ML19345G766
| ML19345G766 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 04/13/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19345G765 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104220245 | |
| Download: ML19345G766 (2) | |
Text
.
63 KiG
[o UNITED STATES O
E _ > ci
+
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
g
-:. E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20S55 S
o
(-
/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 54 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-59 POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK JAMES A. FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-333 1.0 Introduction By letter dated March 26, 1981, the Power Authority of the State of New York (licensee) requested a modification to the James A. FitzPatrick Technical Specifications. This modification involves a change to the setpoints for the reactor coolant system safety / relief valves (SRV).
The change has been necessitated by the replacement of the too works of a failed valve. The evaluation of this modification for the remainder of the current FitzPatrick fuel cycle is provided in section 2 below.
Z.0 Evaluation Wnen SRV setpoints are modified three areas of technical concern are affected:
(1) spurious opening of SRV's, (2) reactor coolant system peak transient pressure, and (3) structural effects due to SRV discharge.
These areas are discussed in turn in the following paragraphs.
By previous amendment (Amenchent No. 43) to the FitzPatrick Technical Specifications, SRV's were regrouped with 2 valves set at 1090 psig, 2 valves set at 1105 psig and 7 valves set at 1140 psig. The proposed change will result in one more valve set at 1090 psig, and one less valve set at 1140 psig.
Regarding spurious SRV opening, the addition of a single valve set l
at 1090 psig will not significantly increase the potential for such action. Since the allowable setpoint error remains at +1% the addition of a low pressure valve has a limited affect when considering inadver-tent operation. Therefore, in this regard the proposed modification j
is considered acceptable.
With respect to reactor coolant peak transient pressure, the effect of the addition of a low pressure relief valve will reduce peak pressure, i.e., an additional SRV will open earlier in the transient.
Since the effect is small and in the conservative direction, the modification of the SRV in this regard is considered acceptable.
i 8104220796
. With respect to structural effects, reducing SRV setpoints will have a less conservative effect on the Torus. More SRV's opening earlier in the transient will result in increased forces exerted against the Torus and its structural support members. Over the past several years Torus modifications have been pursued in accordance with the Mark I containment Long-Term Program. Certain of the modifications
(.e.g., saddles to reduce torus column loads) have already been accom-plished at FitzPatrick.
Prior to these modifications the licensae had received pennission to continue to operate FitzPatrick with reduced margins of safety in an exemption to GDC 50 issued February 28, 1978. By virtue of the fact that modifications have already been accomplished, the FitzPatrick plant has been restored to margins required for the interim period during which the exemption is in effect.
Nevertheless, the FitzPatrick plant will be required to satisfy the Mark I Long Term program requirements, as specified by Order dated January 13, 1981, and, therefore, the change of SRV setpoints in this regard is considered acceptable.
3.0 Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
l 4.0 Conclusion We have concluded, based en the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve 6 significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) 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: April 13,1981 l
l i
r
,.,. -. _ ~ _, _.. -. _ _ - _ -. -.. _ _
_