ML20247C656
| ML20247C656 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 05/16/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247C653 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8905250007 | |
| Download: ML20247C656 (3) | |
Text
__
-- - ----~ - --
]
r
)
4'
' ' $ g nia j
o, UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.e WASHINGTON, D. C. 20665 1
%...+
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.120 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-51 ARKANSAS POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNIT NO. I DOCKET NO. 50-313 INTRODUCTION By letter dated April 24, 1989 as supplemented on May 5, 1989, Arkansas Power and Light Company (AP&L or the licensee) requested an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-51 for Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 (ANO-1). The propcsed amendment would increase the authorized steady state reactor core power-levels to a maximum of 2054 megawatts thermal, pending NRC ap)roval and licensee implementation of the permanent modification to address a tigh pressure Injection (HPI) system small break loss of coolant accident (LOCA) at which time the licensee may request an amendment to resume full power operation at steady state reactor core power levels not in excess of 2568 megawatts therr.al.
BACKGROUND InresponsetoanAP&Lrequestforlicenseamendment.(Reference 1),thestaff reviewed the licensee's submittal' and the Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) analysis (Reference 2). Based on this review, the staff had determined that a maximum power level of 50% was justified to' ensure adequate mitigation of a postulated HPI line break event. Therefore, the staff rejected that part of the' request that would permit achieving a power level above 50%. This change was made to assure that adequate core cooling will be available in the event of a newly postulated small pipe break in the High Pressure Injection (HPI) line. The.
staff approval of the 50% power limit was based on a B&W estimate which showed the core remained covered at a 74% power level and the fact that considerable LOCA margin exists at the 50% power level. The staff found (Reference 3) that in order to justify operation at a power level greater than 50%, AP&L would have to perform a formal Appendix K LOCA analysis using an approved evaluation model for the specific HPI line break of concern. AP&L has provided this analysis (Reference 4) and the staff has completed its evaluation of this analysis.
EVALUATION An ANO-1 HPI line break analysis was performed using the B&W small break LOCA (SBLOCA)evaluationmodel(EM)(Reference 5). This EM meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix K and has been previously reviewed and approved by the staff. The HPI line break analysis was performed using assumptions which are consistent with or more conservative' than those contained in the SBLOCA EM.
This analysis demonstrates that the current ANO-1 HPI configuration will provide 8905250007 890516 DR ADOCK 05000313 PDC d
e g
l
- adequate core cooling in the event of a complete HPI line break at an operating power of 80% of full power. Reference 4 also verifies that the current AH0-1 Cycle 9 Technical Specification limits will remain valid for operation up to 50 effective full power days (EFPD) followed by operation at 80% of rated thermal power for the remainder of the current fuel cycle. The staff has reviewed the licensee's submittal (Reference 4) and finds this analysis to be based on methods which have been previously reviewed and approved by the staff and that the EM used meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix K.
Therefore, we find the licensee's request to operate at a power level of 80% of full power to be acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION The amendment involves a change in the installation or use of a facility i
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 Corrcission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant 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 5ection 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuantto10CFR51.22(b),noenvironmentalimpactstatementorenviron-mental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
CONCLUSION The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) public (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's egulations, 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.
Date:
May 16, 1989 Principal Contributor:
G. Schwenk
t e.-
- REFERENCES 1.
Letter, T. Gene Campbell (AP&L) to J. A. Calvo (NRC), " Request for Emergency License Amendment," dated March 23, 1989.
2.
Letter, J. H. Taylor (B&W) to J. A. Calvo (NRC) "HPL Line Break Evaluation," dated March 23, 1989 3.
Letter, C. Craig Harbuck (NRC) to T. Gene Campbell (AP&L), " Issuance of Amendment No.119 to Facility Operating License No. DPR Arkansas NuclearOne,UnitI(ANO-1),datedMarch 29, 1989.
4.
Letter, Dale E. James (AP&L) to J. A. Calvo (NRC), dated May 5,1989.
5.
N. Savanni et al., "B&W's Small Break LOCA ECCA Evaluation Model,"
BAW-10154, Babcock & Wilcox, Lynchburg, Virginia, July 1985.
_ _ -. -. _ _ - _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. -. - -. _ - _ - - _ _. _ - _ _ _ _. - -