ML20081J648
| ML20081J648 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 03/20/1995 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20081J640 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9503280090 | |
| Download: ML20081J648 (3) | |
Text
.
.p %
9 f
t UNITED STATES i
5 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
~
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20666-0001
/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.113 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-2 AND AMENDMENT NO.104 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-8
,, SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY. INC.
JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-348 AND 50-364
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated January 9, 1995, the Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.
(the licensee), submitted a request for changes to the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Farley), Technical Specifications (TS). The requested changes implement recommended changes from Generic Letter (GL) 93-05, "Line Item Technical Specification Improvements to Reduce Surveillance Requirements for Testing During Power Operation," dated September 27, 1993.
Specifically, the amendments implement TS changes corresponding to the following GL 93-05 line-item improvement issues and numbers: Control Rod Movement Test for Pressurized Water Reactors (4.2.1); Radiation Monitors (5.14); Surveillance of Boron Concentration in the Accumulator / Safety Injection / Core Flood Tank (7.1); Containment Spray System (8.1); Hydrogen Recombiner (8.5);and Special Test Exemptions (12).
2.0 BACKGROUND
In NUREG-1366, " Improvements to Technical Surveillance Requirements," dated i
December 1992, the TS line-item improvements were identified by the NRC staff.
The TS improvements were based on an NRC study of surveillance requirements (SR) and included information provided by licensee personnel that plan, manage and perform surveillances.
The study included i~ sights from a quantitative n
risk assessment of SR based on the standard TS for Westinghouse plants and the TS for the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 2.
The staff examined operational data from licensee event reports, the nuclear plant reliability data system (NPRDS), and other sources to assess the effect of TS SR on plant operation. The NRC staff evaluated the effect of longer surveillance intervals to reduce the possibility for plant transients, wear on equipment, personnel radiation exposuure, and the burden on personnel resources.
Finally, the NRC staff considered surveillance activities for which the safety benefits are small and not justified when compared to the effects of these activities on the safety of personnel and the plant.
The NRC staff issued guidance on the proposed TS changes to all holders of operating licenses or construction permits for nuclear power reactors in GL 93-05.
9503200090 950320 PDR ADOCK 05000348
~
P PDR
1'
- i 3.0 EVALUATION The licensee proposed to revise the TS SR for Farley as described below.
1.
TS 4.1.3.1.2 - Change the frequency of the full length control rod operability test from every 31 days to quarterly.
2.
TS Table 4.3.3 - Change the frequency of the channel functional test of the radiation monitors from monthly to quarterly.
j l
3.
TS 4.5.1.2.b - Remove the surveillance requirement for i
verification of the boron concentration in the accumulator after a i
volume increase of 1 percent or more provided makeup is from the refueling water storage tank (RWST), the concentration of boron in the RWST is within the accumulator boron concentration limit, and
^
the RWST has not been diluted since the last RWST sample was verified to be within specification.
4.
TS 4.6.2.1.d - Extend the surveillance interval of the containment spray nozzles from 5 years to 10 years.
5.
TS 4.6.4.2 - Change the surveillance test interval for the hydrogen recombiner functional test from once every 6 months to once each refueling outage.
6.
TS 4.10.1.2 - Elimination of one control rod drop test if the rod drop test has been performed no more than 7 days (instead of the 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> currently in the TS) before reducing shutdown margin.
The licensee has stated that the proposed TS modifications are consistent with the guidance provided in GL 93-05 and with the Farley design and operating i
experience. The guidance in GL 93-05 is based on the NRC staff findings and recommendations stated in NUREG-1366 which recognized the importance of t
testing to periodically verify that systems, structures, and components are available to perform their safety functions. This NUREG report also 1
identified that testing is especially critical to reveal degradation and i
failures that occur while equipment is in standby mode and that while most i
testing at power is important, safety can be improved, equipment degradation i
decreased, and an unnecessary burden on personnel resources eliminated by reducing the amount of testing that the TS require during power operation.
l Based on the fact that the specific changes proposed conform to the line-item improvement guidance contained in GL 93-05, the NRC staff conelJdes that the proposed TS changes do not adversely affect plant safety and will result in a net benefit to the safe operation of the facility and, therefere, are acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the State of Alabama official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.
)
i
4 4.0 ENVIR0lMENTAL CONSIDERATION The amendments change a requirement with respect to installation or use of a 1
facility component. located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes the Surveillance Requirements.
The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involves no significant increase in the 1
released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in in cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (60 FR 8756).
Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has 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, (2) such and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical t i
defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
B. Siegel Date:
iiarch 20, 1995 i
f 1
n