ML20149D181
| ML20149D181 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 09/21/1984 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20149D170 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-54452, TAC-54453, NUDOCS 8802090403 | |
| Download: ML20149D181 (3) | |
Text
[pa arog o,
UNITED STATES
[},-
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7l
,j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%..a ]
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 43 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-2 AND AMENDMENT NO. 39 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE ND. NPF-8 ALABAMA POWER COMPANY JOSEFH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT N05.1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-348 AND 50-364 INTRODUCTION By letter dated March 1,1984, Alabama Power Company (APCo) proposed changes to Technical Specifications identified as administrative corrections. APCo stated that recent operating experience identified the need for changes. Supporting background and justifications were provided "to achieve consistency throughout the Technical Specifications, correction of an error, or a changes in nomenclature." Our evaluation of the licensee's proposed changes fol, low.
DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION 1.
Reactor Trip System Instrumentation Surveillance Requirements Table 4.3-1 (Units 1 and 2)
In their letter of March 1,1984, APCo proposed changes to the Technical Scecifications which would alter the frequency of performance of a nuclear instrumentation channel calibration.
The calibration involves comparison of incore and excore axial flux differences and requires the performance of a flux mapping. The proposed revision would change the frequency of perforence from monthly when above 15i, rated thermal power to every 31 effective full power days to correct the inconsistency with specifications 4.2.2.2.d.1(b) and 4.2.3.1.b, an administrative error.
The proposed change would coordinate this surveillance with other Technical Specification Surveillances which also require flux mapping, thus reducing the number of flux mapping evolutions performed, and the wear on movable incore detector system components.
Because incore to excore axial flux differences vary with core burnup, the use of effective full power days to establish performance frequency is acceptable.
2.
Containment Isolation Valves Table 3.6-1 (Units 1 and 2)
In their letter of March 1,1984, APCo proposed changes to Table 3.6-1 of the Technical Specifications which would change the identification numbers 8802090403 040921 PDR ADOCK 05000348 P
! of eight containment isolation valves.
The revised numbers would match the actual identification numbers of the vnives. These proposed thanges are purely administrative in nature and are acceptable.
3.
Facility Organization Figure 6.2-2 (Units 1 and 2)
In their letter of March 1,1984, APCo proposed several changes to the facility organization. The most significant of these were a change in the title of the Chemistry Supervisor to Chemistry and Environmental Supervisort and the addition of a Computer Services Supervisor to the organization.
No significant responsibility changes were associated with the Chemistry and Environmental Supervisor title change, rather the proposed title more closely reflects the responsibilities of the position.
The addition of the Computer Services function reflects the importance the licensee places in this function in supporting the operation of the Farley Nuclear Plant.
Several other minor changes were made to the organization chart including the changes of the title of the Performance and Planning Superintendent to System Performance and Planning luperintendent; and the inclusion in the organization chart of staff personnel reporting to the Planning Supervisor, System Performance Supervisor, Plant Modifications Supervisor, and Quality Control Supervisor.
These proposed changes are purely administrative in nature and are acceptable.
4 Fire Suppression Water System Specification 3,7.11.1.c (Unit 1)
In their letter of March 1,1984, APCo proposed changes t.o the Technical Specifications which would correct certain references to sections relating to fire suppression water system operability. The proposed changes are purely administrative in nature and are acceptable.
SAFETY
SUMMARY
In conclusion, we find that the licensee's proposed changes to the Technical Specifications are administrative in nature and are 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 these amendments 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 no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposu re. The Commission has previously iss'ued a proposed finding that 1
a
'~
- l l
these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration 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.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1)
c-a is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of tne 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 commor defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: September 21, 1984 Principal Contributor:
D. S. Price, Region II
.