ML20081B625
| ML20081B625 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 10/14/1983 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20081B599 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-51999, NUDOCS 8310280114 | |
| Download: ML20081B625 (6) | |
Text
.
bR Rf C
'o, UMITED STATES 8
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
\\,'
e
./
E WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
.% hf*E
\\
_o l
...e OCT 1
- 19d SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.33 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-2 AND N0.26 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 November 16,1982, supplemented by letters dated February 1, 1983,
~
June 29, 1983 and August 23, 1983 the licensee Alabama Power Company (APC0) proposed administrative changes to the technical specifications (TS) for the Farley' Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos.1 and 2.
The changes would revise administrative controls for: onsite and offt.ite organization, environmental qualifications of safety-related electrical equipment, audit frequency of the Facility Security Plan, and revise LCO and surveillance for instrumentation, fire protection, electrical power systems, emergency core cooling system (ECCS), containment system and would delete TS 7.1 for Unit,2 only requiring an augmented low power test program.
ADMINISTRATIVE CONTR0'LS.- ONSITE AND OFFISTE ORGANIZATION (For each unit - Specification ~s 6.2.1 (Fig. 6.2-1), 6.2.2 ( ig. 6.2-2), 6.3.1, 6.5.2.2,6.5.2.6,6.5.3.l(d),6.6.J(,b),and6.7.l(b)and(d)
Discussion and Evaluation In their letter of November 16, 1982, and in the supplemental letter of June 29, 1983, APC0 proposed changes to the Administrative Controls Technical Specifica-tions for each unit, citing corporate reorganization as reason.
Formerly, the Plant Manager was directly respor!sible to the General Manager-Nuclear Generation, who was in turn responsible to the Vice President-Nuclear Generation.
In the reorganization, the Plant Manager was made directly responsible to the Vice President-Nuclear ' Generation and the position of General Manager-Nuclear Generation was retiti-led " Manager-Nuclear Operations and Administration".
The Manager-Nuclear Oper'ations and Administration, still directly responsible to the Vice President-Nuclear Generation, was removed from line responsibility for the facility, altering the quorum for the advisory Nuclear Operations Review Board.
APC0 specifically proposed changing in each unit's Technical Specifications:
Figure 6.2-1 of Specification 6.2.1, the "Offsite Organization for Facility Management and Technical Support" chart, to reflect the changed title and line responsibility; the General Manager's title in Technical Specifications 6.5.2.2, 6.5.3. 1(d), and 6.7.1(d); and the personnel responsible for line operation in Technical Specifications 6.5.2.6, 6.5.3.1(d), 6.6.1(b), and 6.7.1(b) and (d).
In their letter of February 1,1983, APCO proposed for each unit changes to Figure 6.2-2, the onsite " Facility Organization" chart, to reflect the addition of a Quality Control Supervisor and a Plant Modifications Supervisor.
In their Oochdg PDR
letter of August 23, 1983, APCO proposed additional changes to Figure 6.2-2, and a change to Technical Specification 6.3.1, which specifies minimum facility staff
_.._ __qualif.ications.
These changes are to reflect APCO's having created two positions, the Health Physics Supervisor and the Chemistry Sup,ervisor, from a former position which combined the two roles.
The proposed chart reflects that the Health Physics Supervisor reports to the Technical Superintendent except for in matters of radiation policy, where he/she reports to the Assistant Plant Manager. APCO reported one other change to Figure 6.2-2, this to show the change of the title of the Training Supervisor to " Training Director".
The reorganizational changes that allow the Plant Manager to report directly to the corporate officer responsible for the facility will not diminish plant supervi sion.
No minimum job qualifications specified in the FSAR were lessened in the reorganization and addition of personnel; the person.nel additions would in fact allow for an increase' in the supervision of the facility. -All of the changes proposed to the Administrative Controls Technical Specifications are administrative, and are necessary in order to reflect the present facility personnel organization.
The changes are accepted as proposed by the licensee, and are incorporated into the Technical Specifications.
ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS - ENVIRONMENTAL QUAL;IFICATIONS (Specification 6.16 - Unit No. I only) 01scussion and Evaluation In their letter of February 1,19'83, APCO cited 10 CFR 50.49, which suspends the June 30, 1982 deadline for completion of the environmental qualification of safety-related electrical equipment, and the recordkeeping which would have been required for the program. APC0 proposed the deletion of the Unit No. 1 Administ-rative Controls Technical Specification that calls for compliance with the now suspended. regulation deadline.
