ML20059M825
| ML20059M825 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 10/01/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059M823 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9010050312 | |
| Download: ML20059M825 (3) | |
Text
,
+#,p ur UNITED STATES
[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
s I
wAsmwovow. o. c. rose
%,e...*
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF. NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION y
SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. u TO FACILITY OPERATING. LICENSE NO. NPF-2 AND AMENDMENT.N0. 77 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-8 ALABANA POWER COMPANY JOSEPH.M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-348 AND 50-364
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated June 15, 1990, the Alabama Power Company submitted a request to delete the load profile tables used for battery service testing of the auxiliary building and the service water Class IE batteries from certain sections of the Technical Specifications. The deleted load profile tables are to be replaced with statements requiring battery service testing to equivalent load profiles based on anticipated breaker operations and other electrical loads during loss of offsite power and loss-of-coolant accident conditions.
Equivalent battery load profiles are explicitly defined in the Final Safety Analysis Report Update (FSAR). The proposed revised sections of the Technical Specifications note that these profiles are described in the FSAR. Thus, by removing the specific load profile tables from the Technical Specifications, subsequent revision of battery load profiles will not require revising the Technical Specifications.
Future changes to the load profiles will be performed in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59, 2.0 EVALUATION Deletion of the load profile tables from the Technical Specifications will not change the surveillance testing of the batteries as currently being performed. The proposed Technical Specifications state that the batteries shall be subjected to surveillance testing using an equivalent load profile based on anticipated breaker operations as described in the FSAR.
Referencing the FSAR lud profiles in the Technical Specification sur-veillance requirements will ensure that the batteries are subjected to a design basis load profile service test. As battery service testing will still be required to be performed in a manner which will demonstrate their operability for design basis events, the proposed changes are considered administrative in nature and do not impact the technical basis used to support the safe operation of the facility.
$k"$Nf h$Nye i
e m
l l
9 2
-3.0
SUMMARY
l The staff concludes that the proposed changes to the Technical Specifications conform to the applicable regulatory requirements and do not impact the technical bases used to support operation of the facility.. Based on this.
we find these changes to be acceptable.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
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 the surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that these amendments involve r significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the :ypes of any effluents that i
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 l
significant hazards consideration,: and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, these amendments meet the eli for categorical exclusion set-forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)gibility criteria
(
Pursuant to 10-CFR51.22(b),noenvironmentalimpactstatementorenvironmentalassessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission made a proposed determination that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (55 FR 28473) on July 11, 1990, and consulted with the State of Alabama. No public comments or requests for hearing were received, and the State of Alabama did not have any comments.
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations diwussed above, that: (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the p(ublic will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner 2)suc regulations, and (3) the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: October 1, 1990 Principal Contributors:
F. Ashe i
S. Hoffman 1
l