ML20067B968

Suppls 931124 Application for Amends to Licenses NPF-2 & NPF-8 Re Relocation of Reactor Trip & ESFAS Response Time Limits,Per Guidance in Final Form of GL 93-08, Relocation of TS Tables of Instrument Response Time Limits

ML20067B968
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	02/15/1994
From:	Dennis Morey SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML20067B970	List: ML20067B968 ML20067B977
References
GL-93-08, GL-93-8, NUDOCS 9402250220
Download: ML20067B968 (2)

Text

__

. Southem Nuclear Operatog Company Post O' fee Box 1295 i B rrningham. A!abama 35201 l Telephone 905) BEB-St31

~

Ema \ ,

Dave Mo ey Southern Nudear Operating Company ,

vice Prescent - -

Fadey Project the soutern electric system

- 10 CFR 50.90 Docket Nos.: 50-348 50-364 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555 Joseph M. Earley Nuclear Plant Relocation of Reactor Trip and Engineered Safety Feature Aqmation System Respon_se Time Limits Gentlemen:

By letter dated November 24,1993, Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC) proposed to amend the Farley Unit I and Unit 2 Technical Specifications to relocate the response time limits for the Reactor Trip System (RTS) and Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) from the Technical Specifications to the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). The proposed amendment was based on NRC drail generic communications (Federal Register 58FRl81IS; April 7,1993) and included changes to Sections 3/4.3.1 and 3/4.3.2 and the associated Bases. The NRC subsequently issued Generic Letter 93-08, " Relocation of Technical Specifications Tables ofInstrument Response Time Limits," in its final form on December 29,1993. The implementation guidance found in the Generic Letter requests that each licensee: 1) confirm response time limits are included in applicable plant surveillance procedure acceptance criteria; and

2) commit to include the RTS and ESFAS response time limit tables in the next FSAR update. As such, the following information is provided to supplement our November 24, 1993 submittal. SNC reviewed the Farley time response surveillance procedures and

~rified the acceptance criteria for each RTS and ESFAS protection function is identical sponse time limits found in the Farley Technical Specifications. SNC plans to

.porate the changes associated with the relocation of the RTS and ESFAS response time tables in the 1994 Farley FSAR update. These FSAR changes are shown in Enclosure 5 of the referenced SNC letter.

In addition, SNC noted that the proposed change to Bases Section 3/4.3 must be:

1) revised to correct a conflict between the November 24,1993 submittal and the Technical Specifications changes proposed by SNC letter dated October 14,1993; and

2) updated to reflect Unit 1 Amendment No.100 and Unit 2 Amendment No. 92.

Therefore, a new marked-up page B 3/4 3-2 and a new typed page B 3/4 3-2 for both Unit I and Unit 2 are attached A revised page change instruction sheet, which deletes the instructions pertaining to page B 3/4 3-1, is also attached.

9402250220 94o215 PDR 8

P ADOCK 05000348 PDR O l

. .=. . - . . .- . - ~ . .

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 t

e I

in that the above information supplements our November 24,1993 submittal ('as requested by ~

l Generic Letter 93-08) and the revised Bases text is identical to the referenced submittal, the conclusions of the significant hazards evaluation remain valid and no changes are considered necessary.

If there are any questions, please advise.  ;

Respectfully submitted, SOUTIIERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY

[N[,,cf Dave Morey SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME TIIIS /$ DAY OF hduci A/4,1994 _ !TNhElrLbhsh NOTARY PUBlajC

                                                                                                      /btr                 1 f

My Commission Expires: 76/$ /j /99'7 MGE:maf FliBTSREV DOC Attachments  ; cc: Mr. S D. Ebneter l Mr 11 L Siegel Mr. T. M. Ross Dr. D. E. Willianison t f i I I __ _ . .}}