APCO's proposal is acceptable as 10 CFR 50.49 supersedes the Technical Specification.
l The proposed is accepted as submitted by the licensee. Technical Specification 6.16 in license NPF-2 (Unit 1) is deleted.
ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS - AUDITS l
(Specification 6.5.2.8(f) for each unit) l Oiscussion and Evaluation In their letter of February 1,1983, APCO. proposed a change to the Administrative l
Controls Technical Specification 6.5.2.h(f) for each unit, citing in 10 CFR l
73.55(g)(4) the requirement that the Facility Security plan be audited every l
12 months, not every 24 months as instructed in the Specification ibe proposee l
change is acceptable since the Technical Specifications should be updated to conform with the Code of Federal Regulations.
l
For each unit, Specificat' ion 6.5.2.8(f) is accepted as submitted by APC0 and replaces the existing Specification.
LCOs AND SURVEILLANCE - INSTRUMENTATION (For each unit - Specifications 3.3.2 (Table 3.3-3), 3.3.3.7 (Table 3.3-10), and 3.3.3.9 (Table 3.3-12))
Discussion and Evaluation APCO proposed in their letter dated February 1,1983, a change to each unit's Technical Specification 3.'3.2 (Table 3.3-3); in each Action Statement 20 the Pressurizer Pressure Interlock is misidentified as "P-4".
APC0 stated that the errors should be corrected to read as "P-11".
These proposed corrections are administrative in nature; they do not affect the performance of a system and are necessary in order to reflect plant design.
d APC0 also proposed changes to Technical Specifications 3.3.3.7 (Table 3.3-10) and 3.3.3.9 (Table 3.3-12) for both units, respectively dealing with High Energy Line Break Sensor and Fire Detector locations.
The proposed changes to Table 3.3-10 are administrative, correcting the sensor location descriptions as to agree with as-built conditions, noting sensors which service both units, and Unit No. 2 sensors which alarm in the Unit No. I control room area.
These notes were modified by the staff with the licensee's concurrence.
The changes to Table 3.3-12 are also administrative, these being:
the additional tabulation of sensors added in order to comply wtth NRC regulations; the correction of two room descriptions in which sensors are loca'ted (Unit No. 2 only); and changes to Table 3.3-12 making more clear the fire detector locations for both units.
The changes to both Tables 3.3-10 and 3.3-12 are acceptable; each change in no manner affects the performance of a system and is necessary to update the Technical Specifications.
The proposed changes, are accepted as submitted and amend the corresponding Specifications for each unit.
LCO's AND SURVEILLANCE - FIRE PROTECTION - YARO FIRE HYORANTS, HYDRANT HOSF STATIONS (Specification 3.711-6 (Table 3 7-7))
Discussion and Evaluation
-APCO proposed in the letter dated February 1, 1983, to amend the Technical Specification 3.7.11.5 (Table 3.7-7) for each unit noting that two Unit No. 2's fire hydrants were mistakenly listed in the Unit No. 1 Technical Specific 1tions.
and that a fire hydrant servicing both units was misnumbered in the Unit No. 2 Technical Specifications.
APCO also,s,uggested denoting with asterisks and foot-notes the hydrants shared by both units.
The Staff in review corrected the listed location of a hydrant'in the Unit No. 2 table; Hydrant N1Y43102 is north-west, not north, of the Auxiliary Building.
The Staff also noted that the " List of Sorinkler Sy< tams" on Page 3/4 7-87 of the Unit No.1 Technical Specifications was titled " Table 3.7-7"; this is an error.
The title was corrected to read
" Table 3.7-5" The actual Table 3.7-7 appears on page 3/4 7-93 of the Unit No. 1 Technical Specifications.
Based on the above discussion the proposed administrative changes are acceptable LCOs AND SURVEILLANCE - ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS (For each unit - Specifications 3.8.2.5 and 4.8.2.S.2)
I 4_
Discussion and Evaluation APC0 noted in their letter of February 1, 1983, that Technical Specifications ~
4,8.2.5.2(d), 4.8.2.5.2(a), and 3.3.2.5 (Action Statement) require that the plant must be in shutdown within eight hours after one train of the Service Water Building 0.C. Distribution System becomes inoperable.
Since Units,No. 1 and No. 2 share a single system, the Technical Specification for each unit incorrectly implies that both units must be in shutdown during a battery discharge test.
The intent of the Technical Specifications is not to require that a train be tested only during a shutdown of both units, but that during the dischar3e and recharge steps of'a test, that at least one unit must be in shutdown. With the exemption delineated in the Technical Specification 3.8.2.5 ACTION Statement for each unit - which allows for the brief inoperability of a single O.C. distribution system - there must be at all times at least one operable train per operating unit.
