ML20070U026
| ML20070U026 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 01/31/1983 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20070U017 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8302100112 | |
| Download: ML20070U026 (2) | |
Text
~
~
d UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
o
{
,I wAsHWGTON, D. C. 20666
\\...../
~
SAft.it EVALUATION BY~THE OFFICE'0F'MUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0. 28 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-2
-ALABAMA POWER COMPANY JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NO.1 DOCKET NO. 50-348 t
Introduction F
By letter dated November 5,1982, Alabama Power Company (APCo) proposed to amend Facility Operating License No. NPF-2 Technical Specification 4.7.9 e for the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit No.1.
The proposal would change the effective date for certain mechanical snubber functional tests from the fourth refueling cutage until the fifth refueling outage. APCo
[
stated that test equipment was not commercially available until mid-1982; that there was insufficient time to purchase, receive and install the equipment and to train personnel in time for the fourth refueling outage starting' in January 1983. We have mcdified the proposal to include compen-satory snubber stroke tests during the fourth refueling outage. APCo staff personnel have agreed to this modification. Our discussion and evaluation I
follows.
Discussion and Evaluation The Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit No. I has Technical Specifications which include safety related mechanical snubbers in the inservice surveillance program. This program isAn accordance with the NRC Standard Technical Speci-fications and was issued for Unit No.1 by License Amendment No. 26 dated l
March 1,1982< The mechanical snubber surveillance program includes'a funca.
l tional test which required development of special test equipment. Since the test equipment was in the final developmental stage when the Unit No.1 Technical Specifications were upgraded in March 1982, APCo agreed to obtain such equipment for use during the fourth refueling outage. Therefore, a footnote was added to Technical Specification 4.7.9.e making the specification effective prior to startup following the fourth refueling outage. The fourth outage is scheduled to start January 14, 1983 AlabaN Power Company has examined available te.t equipment in the market needed to perform the required test on the mechanical snubbers and is in the process of making a decision. However, it is unlikely that the equipment will be available for the forthcoming refueling outage. Therefore; APCo requested perdssion to perfom the required testing on nechanical snubbers during the next (fifth) refueling outage. After discussions with _ th6 NRC staff, APCo proposed compensatory manual stroke tests of the mechanical snubbers during the fourth refueling outage.
8302100112 830131 PDR ADOCK 05000348 p
4 Our review indicates that APCo made a reasonable effort to obtain the equipment necessary for perfomance of the snubber functional testing.
Since that equipment will not be available and since personnel training in it's use has not been completed prior to the scheduled outage, we consider that the proposed manual stroke testing is a most meaningful alternative. The proposed manual stroke testing will not provide the same level of confidence for snubber performance during low probability seismic.
events as would the functional testing. However, manual stroke testing will provide significant additional assuranct that the mechanical snubbers at Farley NuclearcFlant, thiit No. I will remain free to move as required for nomal plant operation and anticipated transients. The manual stroke of a snubber would assure the capability of the mechnical snubter to move through the required range of uotion and would confirm that design loading on piping and other fluid systems components would not be exceeded due to snubber malfunction during operation. In addition, the absence of unusual sounds or other abnomalities during the manual stroke testing would offer significant evidence that the snubber is capable of performing for the limited time period of one more fuel cycle. -
Safaty Summary Based on our evaluation, noted above, we conclude that the licerisee proposal, as modified, is acceptable for one additional fuel cycle. We have revised the Technical Specification footnote".accordingly.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an iacrease in power level and L
will not result in any significant enviromental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is fr.significant fra the standpoint of L
enviromental impact and.. pursuant to 10 CFR {51.5(d)(4), that an j
environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environ-l mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the j
l issuance of this amendment.
1 Conclu.si._on We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed.abovs. that-(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previous ~1y evaluated, does not create the possibility of an accident of a type different from
~.
any eaaluated previously, ar:I does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, the acendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health
(
and safety of.the public will not be endangered by operation in the l
proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's re;;ulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: January 31s 1953 i
r Principal Contributors:
H. Shaw p
E. A. Reeves l