ML20236D295
| ML20236D295 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 03/10/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236D288 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8903230042 | |
| Download: ML20236D295 (2) | |
Text
.-
UNITED STATES -
' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
~, ' *g.
1 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.117 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-51 ARKANSAS p0WER AND LIGHT COMPANY 1
ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-313
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated June 30, 1988, Arkansas Power and Light Company (AP&L or the j
licensee) requested an amendment to the Technical Specifications (TS) appended to facility Operating License No. DPR-51 for Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit I (ANO-1). The proposed amendment would establish surveillance test requirements for the automatic actuation of the shunt trip (GL) 83-28, attachments of the reactor trip breakers (RTB) as required by Generic Letter Item 4.3.
The proposed amendment would also establish surveillance test requirements for the silicon controlled rectifier (SCR) trip relays used to interrupt power to the control rods, as required by GL 83-28, Item 4.4.
Generic Letter 85-10. " Technical Specifications for GL 83-28, Items 4.3 and 4.4," provided guidance to licensees regarding the specifics to be contained in the TS required by GL 83-28. Items 4.3 and 4.4, by giving example TS.
2.0 EVALUATION The staff compared the licensee's proposed TS for the shunt trip attachments with the example TS provided in GL 65-10 for GL 83-28 Item 4.3.
Some differences between the proposed TS and the GL 85-10 example were noted. This was because the format of the ANO-1 Technical Specifications does not conform to the format of the Standard Babcock & Wilcox TS which were used as the basis for the example in GL 85-10.
However, the staff determined that the proposed surveillance test requirements for the shunt trip attachments were equivalent to the GL 85-10 requirements, despite the format differences.
The staff compared the licensee's proposed TS for the SCR relays used to interrupt power to the control rods, with the example TS provided in GL 85-10 for GL 83-28 Item 4.4 It was noted that the proposed TS differed from the example in that it contained an alternate action statement (action statement number 22. Table 3.5.1-1) for the SCR trip relays. However this had been previously approved b Frank Miraglia (NRC) y the staff in a letter to the B&W Owners Group from dated December 6, 1985. The staff has determined that the proposed TS were equivalent to the GL 85-10 requirements for the SCR trip relay TS.
H83i!B8M!8?8483 4
1 P
e
,, t These additional surveillance requirements ano limiting conditions for operations for the RTB shunt trip attachments and the SCR trip relays, would increase plant safety because they would require routine verification of the capability of these components to perform their safety function.
3.0 FINDINGS The staff finds that the proposed changes to the ANO-1 Technical Specifications meet the requirements of GL 83-28. Items 4.3 and 4.4 and GL 85-10, and are therefore acceptable.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
f The 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 effluarts that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or l
cumuletive occupational radiation exposures. The Comission has previously l
issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public coment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendmcat meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in-10 CFR Section 51.22(c)(9) Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
l
5.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) thore is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the l
will nct be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) public I
such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: March 10, 1989 l
Principal Contributors:
D. Lasher C. Harbuck x
_ _ _ _