ML20072M791
| ML20072M791 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 07/08/1983 |
| From: | Clayton F ALABAMA POWER CO. |
| To: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8307150095 | |
| Download: ML20072M791 (4) | |
Text
T Nailing Aadress
- 6J h 18 h S re t Post Office Box 2641 Birmingham, Alabama 35291 Telephone 205 783-6081 F. L. Clayton, Jr.
Senior Vree President Fhntndge Building AlabamaPower thesoumem electnc system July 8, 1983 Docket No. 50-348 Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. Si Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Attention: Mr. S. A. Varga Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant - Unit 1 Inaccessible Hydraulic Snubber Visual Inspection One-Time Change to Technical Specification 4.7.9 Gentlemen:
By letter of June 17, 1983 Alabama Power Company requested approval of a one-time change to Technical Specification 4.7.9 by October 1, 1983, which would permit the extension of the visual inspection of inaccessible hydraulic snubbers to the fifth refueling outage or the next plant shutdown of sufficient duration. This one-time change resulted from two snubbers, CVC-R451 and MS5-R168, being declared inoperable during the previous visual inspection and Technical Specification 4.7.9 requiring a subsequent inspection within six months
+ 25%. Using this criteria a subsequent visual inspection is required iiot later than November 1,1983.
To perform this inspection the plant must be in the cold shutdown mode, requiring an outage of approximately five days. Additionally, based on an average capacity factor of 85%,
the second refueling outage for Farley Unit 2 would occur during the time that the Unit I snubber inspection is required, such that simultaneous shutdown of both units would cause significant scheduling and manpower problems. The propnsed extension, of approximately three months, would relieve Alabama Power Company of significant economic and manpower burdens created by plant shutdown for the sole purpose of surveillance without concurrent safety benefits.
During recent discussions with NRC staff, additional information was requested concerning the significant hazards consideration, as defined in 10 CFR 50.92, for this proposed one-time technical specification change. This one-time change is consistent with Item (vi) of the " Examples of Amendments that are Considered Not Likely to Involve Significant Hazards Considerations" listed on page 14870 of the April 6, 1983 issue of the Federal Register. Both snubbers that were declared
\\
Y 8307150095 830708 l k PDR ADOCK 05000348 p
PDR l-
/.
3 f
e 1
- a Mr. S. A. Varga July 8, 1983 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 inoperable had extenuating circumstances (loss of fluid by personnel error during inspection on one snubber and mechanical interference on the other snubber) with no evidence of generic failure mechanisms. The snubbers were repaired and retested with satisfactory results.
Previous engineering analysis / review has shown that the failure of a single support on a seismic line would not adversely affect the capability of the line to withstand a seismic event (due to design conservatism).
Previous inspections have been conducted at each refueling to verify snubber operability and the maximum number of inoperable snubbers identified at any inspection has been 1 or 2 with several inspections identifying no inoperable snubbers. Additionally, the Farley Nuclear Plant site resides in an area where seismic risk has been determined to be minimal by ESSA / Coast and Geodetic Survey (attached).
The probability of a seismic event during the extension period of three months is insignificant for the Farley Nuclear Plant site. Although this change may result in some increase in the consequences of a previously analyzed accident, the results of the change do not violate criteria with respect to the system or component specified in the Standard Review Plan.
Alabama Power Company has reviewed these proposed changes and considers them not likely to involve significant hazards considerations as they do not significantly increase the probabilty or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Alabama Power Company requests approval of this one-time technical specification change, as described in the June 17, 1983 submittal, by October 1, 1983. The Plant Operations Review Committee has reviewed this proposed change and the Nuclear Operations Review Board will review this change at a future meeting. This proposed one-time amendment is designated as Class III for Unit 1.
A check for $4,000.00 was enclosed with the June 17, 1983 proposed license amendment to cover the total amount of fees required. As noted by the distribution, a copy of this proposed letter is being sent to the Alabama State Designee in accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 (b)(1).
In accordance with 10 CFR 50.30 (c)(1)(i), three (3) signed originals and forty (40) additional copies of this letter are enclosed.
A
Mr. S. A. Varga July 8,1983 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 3 If you have any questions, please advise.
Yours ver) truly, F. L. Clayton, r.
FLCJr/JLO:grs-D29 Attachment cc:
Mr. R. A. Thomas Mr. G. F. Trowbridge Mr. J. P. O'Reilly Mr. E. A. Reeves Mr. W. H. Bradford Dr. I. L. Myers i
}
r a,
l s.
i I k,,[*.}I 4
i c
- 5. J8 I
y
!! hf
!i E
i B
- a:r.
..i o
=
3 i,l
- : II w-u n i;
=
II i
i s.
'e g
3 N
O 1
I 1
i I
E' 5
N a
s g
E e
a 4
,0
}[
D 5_. M U"
m
)
8 J
l N
O, r
w q
l
+) A..
1 j
1
.a.
,I I
\\
. hy,W' ~ s.,?.jk?
{
i-t
.98 -
l 6