ML20034A279
| ML20034A279 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 04/11/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20034A278 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9004200703 | |
| Download: ML20034A279 (3) | |
Text
-
s pastop d
'o, UNITED STATES
!" 3 i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.' i.
I wAswiNovow, o. c. rosss k **'*
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLFAR REACTOR REGUtATION REL ATED TO AMEN 0 MENT NO.157 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-59 POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK l
I JAMES A. FIT 7 PATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-333 INTRODUCTION By letter dated January 9, 1990, the Power Authority of the State of New York 1
(PASNY or the licensee) submitted a proposed amendment requesting changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) for the James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power i
Plant. The amendment would change the Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR)
Safety Limit for normal plant operation above 785 psig reactor pressure and above 10 percent rated core flow from its present value of 1.04 to a new value of 1.07 and revise the MCPR Safety Limit for single loop operation from its present value of 1.05 to a new value of 1.08. These proposed changes reflect the fuel changes being made.to the reactor core during the 1990 Refueling Outage (Reload 9) for operation during the subsequent operating cycle (Cycle 10).
In addition, the proposed change would replace the MCPR values of "1.0" l
with "1.00" in Bases 1.1.A to reflect the same number of significant figures l
Used in the safety limit MCPR.
l EVALUATION Fuel cladding is one of the physical barriers designed to prevent fission product release to the environs. The integrity of this barrier is related to the heat flux produced and the resulting heat transfer boiling regime. Since fuel damage is not directly observable, the Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) limitation is specified in the TS to ensure that plant operation does not result in the flux approaching this condition in the event of an abnormal operational transient. Since fuel damage is assumed to be possible if MCPR decreases to 1.00, it is.important that a sufficient margin above this condition be maintained during normal plant operation.
inis margin above 1.00 is dependent on fuel design and, for the present operating cycle,.the safety limit has been 1.04, As specified in the amendment submittal, the 1990 Refueling Outage core changes will result in installation of General Electric GE-10 fuel assemblies, designated GE8x8NB-3, and four GE-11 Lead Test Assemblies.
For this design, a new MCPR Safety limit of 1.07 is specified by the licensee in the submittal, as explained below.
Since this value is greater than the present MCPR, it is in the conservative direction.
- These new fuel asse:nblies have two unique features: en interactive channel design and on offset lower tie plate. The offset lower tie plate shifts the fuel bundle 40 mils toward the control blade, making the D-lattice structure of the FitzPatrick core more like the C-lattice cores of later BWR plants.
These unique fuel features have been reviewed and approved by)the NRC for use in FWRs by NRC letter, A. C. Thadani to J. S. Charnley (of GE,
" Acceptance for Referencing of Amendment 21 to General Electric Licensing Topical Report NEDE-24011-P-A, ' General Electric Standard Application for Peactor Fuel,'" dated March 17, 1989.
In this letter, the NRC stated that the GE8x8NB C-Lattice safety limit MCPR is acceptable for the GE8x8HB-3 fuel design.
In General Electric's document " Standard Application for Reactor Fuel,"
Revision 9 dated September 1988, the MCPR value of 1.07 is specified for GE8x8NB fuel in Table 4-2, " Fuel Cladding Integrity Safety Limit MCPR." For the new fuel design, this new safety limit provides the same assurance against clad damage as the safety limit presently applied to the existing fuel design.
The limit will also be conservatively applied to the fuel asse2 11es remaining in the core from the present operating cycle.
The change to the single loop operating MCPR limit from 1.05 to 1.08 is proposed so that the present maroin of 0.01 abovo the normal operating MCPR is maintained if operation in this mode is necessary. This increase in the limit represents a greater margin from the fuel damage threshold.
The change to the number of significant figures used in the Bases is an administrative change which has no effect on the value used in the analysis or explanation.
Although the core reload has an affect on other cycle-specific parameter limits contained in the TS, no other changes were submitted in this amendment application. The licensee is removing the remainder of the cycle-specific limits from the TS in accordance with Generic Letter 88-16 in a separate amendment request. Since the status of either submittal has no affect on the other, each proposed amendment can be processed separately.
SUMMARY
Based on the evaluation as stated above, the information presented in the referenced documents which shows that the MCPR limits have been properly applied to the new core configuration using previously approved methods and procedures, and the conclusion that the core will continue to meet all of the staff's acceptance criteria related to the MCPR limit, the staff concludes that j
the proposed TS amendment is acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment changes a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a f acility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR 1
Part 20.
The staff has determined that the amendment 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 is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational-radiation exposure. The Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public coment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eli criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Sec 51.22(c)gibility (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.
t i
CONCLUSION We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above thatt (1)there t
isreasonableassurancethatthehealthandsafetyofthepubilewillnotbe endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: April 11, 1990 PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTOR:
R LaBarge e