ML20247A631
| ML20247A631 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247A626 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8909120165 | |
| Download: ML20247A631 (2) | |
Text
_
/
d' UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
']
.g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20$55 5
}
....+
SAFETYEVALUATIONBYTHEOFFICEOFNUg5ARRETCTORREGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.125 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-51 ARKANSAS POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-313 INTRODUCTION By letter dated June 13, 1989, Arkansas Power and Light Company (AP&L or the licensee) requested an amendment to the Technical Specifications (TSs) appended to Facility Operating License No. DPR-51 for Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 (ANO-1). The proposed amendment would add a note to Technical Specification 3.4.1.4 to clarify that a limited test (with available steam pressure) of the steam turbine driven Emergency Feedwater (EFW) pump prior to exceeding a reactor coolant system (RCS) temperature of 280'F is sufficient demonstration of its functionality until completion of plant heatup to hot shutdown conditions (RCS temperature greater than 525 F), when adequate secondary steam pressure is available to allow performance of testing per Surveillance Requirement 4.8.1(a)1.
EVALUATION TS 3.4.1.4 specifies that the reactor shall not be heated above 280*F unless both EFW pumps and their flow paths are operable.
Surveillance Requirement 4.8 describes the testing required to demonstrate the operability of the EFW pumps and associated valves. Surveillance Requirement 4.8.1(a)1 defines the specific performance criteria for the steam turbine driven EFW pump (in terms of minimum 1
discharge pressure and flow) which must be verified at least once per 31 days or upon achieving RCS hot shutdown conditions following a plant heatup and prior to reactor criticality, However, prior to RCS heatup above 280 F, there is insufficient steam energy in the steam generators to allow the EFW pump steam turbine to drive the pump to the minimum required discharge pressure and flow. Therefore, TS 3.4.1.4 and the associated Surveillance Requirement 4.8.1(a)1 have historically been interpreted by the licensee as allowing demonstration of operability of the steam turbine driven EFW pump after completion of plant heatup, instead of prior to exceeding 280*F RCS temperature.
The licensee has proposed to add a clarifying note in the TS to interpret the operability Surveillance Requirement 4.8.1(a)1 unambiguously and more conserva-tively. This note would result in the requirement to perform a limited test of the steam turbine driven pump prior to RCS heatup above 280*F, followed by demonstration of operability upon completion of RCS heatup to hot shutdown conditions, which then allows performance of the surveillance testing defined by 4.8.1(a)1.
890912016D 890831 l
PDR ADOCK 05000313 P
PDC l
l
l l
l
,s l
l Because the proposed change represents an increase in previous test requirements and clarifies a significant ambiguity in the TSs, the staff concludes that the change will enhance safe operation of ANO-1 and is therefore acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION 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 effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant' increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposures.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment in w1ves no signif Mant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendment 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 environ-mental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
CONCLUSION The staff has ccncluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the will rot be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) public such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendment will nct be inimical to the coornon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: August 31, 1989 Principal Contributor:
C. Harbuck
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _