ML20012C767
| ML20012C767 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 03/07/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20012C765 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9003230192 | |
| Download: ML20012C767 (3) | |
Text
p 1
j eo UNITED STATES s*f g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
~
q 7,
- R WASHINGTON, D. C. 205$5 j
\\.../
q SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 82 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-2 AND AMENDNENT NO.~ 74 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-8 1
ALABAMA POWER C0WANY J
JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-340 AND 50-364
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated March 20,1989,)as supplemented Septerrber 25, 1989, Alabama Power Cogany (licensee submitted a request for changes to the -
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1-and 2 Technical Specifications (TS).
The changes incorporate minor administrative and editorial changes in six general areas.
The changes include the following:
1.
The wording of TS 4.2.2.2.f 3 is clarified to more accurately and correctly define the grid plane regions of the core 'where Fxy limits are not applicable.
2.
Figure 3.3-1, Time Delay Curves, is deleted to correct c.n error (curves not used) and Table 3.3-4 is revised to delete the footnote reference to Figure 3.3-1.
3.
A typographical error is corrected in Table 3.3-3 for spelling of automa tic.
4.
' Table 4.3-4 is changed to correct the locations of seismic instrumen-tation'and to correct two typographical errors in the Table.
5.-
The addressee for reporting information to the NRC per 10 CFR 50.4 is revised in TSs 3.11.4, 6.9.1, 6.9.1.10, 6.9.1.11, and 6.9.2 as editorial changes.
6.
TS 3.6.4.1. Action a. is modified to add that the provisions of TS 3.0.4 are not applicable and to add an alternate hydrogen sagling capability when one hydrogen analyzer is inoperable.
The evaluation of these proposed changes follows.
$g[2gg[g [
s P
1
'e.
t y, y
.[. 2.0 EVALUATION-TS 4.2.2.2.f 3 refers to surveillance requirements dealing with core power distribution which is affected by the core physical design.
The existing TS. description is incorrect in stating precise locations of grid plane lo ca tion s.
Thus, the licensee proposes clarifying and correcting the TS to more accurately define the grid plane regions around the midpoint of the grids.
The change is a correction and clarification of an error and is acceptable.
In TS Table 3.3-3, Item 3.C.2) the spelling of automatic is corrected as a typographical error and is accepteble.
TS Table 3.3.4 and Figure 3.3-1 relate to Engineered Safety Feature Actuation Systene Trip Setpoints and Tine Delay Curves.
The licensee proposes to delete Figure 3.3-1 (which is not used) and the asterisked footnote of Table 3.3.4 which refers to the Figure.
The vendor's technical manual requires a one-point calibration; therefore, the curve of Figure 3.3-1 is superfluous information not needed in the TS.
The word "and" is deleted from Table 3.3.4, Item 7.b, Allowable Values as a typo-l graphical correction.
Since all of these changes are administrative L
corrections, they are acceptable.
1 TS Table 4.3-4, Seismic Monitoring Instrumentation Surveillance Require-ments, shcus incorrect locations for certain seismic monitoring sensors on l
Unit 2.
A # footnote is added to that unit's table to show certain L
sensors actually located in Unit 1.
Also, two typographical errors in the l
asterisked footnotes are corrected.
Since these changes are administrative l.
changes and corrections of errors, they are acceptable, l.
Changes were proposed to reflect the correct address requirements for L
written correspondence to the NRC in TS 3.11.4, 6.9.1, 6.9.1.10, l
6.9.1.1.11 and 6.9.2 in accordance with 10 CFR 50.4.
Since these changes are editorial in nature, they are acceptable.
TS 3.6.4.1 relates to a requirement that two independent hydrogen analyzers be OPERABLE in Modes 1 and 2.
The licensee proposes to revise the TS to add an alternate hydrogen sampling capability when one hydrogen analyzer is inoperable.
In addition, the licensee proposes to add a statement that the provisions of TS 3.0.4 are not applicable.
This part of the proposed changes to TS 3.6.4.1 was not acted on based on TS I
guidanm specified in Generic Letter 83-37 dated Novenber 1,1983.
l That TS guidance in paragraph (9) specifies the minimum nunber of hydrogen monitors'to be operable at all times.
The licensee proposal would have negated this TMI Action (II.F.1.6).
Therefore, this change is not being made, i
w D
g g
7 o*
-3 The NRC staff considers the change to add alternate hydrogen monitoring
~
capability as appropriate.because of the additional operational
<~
flexibility allowed with no reduction in safety naryin.
Therefom, the change is acceptable.
L Fo11cwing' discussions with licensee staff in an effort to mom clearly i
specify the alternate sar@ ling capability available, the licensee.provided proposed changes to the TS Bases 3/4 6.4, Conbustible Gas Control.
These changes identify the containnent atmosphere post-accident sampling system l
as an alternative to the iydrogen analyzer.
This clarification is accept-t ab le.
The previcus no significant haz6rds determination conclusion is unaffected by the licensee's revised Bases provided by letter dated Septenber 25, 1989.
3.0
SUMMARY
Based on the evaluations, noted above, these TS changes involving I
miscellaneous administrative, editorial changes, and corrections of certain typographical errors are acceptable.
4.0 ENVII:0NMENTAL CONSIDERATION i
These amendments change a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted areas as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes to the surveillance requirements.
The staff has deterrained that these amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the. types, of arty effluents that may be released off. site; and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public coment on such finding. Accordingly, these amendnents meet the eli for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)gibility criteria
. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact-statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendnents.
4
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Comission made a proposed determination that this arendr.ent involves no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal i
Register (54 FR 29398) on July 12, 1989, and consulted with the State of Alabama.
No public comnents or requests for henring were received, and the State of Alabama did not have arly corrnents.
The Staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, t hat: (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed nenner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's
~
regulations and the issuance of these amendnents will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
Edward A. Reeves Dated: March 7, 1990
,