ML19325F329
| ML19325F329 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 11/14/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19325F328 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8911200140 | |
| Download: ML19325F329 (3) | |
Text
T'
\\
4 t
[
.[p3 Cf Cgh l
UNITED STATES c
<'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- 5
.R WASHINGTON, D. C. 2055J 4
9 *...+
1 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.143 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-59 POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK l
JAMES A. FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-333 c1NTRODUCTION Dy letter dated May 31, 1989, the Power Authority of the State of New York (PASNY or the licensee), requesteo changes to Facility Operating License No. DRP-59 for the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant. The changes would update Technical Specifications (TS) Table 4.7-2, " Exceptions to Type C Tests " to accurately reflect the as-built configuration of the plant and the tests required by Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50.
The amendment would also correct several editorial errors existing in the table and improve
-the general' format of the table.
The letter also requested that the number of the table be changed from 3.7-2 to 4.7-2.
However, this change was made in Amendment No. 134 which was issued by the NRC on July 19, 1989.
I' DISCUSSION Type C Local Leak Rate Tests (LLRTs) are tests which are designed to measure the leakage rate from the primary containment isolation valves.
The require-l ments and acceptance criteria for the tests are given in Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 and are implemented at the FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant using I
various procedures.
Since the specific testing requirements cannot be applied to all valves watch are a part of the primary containment boundary because of valve or system design, exceptions which incorporate other approveo methods are necessary. These exceptions are listed in TS Table 4.7-2, along with a brief explanation of the local leak rate test which is performed.
L Many of the proposed changes to the table involve replacement of a long description of the exception with a short, concise explanation.
Thus, the statement: "This valve is a butterfly valve-pressurization in reverse 1
direction and measurement of leakage will be equivalent to results from l
pressure applied in the same direction as thet when the valve would be required to perform it safety function" would be replaced with:
"These o
l valves will be tested in the reverse direction."
l s91120014NyOOO333
'~
- ~
l.
.- The proposed TS amendment would also remove some valves from the table, thereby removing their exception status.
Sample system valves and valves 13-MOV-15 and 23-MOV-15 would be removed from the table since they have been redesigned to incorporate the capability to perform the leak rate tests.
Valve 13-MOV-130 (Penetration 212) would be removed from the table since it is not a primary containment boundary valve and not subject to LLRTs.
A number of valves would be added to the exceptions table. Control Rod Drive valves associated with the hydraulic control units would be added because they are sealed with process water. The traversing incore probe valves would be added because they are explosive-type shear valves and cannot be shut. Various instrumentation valves would be added because they are either sealed by process water or because they are tested during primary containment Class A leak rate tests, as applicable, depending on their location.
Valves 10MOV-34A and 10MOV-348 would be added, along with a statement indicating that they are tested during the Type C LLRT of Penetration X-211A and Penetration X-2118, respectively (valves 10MOV-34A and 10MOV-38A would, therefore, be tested together and valves 10MOV-34B and 10MOV-38B would be tested together since each pair is in series and the test pressure is applied between them).
Other miscellaneous changes would add tag numbers to the valves to better identify them, replace system name "ILRT" with " Torus Pressure Sensing,"
replace valve number "VSM-100T" with "16-1A0V-102A" or "16-1A0V-102B," as appropriate, to incorporate modifications which were approved in Amendment No. 36, and re31 ace valve number 27-MOV-113 with 27MOV-122 to correct the i
valve number w11ch incorporates a change which occurred due to system redesign.
SUMMARY
The proposed changes to Table 4.7-2 clarify the intent of the exceptions to Type C LLRT criteria, improve the consistency of the table, correct typogra-phical errors and upgrade the contents of the table to reflect the as-built configuration of the plant and existing procedures. The changes do not involve modification of equipment, systems, or components, nor do they relax any adminis-trative controls or limitations imposed on existing plant equipment. The I
l changes do not alter the conclusions of the plant's accident analysis as documented in the Final Safety Analysis Report or the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation Report. The changes are also consistent with the requirements of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50. Therefore, they are acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves a change in a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has determined that the amendment l
involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there I
is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation l
exposure. The Commissien has previously issued a proposed finding that this 1
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR l
8 u,
Sec51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) ns environmental impact
- statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
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 this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: November 14. 1989 PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTOR:
D. LaBarge 9
1 1
..-----,-.m.
-. - - -,-