ML19318A941

Forwards Addl Info Re Util Review of Special Low Power Testing Program in Response to NRC Request.To Achieve Better Operator Training,Test 1 Should Be Performed Prior to Full Power Licensing of Facility

ML19318A941
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	06/17/1980
From:	Clayton F ALABAMA POWER CO.
To:	Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8006240414
Download: ML19318A941 (3)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ .

Alao"mJ Power Comp _ny 600 North 18tn Street

• Post Offsc] Box 2641 Birmingham. Alacama 35291 Telephone 205 323 5341 nk e o y ce r side'nt Alabama Power n: a ww:r i,:v-June 17, 1980 Docket No. 50-364 Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention: Mr. A. Schwencer Gentlemen:

Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Training Durine Low Power Testing Enclosed is additional information requested by the NRC staff concerning Alabama Power Company's review of the special low power testing program for Farley Unit 2.

If you have questions, please advise.

Yours very truly, C. -

CL.Clayton,hr.

~

RLG:de Enclosure cc: Mr. R. A. Thomas dr. G. F. Trowbridge

}ODI 5

/!/

8006240 h

ENCLOSURE In response to Co=missioner Action, dated May 2, 1980, entitled "TMI-2 Action Plant,"Section I.G.1, " Training During Low Power Testing,"

Alabama Power Company has reviewed the special low power testing require-ments of NRC for Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant - Unit 2. Following are the tests which have been considered in this review.

Test No. Descriution 1 Natural Circulation Demonstration l

2 Natural Circulation with Simulated Loss of Offsite Power 3 Natural Circulation with Loss of Pressurizer Heaters h Effect of Steam Generator Secondary Side Isolation on Natural Circulation 5 Natural Circulation at Reduced Pressure 6 Cooldown Capability of the CVCS 7 Si=ulated Loss of All Offsite and Onsite AC Power g- 8 Establishment of Natural Circulation from St,agnant Conditions 9a Forced Circulation Cooldown 9b Boron Mixing and cooldown with Natural Circulation During our review we have given special attention to potential benefits

- that may be realized from repeating these tests which are already being or vill be performed by Sequoyah Unit 1, North Anna Unit 2, and Salem Unit 2.

Our review included the associated potential risks, especially when the plant safety systems are deliberately placed in degraded conditions in order to perform some of these tests. The following are our conclusions.

As far as the technical information needs expressed by NRC are concerned, the data that will be obtained from the tests to be performed by the above three NTOL plants should adequately satisfy this need. All the test results from these plants vill be available and we, therefore, see little benefit to be derived from repeating these tests for Farley Unit 2. Even though the difficulty in per-forming these tests remains the sa=e fron plant to plant, the date.

should not be plant specific. Therefore, we believe Farley Unit 2

-should,not be required to conduct these tests solely for the purpcse of obtaining more technical data.

However, for the purpose of achieving better operator training we propose the following:

e J

e a) Perform test Number (1) at the Farley Nuclear Plant prior to full power license of Unit 2. All Unit 2 operators will observe or participate during the test.

b) Perform modified test Number (7) on Unit 2 using reactor coolant pump heat instead of nuclear heat (same as Salem

_ Unit 2). All Unit 2 operators will participate in or observe the test.

c) For the remaining tests, we believe that the training of operators can be better accomplished by use of simulator training, class room training, or simulator observation, or a ecmbination thereof. Alabama Power Co=pany will commit to providing such training for all Farley Unit 2 operators within one year after the issuance of full power operating license.

t-1 m

6 FN