ML20107J995
| ML20107J995 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 10/17/1984 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20107J992 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-55609, TAC-55610, NUDOCS 8411120431 | |
| Download: ML20107J995 (4) | |
Text
_
. J ' %q%
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i.;.NITED STATES
~.,#
- _g $],g j WASHtNGTON, D. C. 20555 7 3 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REA RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 51 TO FACILITY OPERAT AND AMENDMENT N0.42 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICEN ALABAMA POWER COMPANY JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR FLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-348 AND 50-364 INTRODUCTION By letter dated Aucust 17, 1984, Alabama Power Company (tne licensee) requested a change to Technical Specification surveillance requirements for the auxiliary feedwater system.
Specification 4.7.1.2.2 sets forth surveillance-requirements to demonstrate that each feedwater pump is oper-able including the positioning of automatic valves in the flow path to As a consequence of subsequent changes, the auxil-each steam generator.
iary feedwater control valves were modified from cormally closed to norm-Due to an administrative oversight, these valves were not ally open.
placed in a closed position prior to the previous surveillance test to The Technical Spe-verify the automatic opening feature of these valves.
cification stipulates a surveillance frequency of 18 months with a grace period of plus 25% or 4.5 months as the time limit for which operability If the may be assumed based on performance of the surveillance test.
surveillance test is not repeated prior to the expiration of this time limit, a limiting condition for continued plant operation would be ex-ceeded.
The licensee notes that the surveillance requirements are specific in that it is stipulated that the tests are to De ccnductecluring snutcrwn at 8411120431 841017
~
PDR ADOCK 05000348 P
r the frequency-o# at least once per 18 mcnths.
hc eva", the licard-e c.:s determined that the surveillance test could be performed during plant operation. Therefore, tne licensee has proposed Inat the plan; Teuniicc.
Specification be modified celeting the requirement that this surveillarc5
. test must be performed during plant shut down.
This change would then allow the test to be performed during plant operation and negate the ne-cessity of a plant shutdown for the sole purpose of satisfying the sur-veillance requirement.
EVALUATION Surveillance tests to demonstrate the operability of the auxiliary feed-water pumps are included under specification 4.7.1.2.2.
Item b. identi-fies four ' separate surveillance tests to be performed at least once per 18 months dur'ng plant shutdown.
Item b.1 includes verification that" each valve in the flow path actuates to its correct position on an auto-matic pump start signal.
Items b.2, b.3, and b.4 include verification of automatic starting of motor and turbine driver pumps and operability tests of the turbine drive pump steam admission valves when air is supplied from their respective air accumulators.
The f.act that Item b. notes that these tests are to be conducted during a plant shutdown is more the result of the practicality of desired plant conditions for the conduct of inese tests rather than a specific requirement essential to the validity of the test in demonstrating system operability.
Further, the frequency of 18 months coincides with normal frequency of plant shutdown for refuel-ing.
m
o Tra licensee has proposed _that the stipulation that testing for itss b.1 be modified to eliminate the necessity that the plant be shutdown for the conduct cf this test.
SAFETY
SUMMARY
Sir.ce this is an administrative change that does not alter the required test frequency nor impact the validity of the surveillance requirement, we find that the proposed change is acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION These amendments involve a change in the installation or use of the facilities components located within the restricted areas as defined in 10 CFR 20.
The staff has determined that there amenoments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is r.o significant increase in individual or cumulative occupation radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards consioeration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, these amendments meets
~
the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Sec 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 these amendments.
L
4-f CONCLUSICN We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
. (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the
- public will net 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.
-Dateo:
October 17,ID34 PRINCIPAL' CONTRIBUTOR:
T. Dunning s
O 4
e 0