ML20040G462
| ML20040G462 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 01/29/1982 |
| From: | Polk P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20040G455 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202160064 | |
| Download: ML20040G462 (4) | |
Text
W uq%
UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
3 p
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20565
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT N0. 64 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 The Power Authority of the State of New York (the licensee) has proposed changes to the Technical Specifications of the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (the facility) in Reference 1.
The proposed changes relate to
.the core for reload 4 Cycle 5 operation at power levels up to 2436 MWt (100%) power.
In support of the reload application, the licensee has enclosed proposed Technical Specification changes in Reference 1 and the GE BWR supplemental licensing submittal (Reference 2).
In addition to 8x8 and 8x8R fuel, this reload involves loading of pre-pressurized GE 8x8 retrofit (P8x8R) fuel. This is the sa,ne type of fuel as was loaded during the last reload. The description of the nuclear and mechanical designs of 8x8 retrofit fuel are contained in References 3 and 4.
Reference 3 also contains a complete set of references to topical reoorts which describe GE's analytical methods for nuclear, thermal-hydraulic, transient and accident calculations, and information regarding the applica-bility of these methods to cores such as FitzPatrick which contain a mixture of fuel. The use and safety implications of prepressurized fuel have been found acceptable per Reference 4.
The conclusions of Reference 5 found that the methods of Reference 3 were generally applicable to pre-pressurized fuel.
Reference 6 found that the conclusions of Reference 5 are applicable for the second and subsequent fuel cycles.
Therefore, unless otherwise specified, Reference 3, as supported by References 5 and 6, is adequate justification for the current application of prepressurized fuel.
2.0 Evaluation 2.1 Reactor Physics The reload application follows the procedure described in NEDE-24011-P,
" Generic Reload Fuel Application." We have reviewed this application and the consequent Technical Specification changes. The transient analysis input parameters are typical for bWRs and are acceptable. Core wide transient analysis results are given for the limiting transients and the required operating limit values for MCPR are given for each fuel l
type.
The revised MCPR limits are required by the reload and they are l
acceptable.
l l
0202160064 820129
~
PDR ADOCK 05000333 p
2 2.2 Thermal Hydraulics As stated in Reference 3, for BWR cores which reload with GE's retrofit 8x8R fuel, the safety limit minimum critical power ratio (SLMCPR) resulting from either core-wide or localized abnormal operational transients is.sequal to 1.07. When meeting this SLMCPR during a transient, at least 99.9% of the fuel rods in the core are expected to avoid boiling transition.
To assure that the fuel cladding integrity SLMCPR will not be violated during any abnormal operational transient or fuel misloading, the most limiting events have been reanalyzed for this reload by the licensee in order to detennine which event results in the largest reduction in the minimum critical power ratio.
These events have been analyzed for the exposed fuel and fresh fuel. Addition of the largest reductions in critical power ratio to the SLMCPR was used to establish the operating limits for each fuel type.
We have found the methods used for this analysis consistent with previously approved past< practice (Reference 3).
We have found the results of'this analysis and the correspondi.ng Technical Specification changes acceptable.
2.3 ECCS Appendix K Input data and results for ECCS analysis have been given in References 1 ud 2.
The information presented fulfills the requirements for each analyses outlined in Reference 3.
We have reviewed the analyses and information submitted for the reload and conclude that the facility will be in conformance with all requirements to 10'CFR 50.46 and Apendix K to 10 CFR 50.46 when it is operated in accordance with the Technical Specifications we are issuing with this -
amendment.
Supplemental calculations that address the issues of NUREG-0630 have also been given in Reference 2.
2.4 Maximum Average Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate (MAPLHGR)
In References 7 and 8 GE requested that credit for calculated peak cladding temperature margin as well as credit for recently approved, but unapplied, ECCS evaluation model changes be used to offset any operating penalties due to high burnup fission gas release. This proposal was found acceptable (Ref. 9), provided the generic analysis was found to be applicable to each plant citing the GE position.
In Attachment II of Reference 1 the licensee stated that the generic analysis is applicable to the FitzPatrick reload.
On this basis we find the proposed Technical Specification changes (MAPLHGR limits) given in Attachment II of Reference 1 acceptable.
3.0 Environmental Considerations 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 i
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 Section 51.5(d)(4) that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration an'd environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
3 4.0 Conclusion We have concluded, based on 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 a 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:
January 29, 1982 Author:
Philip J. Polk h
e 9
f t
t
..e g
References 1.
Letter, J. P. Bayne (PASNY) to Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (USNRC)datedNovember 18, 1981.
2.
" Supplemental Reload Licensing Submittal for James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Reload 4," dated August 1981.
- 3. " General Electric Boiling Water Reactor Generic Reload Application,"
NEDE-240ll-P-A, May 1977.
4.
Letter, R. E. Engel (GE) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated January 30, 1979.
5.
Letter, T. A. Ippolito (USNRC) to R. Grid'.ey (GE), April 16,.1979 and enclosed SER.
6.
Letter, T. A. Ippolito (USNRC), to all operating BWR licensees, May 28,1981 and enclosed SER.
7.
R. E. Engel (GE) letter to T. A. Ippolito (NRC) dated May 6,1981.
8.
R. E. Engel (GE) letter to T. A. Ippolito (NRC) dated May 28, 1981.
9.
L. S. Rubenstein (NRC) memorandum for T. M. Novak (NRC) on " Extension of General Electric Emergency Core Cooling Systems Performance Limits"'
dated June 25, 1981 e
e e
S G