ML20199D843

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 61 & 52 to Licenses NPF-2 & NPF-8,respectively

ML20199D843
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	03/14/1986
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20199D836	List: ML20199D831 ML20199D843
References
TAC-60289, TAC-60290, NUDOCS 8603240374
Download: ML20199D843 (2)

Text

'#N UNITED STATES c

~ 't NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3

.g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 o

.e

%,...../

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGU4ATION RELATED TO AMEN 0 MENT NO. 61 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-2 AND AMENDMENT N0. 52 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 November 27, 1985, Alabama Power Company (APCo) proposed Technical Specification changes to revise Technical Specifications 4.2.4.2 and Action 2.d of Table 3.3-1 to allow a full core flux map for verifying the indicated Quadrant Power Tilt Ratio (QPTR) when one excore power range detector is inoperable. The present Technical Specifications only allow use of the symetric thimble locations for this function. Our evaluation of the licensee proposal follows.

Evaluation Use of a full core flux map would provide a more accurate representation of '

core perfomance than a map developed from the symetric thimble locations.

While the information from the symmetric thimbles is acceptable for

, determining the quadrant tilt, the proposed change provides an option which, in general, provides better information.

In addition, the proposed change is in agreement with the Draft Revision 5 to the Westinghcuse Standard Technical Specifications which we consider acceptable for use by all licensees.

Since the proposed Technical Specification change involves no changes which would significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, no changes which create the possibility of a new or-different kind of accident from any accidents previously evaluated and no changes which would involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, we find that it does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

Safety Sumary Based on our review of the licensee's submittal and the evaluation as noted above, we find the proposed changes to the Farley Units 1 and 2 Jechnical Specifications to be acceptable.

peaa2;ggggggag P

O Environmental Consideration These amendments involve only changes in administrative procedurp and requirements. Accordingly, these amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Section 51.22(c)(1:0). 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) 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.

Dated: March 14,1986 Principal Contributors:

M. Dunenfeld e.

'l r

I I

l

!