ML20044G040
| ML20044G040 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 05/18/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20044G036 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-89-14, NUDOCS 9306010353 | |
| Download: ML20044G040 (4) | |
Text
f t.a 'rog Je k
UNITED STATES
[
l*
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$L WASHINGTON, D.C. 20566-0001 N....+/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.188 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0 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 February 22, 1993, the Power Authority of the State of New York (the licensee) submit.ted a request for changes to the James A.
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Technical Specifications (TS). The proposed changes remove the provision of Specification 4.0.B that limits the combined time interval for three consecutive surveillances to less than 3.5 times the specified interval.
The limitation for plants with Standard TS is slightly lower at 3.25 times the specified interval. Guidance on this proposed change to the TS was provided to all power reactor licensees and applicants in Generic Letter (GL) 89-14 "Line-Item Improvements in Technical Specifications
- Removal of the 3.25 Limit on Extending Surveillance Intervals," dated August 21, 1989. Although GL 89-14 discussed removal of the 3.25 limit of the Standard TS, guidante in the GL also applies to the 3.5 limit specified in the licensee's TS. The licensee also proposed to delete the definition of
" Surveillance Frequency" in TS 1.0.T for consistency.
2.0 EVALUATION Specification 4.0.B includes the provision that allows a surveillance interval to be extended by 25 percent of the specified time interval. This extension provides flexibility for scheduling the performance of surveillances and to permit consideration of plant operating conditions that may not be suitable for conducting a surveillance at the specified time interval.
Such operating conditions include transient plant operation or ongoing surveillance or maintenance activities. Specification 4.0.B further limits the allowance for extending surveillance intervals by requiring that the combined time interval for any three consecutive surveillances not exceed 3.5 times the specified time interval. The purpose of this provision is to assure that surveillances are not extended repeatedly as an operational convenience to provide an overall increase in the surveillance interval.
perience has shown that the 18-month surveillance interval, with the p ovision to extend it by 25 percent, is usually sufficient to accommodate normal variations in the length of a fuel cycle. However, the NRC staff has routinely granted requests for one-time exceptions to the combined time interval limit for three consecutive refueling surveillances because the risk 9306010353 930518 PDR ADOCK 05000333 P
\\
n
. to safety is low in contrast to the alternative of a forced shutdown to perform these surveillances. Therefore, the limitation on extending three consecutive refueling surveillances has not been a practical limit on the u.e of the 25-percent allowance for extending surveillances that are performed on a refueling outage basis.
Extending surveillance intervals during plant operation can also result in a benefit to safety when a scheduled surveillance is due at a time that is not suitable for conducting the surveillance. This may occur when transient plant operating conditions exist or when safety systems are out of service for maintenance or surveillance activities.
In such cases, the benefit to safety of extending a surveillance interval would exceed ary safety benefit derived by limiting the use of the 25-percent allowance to extend a surveillance.
Furthermore. there is the administrative burden associated with tracking the use of the 25-percent allowance to ensure compliance with the limit on the combined time interval for three consecutive surveillances.
In view of these findings, the staff concluded that Specification 4.0.B should be changed to remove the 3.5 limit for all surveillances recause its removal will have an overall positive effect on safety. The guidance provided in GL 69-14 included the following change to this specification and removes the 3.5 limit on three consecutive surveillances with the following statement:
"4.0.B.
Each Surveillance Requirement shall tv performed within the specified surveillance interval with a maximum allowable extension not to exceed 25 percent of the specified surveillance interval."
In addition, the Bases of this specification were updated to reflect this change and noted that it is not the intent of the allowance for extending surveillance intervals that it be used repeatedly merely as an operational convenience to extend surveillance intervals beyond that specified.
The staff has concluded that the proposed changes to Specification 4.0.8 are consistent with the guidance provided in GL 89-14 and are, therefore, acceptable.
The proposed changes to the associated Bases are also consistent with the guidance of GL 89-14, and the staff has no objections to these changes.
Se licensee has also proposed to delete the definition of " Surveillance Fr.quency" in TS 1.0.T.
The licensee has stated that the definition is ge serally repetitive of other TS and inconsistent with the proposed changes to Tf 4.0.B.
The staff has reviewed this proposed change and finds it to be acceptable since deletion of the definition will eliminate inconsistency with thA changes to TS 4.0.B and the requirements in the definition that remain applicable are stated in other TS.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
t In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the New York State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes surveillance requirements. The NRC 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 Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (58 FR 16870). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 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 the amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has 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, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
Thomas G. Dunning John E. Menning Date:
May 18, 1993
{'.
May 18, 1993 Docket No. 50-333 Mr. Ralph E. Beedle Executive Vice President - Nuclear Gsneration Power Authority of the State of New York 123 Main Street White Plains, New York 10601 i
Dear Mr. Beedle:
SUBJECT:
ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT FOR JAMES A. FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT I
The Commission has issued the enclosed Amendment No.188 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-59 for the James A. FitzPatrick Huclear Power Plant. The amendment consists of changes to the Technical Specifications in response to your application transmitted by letter dated February 22, 1993.
I The amendment revises Technical Specification (TS) 4.0.B and associated Bases to remove the 3.5 limit on extending surveillance intervals consistent with the recommendations provided in Generic Letter 89-14, "Line-Item Improvements in Technical Specifications - Removal of the 3.25 Limit on Extending Surveillance Intervals." The amendment also deletes the definition of
" Surveillance Frequency" in TS 1.0.T for consistency.
A copy of the rek tafety Evaluation is enclosed. A Notice of Issuance will be included '
. Commission's next regular biweekly Federal Reaister notice.
i Sincerely, Original signed by:
Brian C. McCabe, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate I-I i
Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
1.
Amendment No.188 to DPR-59 2.
Safety Evaluation cc w/ enclosures:
See next page Distribution:
See attached sheet J
hkOGC 0 71W '#
D:PDI-l A:PDi-1 PM:PDI-1 PM:PDI-l m
-,I...
CVogan M
JMenningfsmm RMcCabe)/%
, A m.
e- '
RACapra*,
i
[/0/93 o / 13 / 9 3 5/ 3/93 5
/d /93
.5/tS/93 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY FILENAME: FIT 85880.AMD i
I