ML20012E940

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 155 to License DPR-59

ML20012E940
Person / Time
Site:	FitzPatrick
Issue date:	03/29/1990
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20012E939	List: ML20012E938 ML20012E940
References
NUDOCS 9004090129
Download: ML20012E940 (4)

Text

-

\\*%

UNITED STATES l'

NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION fh

'I WASHINGTON, D C. PMM

)

• n..+

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 3

l RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. Iss TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-59

[

f POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK JAMES A. FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT N

DOCKET NO. 50-333 i

INTR 00, ult 10N By letter dated July 24, 1989 (Reference 1), the Power Authority of the State of New York (the licensee), requested an amendment to Facility Operating L

License No. ORP-59 for the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant. The i

proposed amendment would change Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.3 and associated Bases to permit re;noval of the Rod Sequence Control System (RSCS),

reduce the Rod Worth Minimizer (RWM) low power setpoint, enhance operation of the RWM, implement Banked Position Withdrawal Sequence (BPWS) rod withdrawal, and provide several minor administrative changes.

DISCUSSION The Rod Sequence Control System is designed to restrict rod movement to minimize the individual worth of contml rods to' lessen the consequences of a I:

RodDropAccident(RDA).

Control rod covement is restricted through the use 9

I" of rod select, insert, and withdraw blocks. The RSCS is a hardwired (as opposed to a computer controlled)f inputs and outputs but the two systems are

. redundant backup to the RWM.

It is independent of the RWM in tenns o compatible. The RSCS is designed to monitor and, when necessary, block operator control rod selection, withdrawal and insertion actions. This blocking action is designed to assist in preventing significant control rod pattern errors which could result in a control rod with a high' reactivity worth that might cause fuel damage if dro)per). A significant pattern error is one of several abnormal events all of w11th must occur to have an RDA which might exceed fuel uergy density limit criteria for the event.

It was designed only for possible mitigation of the RDA and is active only during low power operation (currently ear.asily less than 20 perceht power) when an RDA might be significant.

It provides rod blocks on detection of a significant pattern error, but does not prevent an RDA. A similar pattern control function is also performed by the RWM, a computer controlled system.

All 7eactors having an RSCS also have an RWM.

In August 1986 (Reference 2), the BWR Owners' Group (BWROG) in cooperation (Reference 3) Which would eliminate the requirement for the RSCS and retain with the General Electric Company, proposed Amendment 17 to GESTAR II c

1 '

.theRWM,but'owerthesetpoint.forturnoff(duringstartup)orturnon(during L

I 9004090129 900329 ADOCK0500g3 PDR e

...-~- -

{

.n i

i 3

.V 2

l 1

. shutdown) from 20 to 10 percent. The NRC staff review concluded that the

(

+

proposed changes were acceptable, and approved Amendment 17, implement thj but imposed several additional requirements which would be necessary to

. changes..The staff safety. analysis and additional requirements were presented m

and discussed in an attachment to Reference 4.

(Thisreviewandapprovalis l

also available in Reference 3, page US.C.'479.)

The. additional requirements were:

l

'1)

The Technical Specifications should require provisions for minimizing operations without the RWM system operable.

i 2)

The occasional necessary use of a second operator replacement should be

(

strengthened by a utility review of relevant procedures related forms and t

qualitycontroltoassurethatthesecondoperatorprovldesaneffective j

and truly independent monitoring process. A discussion of this review should accompany the request for RSCS removal.

3)

Rod patterns used should be at least equivalent to Banked Position WithdrawalSequence(BPWS) patterns.

i EVALUATION s

The licensee has proposed changes to TS 3/4.3, and associated Bases in four

-categoriestoaccomplishthechangesandtomeettherequirementsdIscussed-t above. These changes are:

A.E Elimination of the RSCS' requirements.

l B..

Reduction of the RWM setpoint to 10 percent.

C.

Increased administrative control of RWM operability (intended to result in decreased use of the second operator as a substitute for the RWM), and t

implementation of BPWS. The licensee has also discussed the procedures for second' operator actions when required, to ensure independent monitoring of the control rod patterns.

D.

Administrative changes, correcting errors, relocating text and improving the. clarity of the text.

