ML20199L771
| ML20199L771 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 07/03/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20199L768 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8607100009 | |
| Download: ML20199L771 (2) | |
Text
_
.p+***%)g UNITED STATES v
[,
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-6 ARKANSAS POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-368
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In their November 27, 1985 letter, Arkansas Power and Light requested changes i
to Tables 3.3-12, 4.3-12, and 4.11-2 of the Technical Specifications for l
Arkansas Nuclear One (AN0) - Unit 2.
Additional infonnation and clarifications i
were provided by the licensee in their March 28, 1986 letter.
l 2.0 EVALUATION 1
The proposed change would add requirements to address radiation monitoring of the HVAC main building exhaust for the new Low-Level Radwaste Storage Building (LLRWSB) on the ANO site. The change to Table 3.3-12 consists of the addition of a noble gas activity monitor, iodine sample cartridge, particulate sample filter, effluent system flow monitor, and sampler flow monitor for the LLRWSB HVAC Exhaust System radioactive gaseous effluent monitoring instrumentation. Surveillance requirements for this additional instrumentation are added to Table 4.3-12.
Table 4.11-2 changes address sampling and analyses requirements for the LLRWSB HVAC Exhaust. We find that the requested amendment meets the intent of the NRC staff's model RETS for PWR's, NUREG-0472, Revision 2, February 1,1980 as discussed further below.
Compliance with the minimum requirements and waste stability requirements of 10 CFR Part 61 should minimize the potential for any inadvertent release from interimly stored waste; therefore, the only potential for releases from the l
LLRWSB will occur during compaction operations. The proposed changes to the Technical Specifications are acceptable in that they require all compaction activities to be suspended if an LLRWSB HVAC Exhaust System gaseous effluent monitoring instrument is not operable, and samples are not taken (flow rates are not estimated for flow measuring instrumentation).
8607100009 860703 PDR ADOCK 05000368 P
.. i The licensee has stated that potential releases from the LLRWSB compaction operations are expected to have an extremely low level of activity; and the LLRWSB is sufficiently separated from the control room air intake so that the chances of the LLRWSB exhaust creating a control room habitability problem are very remote. Also, there are no circumstances under which radiological effluents from a reactor accident could be vented through the LLRWSB main exhaust vent because the LLRWSB vent is separated from areas affected by post-accident releases.
The licensee has also stated that airborne releases from the LLRWSB will be accounted for within the scope of the methodology provided in the Offsite Dose Calculation Model. Further, the methodology for determining the setpoint for the LLRWSB main exhaust vent monitor will be consistent with the methodology used for the other SPING 4A monitors in service at ANO.
3.0 EVALUATION
SUMMARY
The proposed changes to the Technical Specifications for Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2 have been evaluated and found to be in compliance with the applicable requirements. The proposed changes also provide a level of protection equivalent to that afforded by the Standard Technical Specifications and, therefore, are acceptable.
In view of the above considerations, we conclude that the proposed changes to Tables 3.3-12, 4.3-12 and 4.11-2 of the Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 2 Technical Specifications are acceptable.
4.0 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.
The 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 is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Comission has previously published a proposed finding that the amendment involves I
no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 951.22(c)(9)gibility criteria on such finding. Accordingly, the amendment meets the eli Pursuant to 10 CFR 951.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
l
5.0 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 Comission's regulations, and 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 to this SE was C. Nichols.
Dated: July 3, 1986