISE inspection found that the licensee had not perfonned the verifica-tion test required by item 2 of IEB B0-06 and that modifications to the two contain-i
{
ment sump isolation valves were not implemented as stated by the licensee in letters
!j of June 18, 1980 and January 26, 1981 to the NRC. However, the NRC inspection confirmed that the other sixteen valve control circuits were satisfactorily modified and tested as noted in Region IV letters to AP&L dated April 9 and April 16, 1982.
EVALUATION:
The licensee t v letter dated April 16, 1982 provided a re-evaluation, of their response to IEB 80-06 for ANO-2.
We have reviewed this response and find that:
11 The licensee has provided satisfactory justification for not modifying various safety related components which they concluded would not reduce the margin of safety if these co@onents change state on reset. This
. s, y,
- ,a.
0 0Y0 l
,.:y..+ 2""
0;
.-V,..
A yrv' & '. c': ;b~n'J' 3%AWM :,a. +
it. - '-
- pX,q-
='eV
~-
e :..
.m.
(:[c..
3
.m.
A v
j II,.
t includes the containment ' sump fiolation valves which are maintained in the i
{
open (ESFAS) position at all times with key locked switch'es, and. verified open each shift.
31 l
- 2) The licensee comitted to' modify thirteen additional components which could i
l potentially change state on reset.
i 1
- 3) The licensee has comitted to perfoHii verification tests of all safety related j
components, test planned modifications, and modify and test any additional com-3 i
ponents, if needed as a result of these previous tests, by the next refueling l
outage.
CONCLUSION:
j The licensee has satisfied the requirements and concerns of I&E Bulletin 80-06, subject to completion of the licensee's comitments to perfom the modifications and testing identified in their April 16, 1982 response.
Therefore, we find the ESF reset controls for ANO-2 in cortpliance with NRC criteria.
i i
{
j.'.
4
.,,j, %f s.fr *
'O
.1
-e/
(
- E,
[3 d/4 ',[,h k!, '
- f'"
e
] ^ l
~l M
I l
,,., Y,,. E..,,.
i a "T l
+3g.., y 3
- t* a q
l l
-