The NRC staff review and basis for approval of the removal of the RSCS and lowering of the setpoint for the RWM, as proposed by the licensee in sections of:the submittal relating to topics A and B above, are provided in References 2 or 3.n The proposed changes fall within the scope of that staff review and oproval. The present staff review of the proposed TS changes that implement

'tiese operational changes concludcs that they are appropriate, clearly stated

.and are acceptable, a

The licensee has increased the administrative control of the RWM, as required in the staff review of RSCS removal. The proposed revised TS require the RWM

'to be operable at the beginning of each startup, with only one exception per year. This follows the pattern of previously approved RWM TS for BWR 3 i

^>..

.6:

s

- - + - < -

.~,

y\\

e n,

J 7.

1 e

i J. f * '

< pf j

operation (discessed in Reference 4). These have been found to provide the l

-desired improvement in reliability for the system. A report to the NRC is j

recuired by the TS whenever the RWM is inoperable for startup. This will 7

incicate corrective actions to improve reliabilit Also, as required, the TS u-

and procedures for the use of a second operator (y.whentheRWMisinoperable) have been rev9ewed and improved where necessary and have been discussed in the submittal, and appear to provide a suitable independent check on the rod 1

patterns.

Finally, as required, the revised TS prescribe the use of rod i

patterns equivalent to the BPWS patterns approved by previous staff reviews to maintain low control rod reactivity worths. The changes and reviews are in accord with the staff requirements of Reference 4 and are acceptable, and the proposed changes to TS 3/4.3 and Bases appropriately implement the changes, j

The administrative changes relating to topic 0 above are applicable to TS 3/4.3 and Bases, are primarily correction of minor errors and improvements in clarity or format. The changes include the relocation of Specification 3.3.A.2.c to 1

E 4.3.A.'2.d and the correction of an error in the Bases on the parameter sensed t

p for the RWM setpoint, both of which have been previously submittFd for review, and the change to the Bases 3.7.A which reflects better correspondence to existing TS 3.7.A.2 and to the changes to TS 3/4.3. The review has indicated that the proposed changes are cppropriate and acceptable.

L

SUMMARY

(

1 The staff has' reviewed the amendment submitted by the iicen:ee for the FitzPatrick plant proposing TS changes relating to t'e 0.90 val of the RSCS.

Based on this review, we have concluded that appropri m cocumentation was j

submitted and the proposed TS changes satisfy staff positions and requirements t

i in.these areas. Operation in the modes proposed for FitzPatrick is acceptable.

t ENVIRONMENTAL COMSIDERATION l

This amendment changes a requirement with respect to the installation or use k

of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant l

' change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that L

there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational L

radiation exposura. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this 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 Sec 51.22(c)(9).

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.

..7 J

-e,-

.i-e u

G.,

,+

,y,

4 4-j

• 0 CONCLUS10N' We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above that:

(1) there 1

isreasonableassurancethatthehealthandsafetyofthepub1Icwillnotbe endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Corinission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the conson defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

l REFERENCES 1.

Letter and Enclosures from J. Brons, New York Power Authority, to USNRC, i

r dated July 24,1989,"ProposedchangestotheTechnicalSpecifications-Regarding Elimination of the Rod Sequence Control System 2.

Letter and Enclosures from T. A. Pickens BWR Owners' Group to G. Laines, NRC, dated August 15,1986, " Amendment 17 to GE Licensing Topical Report f

NEDE-24011-P-A."

i 3.

.NEDE-24011-P-A-9. September 1988, " General Electric Standard Application forReactorFuel,"(GESTARII).

LetterfromA.Thadani,NRC,toJ.CharnleyIngofLicensingTopicalReport l

General Electric, dated 4.

December 27, 1987, " Acceptance for Referenc i

l.

NEDE-24011-P-A, Revision 8, Amendment 17."

operation (discussedinReference4). These have been found to provide the desired improvement in' reliability for the system. A report to the NRC is' l

recuired by the TS whenever the RWM is inoperable for startup. This will inticate corrective actions to improve reliability. Also, as required, the TS Dated: March 29, 1990 j

Pk1NCIPALCONTRIBUTORS:

H. Richings i

l' t

?

l f'

,1

,_ m o.

.n s...

e ih:

I "I

.-.