ML20054A061
| ML20054A061 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054A057 | List: |
| References | |
| TASK-2.B.2, TASK-TM NUDOCS 8204150254 | |
| Download: ML20054A061 (2) | |
Text
'
/
je UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a
(
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.12 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-8 ALABAMA POWER COMPAN_Y_
JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-364 Introduction In accordance with the Unit No. 2 Facility Operating License, NPF-8, paragraph 2.C(21)(c), Alabama Power Company (APCo) was required to complete certain plant modifications by April 1,1982. These modifications involved plant shielding additions for vital area access and protection of safety equipment following an accident resulting in a degraded core. NUREG-0737 Item II.B.2.2 identifies the need for such modifications.
By letter dated February 11, 1982, APCo advised that the April 1, 1982 commitment date was based on a scheduled two week outage during Spring 1982 and receipt of the expected materials. APCo further stated that of the five major modifications to satisfy the license comitment four are completed and one not completed. The exception is the electrical penetration room modifi-cations requiring electrical disconnect installation to operate eight motor operated valves and shielding of the room door.
APCo requested an extension in the February 11, 1982 letter in time from the previous acceptable completion date of April 1,1982 until the first refueling outage or the first extended cold shutdown of sufficient duration to complete this work. Our evaluation is as follows.
Discussion and Evaluation In our Safety Evaluation Report (SER) Supplement No. 5 page 22.5-5 and 22.5-6 we discuss NUREG-0737 Item II.8.2 Plant-Shielding. At that time, the licensee committed to complete the modifications at the first outage of sufficient duration but no later than March 1982. We found this acceptable. However, although the licensee has completed four of the five modifications, material unavailability precluded completion of the final modifications during the recent shutdown which was completed on March 1,1982.
The remaining modifications to the electrical penetration room include final installation of electrical disconnects for eight motor operated valves and installing shielding for the room door. We agree that the licensee has made a diligent effort to accomplish all five of the modifications. We understand that material is now on hand and the licensee would accomplish the changes if a cold shutdown of sufficient duration occurred for other reasons.
l l
8204150254 820331 PDR ADOCK 05000364 P
. On this basis, and since a postulated accident resulting in a degraded core is a highly unlikely event during the short period of time requested, we consider the licensee's request acceptable. However, we consider that the modifications should be made promptly in the event of the occurrence of a cold shutdown period of sufficient duration after material availability even if prior to the scheduled refueling outage. We have modified License Condition 2.C(21)(c) accordingly and the licensee staff agrees with our change.
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 environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insig-nificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental 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 proba-bility 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 tne nealth and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) sucn activities will be conducted in compliance with tne Commission's regulations and the issuance of tnis amendment.will.not ce inimical to tne common oefense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date:
March 31,1982 Ihis review was accomplishea by E.
. Reeves.
j