ML20032B190
| ML20032B190 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 10/20/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20032B189 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111050174 | |
| Download: ML20032B190 (2) | |
Text
'
'o, UNITED STATES E"
"i NUOL EAR REGULATORY CPMMISSION
.p WASHINGTON, D. C. 205b5 k.....,/
l SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION l
RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 9 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-8 ALABAMA POWER COMPANY JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 00r"ET NO. 50-364 Introduction Our Safety Evaluation Report (SER) Supplement 5, issued in March 1981 dis-cusses the Residual Heat Removal System (RHR) in Section 6.5.
The SER l
describes the capability of the RliR System 6t Farley Nuclear Plant in meeting Branch Technical Position RSB 5-1, " Design Requirements of the Residual Heat I
Removal Systems." This position requires that a natural circulation test with supporting analysis be conducted to demonstrate the ability to cool down and ciepressurize the plant and to demonstrate that boron mixing is sufficient under such circumstances. On the basis of the SER, the Operating License No. NPF-8 was conditioned in Section 2.C(9) to require all tests relating to natural circulation to be done prior to exceeding 5 percent power except for the boron mixing test. Those tests required prior to exceeding 5 percent power are completed. The natural circulation cooldown with boron mixing test results were scheduled to be done within 60 days after operation for 25,000 MW(e)-days. By letter dated September 16, 1981, Alcbama Power Company ( APCo), the licensee, requested deletion of this license condition.
Our evaluation of the request fo14ws.
Discussion and Evaluatioa APCo advises that the test has not been conducted yet and that the 60-day time interval after operation for 25,000 MW(e)-days will expire about Octo'oer 13, 1981. As indicated in the Farley Unit 2 SER Supplement 5, this test is not necessary for first cycle operation of Farley Unit 2.
The 60-day time interval after operation for 25,000 MW(e) days was selected as a time period during which it was likely that the plant would be shut down and the test performed. However, with the loss of Unit 1 for an extended period of time due to a fault in the main turbine generator, a convenient opportunity did not present itself to perform this test and the licensee has requested deletion of this requirement.
In addition, the licensee has confirmed that existing Emergency Operating Procedure "EOP-7, Loss of All AC Power," include a section on natural-circulation coldown with boron mixing and that the operators have been trained on the simulator for this operation.
8111050174 811020 PDRADOCK05000g P
g.
T+q q
~C
^
p i
y_
- n J
e ighs f,
u s i q
,b
- 1..
s
N 3,
.g $
i i,
' 's
.n.
"f
.)
\\
W 2;
, y 4
7 e
3
_(
i s
y y
(,~ ot t
.j
- 'i" i Egced on the, evaluation in the Fa'rley' Unit 2 SER Supplement 5 and the I-
' l' discussion 01cve,'we conclude that;while we cannot concur with deletion of f[do@Ktest. requirement, deferral of'this test until the first refueling sh
~
~"
ttff
'is acceptable. Accordingly, we will require the licensee to. submit Vt% test results of the. natural circul'ation tests with boron mixing prior y to startup folllowing the.first refueling.
t
'8 c,
dn'iironmental Consideration.
).
We'have Mtermined that the amendrient does not authorize'a change in efflueet types or total amounts no'r' an increase in power leve7,and will. not. result in any signifigant environmental impact. Having made this de%eruination, we have further cpncluded that the amendment
}
involves arCaction which environmental impact and,js insignificant frcri the standpoint of-
- pursucnt to 10 CFR 51.5(d)(4),;tha t ait
. environmental. impact statement or negativo declaration and env. iron-1
,r imental impact appraisal need notJe prepared in connection wi;h the b
issuance of this amendment.
t Conclusion t
We have'conckUded/ b'ased on the co'nsiderptions discussed above, thati (1) because the amendment doercat iinvolv'e a significant increase in the probability or conseque'nces of aEcidents previously considered and does not' involve a' signif(cant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not-involve' a,49,niftcan*.Tazards consideration, (?)
there is reyonable dssurance that the ifehlth and safety of the public will not be endangerediby operatloq in the proposed manner, and (3)
'. y such acti'tgies will be conducted in'#rypliance with the Commission't regulation
' the issuan'ca of this amendnent will not be inimical' ytH to the ci fense and security or to the herith and safety of, p
y the publ.
"' ~ (
,m cate:
OCT H 19s h k
. s 5,a s
s
(
tr
(
f
!~
r l
s'51 v [ '.,
l, j
y 'g
'1l Q ' '; 1 v
't
.yi y ;
+ v \\' '
A j
y-i 1
(
.s i,
f
'~
t f
s
/.
's e
5~
i'(
s e.
{
s l-
~
s V
~
r l
h 7
'Q 1
b ( I' g
s
[\\
i' M U,1
. -