ML20003F119

Tech Spec Change for AR Nuclear One - Unit 2, Technical Evaluation Rept

ML20003F119
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	03/31/1981
From:	Cleveland C, Roberts E EG&G IDAHO, INC., EG&G, INC.
To:	Shemanski P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
CON-FIN-A-6429 EGG-EA-5368, NUDOCS 8104200217
Download: ML20003F119 (6)

Text

EGG-EA-5368 March 1981 s

TEClINICAL EVALUATION REPORT, TECIINICAL SFECIFICATION CilANGE FOR ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE - UNII 2, DOCKET NO.

50-368

• W O fo 2

- U R.l O - &7 C. J. Cleveland  %

E. W. Roberts \- #,gka /Sgyh

,6

, 1> vo

'ch U.S. Department of Energy (daho Operations Office

• Idaho National Engineering Laboratory 5, ^ w gab 9%;pi ,

y s**

NRC Researc1 anc iec1nica

-1 J" x Assistance Report t \ )r . ~ s

\; -

d';s 4

((3 s[.r.6[

~ . .

i

o. ,-

g - --- - M N h

hrk (j. QghjiNfR  ? === =. " ==. m m m

@ g; cl lw.( RV

.' -M4lll5 l

~

--- -- w M-sp, y4

^ ,

- ^ .

~,~

IC5%%W ~'~S 1 s =-&lA1

-y, y; .= n.

- [WW.MEK . , tafN~W i *

- - ~~ >;

, .s_

~:~

e_Q""p  % ~

%w-.-ap.-ww

,6 W - C_yrL

__ - - R,3

. ; . ~ - =-- y-mamme:,y /

g u _.a y

~

~~

A l This is an informal report intended for use as a preliminary or working document

~

NRC Researc1 anc ec1nica Assistance .leport i

Prepared for the

! U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission b g g g Idaho Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-761D01570 yD FIN No. A6429 1 810.4 2 0 0.2I 7. e

n EGsG... .

FORM (G&G 398 (Re, 11 79)

INTERIM REPORT

, Accession No.

Report No. EGG-EA-5368 Contract Program or Project Title.

Selected Operating Reactors Issues Program (III)

Subject of this Document:

Technical Evaluation Report, Technical Specification Change for Arkansas Nuclear one - Unit 2 Type of Document:

Technical Evaluation Report Author (s):

. C. J. Cleveland /E. W. Roberts t -

Date of Document: NRC Researc1 anc "ecanica' Assistance Report Respunsible NRC Individual and NRC Office or Division:

Paul C. Shemanski, NRC-DOL This document was prepared primarily for preliminary orinternal use. it has not received full review and approval. Since there may be substantive changes, this document should not be considered final.

EG&G Idaho, Inc.

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415

. Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07 761C01570 NRC FIN No. A6429 INTERIM REPORT 4

0343J 4

IECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE FOR ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE UNIT 2

-- Docket No. 50-368 March 1981 C. J. Cleveland and E. W. Roberts Reliability and Statistics Branch Engineering Analysis Division EG&G Idaho, Inc.

1 NRC Researca anciec'anica

' Assistance Report TAC No. 42542

• E

.. m . . - . - _ _ - - - . _ - . .

i s

t ABSTRACT on April 16, 1980, Arkansas Power and Light Company (AP&L) was notified of a violation of the. technical specifications at their Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 (ANO-2) facility. The' violation concerned the time interval of certain time-delay relays. The relays sequence certain Engineered Safety Feature (ESF) loads. On May 9, 1980, AP&L responded to the notice of violation and, on August 12, 1980, they . submitted technical specification changes to clarify and modify certain time-delay setpoints and allowable limits specified elswhere in the technical specifications.

Our review found these changes acceptable.

FOREWORD This report is supplied as part of the " Selected Operating Reactor Issues Program (III)" being conducted for the U.S. Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Operating Reactors, by EC&G Idano, Inc., Reliability and Statistics Branch.

Tne U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission funded the work under the autnorization, B&R 20 19 01 06, FIN No. A6429.

i e

l l

l ii l

)

i CONTENTS

0.1 INTRODUCTION

....................................... ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, g

• 0.2 DISCUSSION .....................................,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, g

0.3 CONCLUSION

S ....................................,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, g

0.4 REFERENCES

........................................,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, y e

'i l

l 1

e e e ill i

t -- - .- . .

r 1

a l TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT 1

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE FOR ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE UNIT 2 i

t

1.0 INTRODUCTION

On April 16, 1980, Arkansas Power and Light Company (AP&L) was notified that the results of the Integrated Safeguards Test, 2105.03, performed on February 21, 1980, and Testing of ESF Time Delay Relays, 2304.87, performed on March 13, 1980, at tne Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 (ANO-2) facility disclosed that two measured time delay intervals violated the limits -

required oy tue plant technical. specifications. Specifically,'the time j delay between start of High Pressure Safety injection (HPSI) and Low' Pres-

sure Safety Injection (LPSI) was 4.38 s. The interval between Service Water (SW) and HPSI was 4.23 s and the technical specifications require the time-delay interval to be 5(+0.5, -0.5) s.

On May 9, 1980,I AP&L responded to this notice saying that they believed this problem to be one of interpretation of the technical specifi--

cations. As a follow-up to this notice and response, on August 12, 1980,2 AP&L suomitted to the NRC a request to change that part of the technical.

j spec i fica t ions in question; specifically, Section 4.8.1.1.2.c.2.

o 2.0 DISCUSSION AP&L has asked, in their submittal, to change the above-mentioned section of ANO-2 technical specifications which states: " Verifying...

Operable with the interval between each load block within +10% of its design interval," to read: " Verifying... OPERABLE with component time-delay relay settings as specified in Table 4.8-2." This table of delay times will b'e incorporated into the technical specifications. The values listed as delay times in the taole incorporate a 20% variance band on the setpoint of the relay, not a variance based on the time-delay interval between start times.

AP&L contends that these bandwidths corresponds to the design accuracy

, of the installer 1 relays (+10% -10%). Another contention by AP&L is that l the new candwidth of the relay setting is in no case unconservative in relation to tne total system response specification, as specified in tech-nical specification Table 3.3-5.3 l AP&L also stated that; in no case will load blocks be applied with i

worat-ease time-delay. relay settings closer than 1.0 s apart and; the diesel generator governor response time to re-achieve stability on full-

[ load rejection or full-load application is less than 1 s and typically on j the order of 0.4 s.

3.0 CONCLUSION

S Based on this review and AP&L's documented justifications, I find the proposed changes to ANO-2's technical specifications acceptable. Although taey are unlike tne Standard Technical Specifications 4, the times are 1

1 5

i

-1 e

conservative with regards to the system's required response times'in tech--

nical specification Table 3.3-5, and the variance band proposed will not be one cause of diesel overload and trip.

4.0 REFERENCES

1. AP&L letter (D. C. Trimble) to NRC (K. V. Seyfrit) dated May 9,.1980.

2. AP&L letter (W. Cavenaugh III) to NRC (R. W. Reid) dated August 12, 1980.

3. Final Safety Analyses Report (FSAR) for Arkansas Nuclear One Unit.2.

4. " Standard Technical Specifications for Combustion Engineering Pres-surized Water keacters," NUREG-0212, November 1980.

5. NRC letter (G. L. Madsen) to AP&L (W. Cavenaugh III) dated June 6, 1980.

I 4

1 2

,