ML20076B091
| ML20076B091 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 08/02/1983 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20076B090 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-51892, TAC-51893, NUDOCS 8308190067 | |
| Download: ML20076B091 (2) | |
Text
.
pD Cto v o
UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 t
\\
/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 32 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-2 AND AMENDMENT NO. 24 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-8 ALABAMA POWER COMPANY JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-348 AND 50-364 INTRODUCTION By letter dated June 20, 1983, supplemented ~ by letter dated June 29, 1983, Alabama Power Company (APCo) proposed to delete "during shutdown" in Technical Specification 4.7.5.b to preclude unnecessary shutdown of both Farley units for testing and inspection of the river water system. APCo had previously proposed changes to delete entirely the river water system portion of the Technical Specifications. However, our review of the earlier proposed amendment is still under review and would not be completed prior to APCo's requested date. On this basis, and since APCo had not previously documented that a dual plant shutdown was required to perform the surveillance shown in the original Farley Technical Specifications, this administrative oversite would now need to be corrected on a more expedited basis.
Our evaluation follows.
DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION Our review of APCo's proposals indicate that the change is purely administrative to correct an error made when the Technical Specifications were issued.
The change would delete the words "during shutdown" from Specification 4.7.5.b.
The error, if not corrected, would require shutdown of both units on August 3, 1983, to accomplish checks which can be performed at the required 18-month interval without shutting down the plants. Two checks required to be done by Technical Specifications to demonstrate operability of each river water loop are:
(1) One check would operate a diversion valve when a low m d level signal occurs to divert river water normally going to the 3 cd then to the service water wet pit.
River water either flowing noi wly to the pond or during diversion to the wet pit will maintain the existing service water cooling system margin of safety. APCo states that this check can be done while both units are operating without affecting the validity of the test or affecting the plant operation.
(2) The second check is a visual inspection of the ground area above the buried river water pipir.g to inspect for leakage.
This check also does not depend upon the status of plant operation and would not affect plant operation.
8308190067 830802 PDR ADOCK 05000348 P
T e
SAFETY SUM: TAR _Y_
Based on the considerations noted above, and since all of the required tests of Technical Specification 4.7.5.b will be accomplished at the stated intervals, deletion of the words "during shutdown" would have no effect on plant safety.
Thus, the administrative correction is acceptable.
FINAL fl0 SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION On July 13, 1983, the Commission published a notice in the Federal Register (48 FR 32110) seeking public comments on its proposed determination that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
No public comments were received to date.
The licensee by letter dated June 29, 1983, stated, and we agree, that the change proposed is administrative in that the two surveillances may be performed at power.
The requirement to conduct them during shutdown is in error. Other circumstances precluded the Cortunission from completing the review of the licensee's earlier proposal to delete the river water system Technical Specifications entirely.
Therefore, as discussed in licensee letters of June 20 and 29,1983, and discussed above, circumstances justify this expedited action by the Commission.
Without issuance of these amendments prior to August 3,1983, both Farley units would be shutdown for testing of the river water system. The S+. ate of Alabama was consulted on this matter and had no comments on the proposed determination. As discussed above, the correction of the administrative error which occurred when the licensee proposed and the Commission approved and issued the original Technical Specifications would not constitute a reduction in safety margins. The change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
~
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Therefore, the Commission has made a final determination that the amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION We hahe determined that the amendments do 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 amendments involve an action which is insignificant 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 these amendments.
CONCLUSION We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1)there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: August 2, 1983 Principal Contributor:
E. A. Reeves
.