ML20147D691
| ML20147D691 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 01/06/1988 |
| From: | Dick G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20147D696 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8801200263 | |
| Download: ML20147D691 (9) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
w I
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0 mlSSION ARKANSAS POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY l
DOCKET NO. 50-368 HOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE AND PROPOSE 9 NO SIGNIFICANT HAZAROS CONSIDERATION DETERMIN'!10N AND.PPORTUNITY FOR HEARING The United States Nuclear.*gulatory Commission (the Commission) is con-sidering issuance of a. endrant to f acility Operating License No. NPF-6, issued m
to Arkansas Power and Ligh_
w.pany (the licensee), for operation of Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2) located in Russellville, Arkansas.
The proposed a. endment would modify the technical specifications to permit m
the licensee to render eight of the ten main steam safety valves inoperable and reset the remaining two valves in order to carry out a 10 year hydrostatic test on the main steam system in accordance with the licansee's application for amendment dated November 30, 1987. The test is to be carried out with the plant in the Hot Standby mode.
The technical specifications presently require that all main steam safety valves be operable in Hot Standby, The licensee also proposes using steam for the test rather than water.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulation;.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Comtrission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that ooeration of tne facility in 8801200263 080106 DR ADOCK 050 0
. s a
s
.g.
t accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or. consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibilit,v of a new or different kina of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The basis for the proposed finding is as follows:
Criterion 1 - Does Not Invol've A Significant Increase in the Probability or.
Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated.
The proposed chanQS would not involve an increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the reactor would nGt i
be critical and the pressures in the main ste&m system would not exceed the design margin.
Although the hydrostatic test requires the main steam system
~
to be at a higher than normal pressure, sufficient overpressure protection will be provided by the two operable code safety valves. Therefore, the protability of a main steam line break (MSLB) accident will not be increased.
The elevated secondary system pressure will require a higher primary system average temperature because of the thermodynamic couplinC at she hot standby (Mode 3) plant conditions.
A reactor coolant cy3 tem (RCS) average temperature of 545'F at Hot Standby results in a saturated secondary steam pressure of about 1000 psi-.
The required hydrostatic test pressure upper bound of 1200 psi will correspond to a RCS average temperature about 20*F higher.
In the event of a postulated MSLB, this could result in a slightly greater cooldown, and therefore a slightly greater positive reactivity addition than that assumed in the MSLB evaluation, However, the consequences of a postulated MSLB would still be bounded by the MSLB accident analysis, The hydrostatic test will be I
r
~
n w
e
~
~ 3-performed with significaatly greater availab.e shutdown margin and a much less negative moderator temperature coef fi:ient.
The negative reactivity associated with these considerations is much greater than the slight additional positive reactivity tddition m4de possible by the elesated secondary system pressure; l
therefore, an increase in the consequences of a postulated MSLB is not involved.
The higher RCS average temperatura 'ssociated with the elevated main E
steam system pressure required for the hydrostatic test was also evaluated by
(
the licensee for any affects on related Chapter 15 events, including Uncontrolled Centrol Element Assembly (CEA) Withdrawal from a Subcritical Condition and the b
CEA Ejection.
Although the conservative assumptions used for the FSAR Chapter
=
it 15 analyses would still bound the consequences of these events with the higher F
initial RCS temperature, the licensee has elected to perform the hydrostatic test with all CEAs inserted in the reactor core, and has proposed the TS change to require that the reactor trip breakers shall bc open for the duration of the
=
test to ef fectively prevent any possible CEA withdrawal scenario.
The worth of the assumed ejected CEA is less than the amount the core will be subcritical.
- inerefore, an in:rease in the probability or consequences of a CEA withdrawal or ejection event is not involved.
At the end of core life, criticality can not occur at hot conditions with all rods inserted.
Addittoaally, the avail-able shutdown margin and dilution monitor administrative procedural requirements further assure that an increase in the probability or consequen:es of a Boron dilution event is not involved.
Criterion 2 - Does not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of occident f rom any Previously Evaluated.
The proposed change vnuld not create the possibility of a new or dif ferent kind of accident f rom any previously evaluated.
Analyses of a spectrum af MSLB L
~-
1 4
and CEA withdrawal accidents were performed for the ANO-2 FSAR and evaluated again for each core reload to demonstrate acceptable consequences.
