ML20002A294
| ML20002A294 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 10/30/1980 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20002A293 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8011050617 | |
| Download: ML20002A294 (2) | |
Text
I ')
N aaseg
[pa k,
UNITED STATiES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a
t j
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.16 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-2 ALABAMA POWER COMPANY JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-348
Background
Alabama Power Company (APCo) requested a change in the elevation dependent radial peaking factor (Fxy) Technical Specifications for Farley Unit 1 in a letter to the Director, NRR, dated August 15, 1980.
Supplementary infor-mation was provided by APCo letter dated September 25, 1980 in response to our concerns discussed via telecon on September 19, 1980.
Evaluation and Discussion The proposed Technical Specification change revises Fxy for the remainder of Cycle 2 and the upcoming Cycle 3.
The change lowers Fxy in the 40 to 607.
axial height region from 1.75 to 1.70. At our request, the licensee provided the results of a Westinghouse analysis of the maximum peaking factor [Fg(Z)]
as a function of core height and power level predicted for Cycle 3 operation.
These results are based upon use of constant axial offset control procedures which are in the Technical Specifications.
The results show that the proposed reduction in Fxy is needed in order to meet the Fg(Z) limits.
The reduction in Fxy is automatically acceptable for the remainder of Cycle 2 operation t,ecause a reduction in Fxy reduces the predicted maximum F (Z).
The Q
Fxy change for Cycle 3 is acceptable because the need for it was calculated with methods in use and approved for most reloads of Westinghouse designed reactors for a number of years.
Since the present Fg(Z) limits will not be changed, there is no decrease in safety margin associated with the change in Fxy limits.
Therefore, the change does eot constitute an unreviewed safety question as defined by 10 CFR 50.59 and is acceptable.
l sonoso
-4 y
,. Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendment-does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any sianificant environmental impact.
Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR Q51.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environ-mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that.
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or. consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: October 30, 1980 6
Y