ML20051G688
| ML20051G688 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 05/05/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20051G659 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8205170150 | |
| Download: ML20051G688 (2) | |
Text
~
l
'v N
. ~..
.. -. -. ~..
T o.a no,
u o,
UNITED STATES
! j,.- ;
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2.-
l W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%, w ]
i SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO 13 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-8 ALABAMA POWER COMPANY JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 00CKET NO. 50-364
_ Int oduction By letters dated October 28 and November 16, 1981 and March 18, 1982, Alabama Power Company (APCo) proposed changes to the Technical Specifications, 3
1 i
These changes are based on the recent changes reviewed and approved for Farley Unit No. I by License Amendment No. 26 dated March 1,1982.
The most significant changes proposed were changes to Fg to allow plugging of steam generators first row tubes and the improvements in diesel generator operation and survei'llance. These change's were proposed previously by letters dated October 28 and November 16, 1981 and were included in Amendment I
No. 23 fo r Uni t No ~. 1.
Our evaluation is as follows.
f Discussi_on and Evaluation We have reviewed APCo's proposed changes to the Unit No. 2 Technical Spectfi-cations. We find the changes to be identical to those previously evaluated in our Safety Evaluation, Enclosure 2 to Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit No.1. Licensing Amendment No. 26, dated March 1,1982. We incorporate that SER by reference.
These changes for Unit No. 2 Technical Specifications are identical and -
consistent with those which we approved for Unit No.1.
Complete consistency and uniformity between the Unit No.1 and Unit No. 2 Technical Specifications are now completed except for certain Unit No. 2 requirements (Near Term Operating License items) which we did not require for Unit No.1.
lllf l!
This action will minimize the potential for confusion and Technical l'
Specification violations and allow the consistent basis for operating, maintenance, and surveillance for both units.
(;
l Thus, we conclude that the proposed Technical ~ Specification changes are accepta bl e.
'i l1
'R20517o/go m
w n
M PaM*-y 6
.>. a
. -_ 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 significant environnental impact. Having made this determination, we have further cpncluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 561.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration :nd 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, thati (1) because the amendmerm does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and dces not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) 4 there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the pubife will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner,'and (3) such activities will be conducted in conpliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendnent wf11 not'be inimical l
to tne cornon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
i 1 8
Date: May 13,1982 1
The principal contributor to this evaluation is E. A. Reeves, Project Manager.
l t
I 4
1 4
4
]
q l
y v
Sa'ewc M
4*