Allowing a system hydrostatic test will not create the fossibility of a new or different kind of accident.
Does Not Involve a Si nificant Reduction in a Margin of Safety.
Criterion 3 -
9 The proposed change would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because the relatively small amount of energy required to provide the pressures for testing could be dissipated through the two operable code safety valves, thus preventing an overpressure in the main steam system.
In addition, the proposed change would allow testing such that the steam system will not incur the stresses which would result from the weight of the water if tested by water pressure.
Although it could be perceived that the proposed change could allow some reduction in a margin of safety by allowing a higher i
than c.creal main steam pressure with a ?ower steam relief capacity, hydrostatic testing is required by ASME Section XI and, in fact, preserves the margin of safety by demonstrating the integrity of the main steam system r-'ssure boundary, It could also be perceived that the higher RCS average temperature associated i
with the eleveted secondary system pressure required for the hydrostatic testing could reduce the margin of safety, but as discussed under Criterion 1, this potential ef fect is slight and is of fset by the conservatisms inherent in the accident analyses and the conditions under which the testing will be performed.
The staff-has reviewed the licensee's no significant hazards consideration analysis.
Based on the review and above discussions, the staff proposes to determine that the proposed change does not involve a significant i
hazards consideration.
4 1
6-The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination.
A,j comments received within 30 days af ter the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. The Commission s
will not normally make a final determination unless it receives a request for a hearing.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to Rules and Procedures Branch, Civision of.ules and Records, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 9
Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555, and should cite the publication date and l
page number of the FEDERAL REGISTER notice.
Written comments may also be eclivered to Room 4000, Maryland National Bank Building, 7735 Old Georgetown Road, Bethesda, Maryland from 8:15 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Copies of written comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 4 -trvene it discussed below.
By February 10, 1988
, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendments to the subject facility operating licenses aad any persor, whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written petition for leave to intervenv.
Request for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's "Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2.
If a request for a he6 ring or petition for leave to intervene is filed oy the above date, the Com1ission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the Commission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition and tbt
6 Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR $2.714, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding.
The petition should specifically explain the recsons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the fo' lowing factors:
(1) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's proper'y. financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible e' lect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
The petition should also identify the specific aspect (s) of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene.
Any person who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of the Board up to fifteen (15) days prior to the f#rst prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.
Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions which are sought to be lit' gated in the matter, and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity.
Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration.
A petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participatt as a party.
u j
t
.g.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitationc in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration.
The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place af ter issuance of the amendment.
If the final determination is that the amendment involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of the 30-day notice period.
However, should circumstances change during the notice period such that failure to act in a timely way would result in derating or shutdown of the facility, the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of the 30-day notice period, provided that l's final determination is that the amendment involves no significant haze,rds consideration.
The final determination will consider all public and St&te comments received.
Should the Commission take this action, it will publish a notice of issuance and provide for opportunity for a hearing af ter issuance.
The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently,
9 A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. by the above date. Where petitions are filed during the last ten (10) days of the notice period, it is requested that the petitioner or representative for the petitioner promptly so inform the Commission by a toll-free telephcne call to Western Union at (800) 325-6000 (in Missouri (800) 342-6700).
The Western Union operator should be given Datagram Identification Number 3737 and the following message addressed to Jose A. Calvo:
petitioner's name and telephone number; date petition was mailed; plant name; and publication date and page number of this FEDERAL REGISTER notice.
A copy of the petition should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, and to Nicholas S.
Reynolds, Esq., Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds,1200 Seventeenth St.
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, attorney for the licensee.
Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not be entertained absent a determination by the Cocnission, the presiding officer or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board designated to rule on the petition and/or request, that the petitioner has made a substantial showing of good cause for the granting of a late petition and/or reque That determination will be based cpon a balancing of the factors specifieo in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
4 i
t-For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated November 30, 1987 which is available for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. and at thi Tomlinson Library, Arkansas Technical University, Russellville, Arkansas 72801.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 6th day of January,1988.
FOR THL NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION T
Georgi. Dick,Jh.i l
.)Mt
, Project Manager Project Directorate - IV Division of Reactor Projects - Ill IV, V and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
l l
I l
l b