ML20210K273

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 63 & 54 to Licenses NPF-2 & NPF-8,respectively

ML20210K273
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	04/16/1986
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20210K267	List: ML20210K261 ML20210K273
References
TAC-60293, TAC-60294, NUDOCS 8604280217
Download: ML20210K273 (2)

Text

__

./

\\

UNITED STATES 8

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION L

o wasmmorow.o. c.roess c

\\.....

l f

j SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 63 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-2 AND AMENDMENT NO. 54 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-8 ALABAMA POWER COMPANY JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 l

DOCKET NOS. 50-348 AND 50-364 i

Introduction and Evaluation l

Generic Letter 85-19, Reporting Requirements on Primary Coolant Iodine Spikes, is part of an ongoing Consnission effort to delete unnecessary reporting requirements. The NRC staff determined that reporting requirements related to primary coolant specific activity levels, specifically iodine spikes, 1

can be reduced from a short term report to an item to be included in the l

I annual report. Also, the staff detennined that existing shutdown requirements i

based on exceeding the primary coolant iodine activity limits for an accumulated

)

period of over 800 hours0.00926 days <br />0.222 hours <br />0.00132 weeks <br />3.044e-4 months <br /> are no longer necessary. This is based on an

]

improvement in the quality of nuclear fuel over the past 10 years since 4

appropriate licensee actions would be initiated long before approaching the limit as currently specifiel.

By Generic Letter 85-19, the NRC staff reported these findings and provided j

model Technical Specifications (TS) in Standard Technical Specifiestion format to all licensees for consideration. The model TS deleted Action Statement a.

l which required a plant shutdown when coolant activity exceeded a cumulative l

j~

spiking limit. Alabama Power Company (APCo) proposed amending the Farley Units j

1 and 2 TS's to match the model TS which are acceptable. APCo also included in l

l the amendment request a proposal to change the definition of Dose Equivalent Iodine 131 (DEI-131) from one compatible with the TID 14844 dose conversion s

}

factors (DCFs) to the newer, less restrictive (i.e., results in lower doses)

Regulatory Guide 1.109 DCFs. This change would bring the DEI definition used by APCo in line with that used in Generic Letter 85-19. Since the Farley Final i

~

Safety Analysis Report doses, still based on TID 14844 DCFs, would remain bounding, no increase in offsite consequences would result from this change.

I j

Safety Summary

]

i t

l Because there will be no change in offsite consequences and the.preposed l

amendment is consistent with NRC staff guidance contained in Generic Letter l

j 85-19 and Regulatory Guide 1.109, we find the proposed Technical Specifications acceptable.

l l

i 4

'.. 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 exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards c'ersideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, these amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Sec 51.22(c)(9). These amendments also involve changes in recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or requirements. Accordingly, with respect to these items, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10). 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:

April 16,1986 1

Principal Contributor:

H. E. Gilpin e

i r-,