APC0 proposed the deletion of the words "during shutdown" in 4.8.2.5.2(d) and (e) of the Technical Specifications of each unit.
This deletion would not be administrative as APC0 stated in their letter of February 1,1983, but would be a technical change.
This change is unacceptable, since it would allow for the operation of both units for a considerable time period with but one operable train; also, the discharge tests should be pstformed during regularly scheduled snutdowns, and there snould be no need to test the catteries during the operation of both units.
The Technical Specification for each unit will be corrected by an administrative char.ge in replacing the words "during shutdown" in 4.8.2.5.2(d) and (e) with "during a shutdown of either unit"; as well, APCO's-proposed fon+ note to the 3.8.2.5 ACTION STATEMENT which allows for the testing described in 4.8.2.5.2(d) and (e) without the shutdown of both units - will be added as submitted.
These l
changes will relieve the.. licensee of unreasonable hardship, yet will take safety into account by requiring that at least one unit is to be in shutdown during a f
battery bank and charger. test.
The licensee has a choice of testing Train "A"
.during one unit's shutdown and Train "B" during the other unit's shutdown, or testing both trains during the shutdown of single unit (without having both trains inoperable concurrently in either scheme).
With the modifications suggested by tne Staff anc agreec to by the licensee, the submitted administrative changes to each unit's Specifications are accepted and l
amend the existing Specifications.
i LCO's AND SURVEILLANCE - ECCS (For each unit - Specifications 4.5.1.1(c), 4.5.2(a) and 4.5.2(d))
l l
l l
Discussion and Evaluation In the letter of February 1,1983, APC0 proposed administrative changes to Technical Specifications 4.5.1.1(c) and 4.5.2(a), noting that automatic disconnect devicas had bcca inst:11ed for several ECCS valves within the containment area of each,. unit in accordance with NUREG-0737, Item II.B.2.
APC0 suggested that the Specifications should, for clarity, read " disconnect device" instead of " breaker".
APC0 also proposed changing 4.5.2(d) for each unit, to reflect that each RHR system automatic isolation and interlock action is verified between 700 and 750 psig, not "above 750 psig" as stated in the Specificatians.
A.PCO also stated that the footnote to the Unit No. 2 Technical Specification
~
4.5.2(a) should be edited to read " pump 2A" instead of " pump 1A"; this will be an administrative change.
The Staff agrees with APCO that the above changes are justified, and will not affect the performance of a system.
The ch'ange proposals are accepted as submitted by APC0 and amend the existing Technical Specifications for each unit.
LCOs AND SURVEILLANCE - CONTAINMENT SYSTEM (For Unit No.1 - Specifications 3.6.1.7 and 4.6.1.7.2)
Discussion and Evaluation
" APCO proposed in their letter dated February 1,1983, the changing of Technical Specifications 3.6.1.7 and 4.6.1.7.2 for each unit.to read "8 inch containment vent" (valves) instead of "18 inch containment purge" (3.6.1.7) and "18 inch purge" (4.6.1.7.2).
APCO is replacing, in the current fourth refueling outage, the Unit No. 1 purge valves with vent valves in compliance with NUREG-0737, Item II.E.4.2.
The changes would reflect this compliance.
L The proposed changes are accepted as submitted and are incorporated into the Technical Specifications for e'ach unit.
AUGMENTED LOW POWER TEST PROGRAM
.(Specification 7.1 For Unit No. 2 only)
Discussion and Evaluation APC0 proposed, in their letter dated February 1,1983, the deletion of the Technical Specification 7.1 for Unit No. 2, which had exempted the licensee from following the requirements identified in Table A of the NRC Safety Evaluation enclosed with Amendment 2 to license HPF-0. The test oroaram was performed in 1981; the exemptions are no longer needed and Specification 7.1 should be deleted.
Based on the above discussion we find the deletion of Technical Specification 7.1 for Unit 2 acceptable, s
s w
,--m
,n-
,..-.,.,w,---,-.3,-
-w,-
m
,,-s.
v--
,,,w-,,-
.. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION We have determined that the two amendments do not authorize changes in effluent types or total amounts, nor increases in power levels, and will not result in any significant environmental impact.
Having made this determination, we ha've further concluded that ti.e amendments involve actions which are insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5(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, 162 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 the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated:
October 14, 1983 Principal Contributor: Frank Watts l
l l
_. _ _ _