ML20045H929

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 192 to License DPR-59

ML20045H929
Person / Time
Site:	FitzPatrick
Issue date:	07/12/1993
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20045H921	List: ML20045H920 ML20045H929
References
NUDOCS 9307220125
Download: ML20045H929 (6)

Text

.-

pn na u

fi UNITED STATES

[

'Y j

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 f

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.192 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

i By letter dated February 25, 1993, the Power Authority of the State of New York (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the James A.

FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Technical Specifications (TS). The requested changes would revise certain TS Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO) actiop statements to adopt consistent terminology for the action statements and to more clearly distinguish between the different actions associated with each LCO. The requested changer would also add required completion times to action i

statements that previously < tid not specify completion times and would revise the resulting mode to be a aieved if the action specified in the LC0 action statement cannot be achieved.

2.0 EVALUATION The proposed changes to the TS are categorized into three categories:

(1) clarification of LC0 a'ction statements, (2) addition of completion times to LC0 action statement requirements, or (3) revision of LCO action statement requirements.

The first category of proposed changes would include the following:

Cateaory A Chances - Clarification of LCOs 1.

TS Paae 42. Table 321-1. Note 1. A Replace the phrase " Initiate insertion of operable rods and complete insertion of all operable rods within four hours" with " Insert all operable control rods within four hours."

2.

TS Paae 65. Table 3.2-1. Note 2.B Replace the phrase " Initiate an orderly load reduction and have main steam lines isolated within eight hours" with " Isolate the main steam lines within eight hours."

3.

TS Paae 77d. Table 3.2-8. Note E Replace the phrase "an orderly shutdown shall be initiated and the reactor shall be in a Hot Shutdown condition in" with "the reactor shall be in a Hot Shutdown condition within."

9307220125 930712 PDR ADOCK 05000333 PDR P

25

, 4.

TS Paae 107. Soccification 4.4.0 Insert with the words, "Not Used."

5.

TS Paae 123. Soecification 3.5.H Join the last two sentences by replacing the phrase "an orderly reactor power reduction shall be -

commenced immediately. The" with "the."

6.

TS Pace 124. Specification 3.5.I Join the last two sentences by replacing the phrase "an orderly reactor power reduction shall be commenced immediately. The" with "the."

l 7.

TS Pace 178. Specification 3.7. A.5.d Delete this specification and replace with the word " Deleted."

l 8.

TS Paae 180a. Specification 3.7.A.7.af3) Delete the phrase ", an orderly shutdown shall be initiated and."

l 9.

TS Pace 180a. Specification 3.7 A.8.a Renumber the specification as "3.7. A,8" and replace the phrase ", an orderly shutdown shall be initiated, and the reactor shall be in a" with "the reactor shall be in the."

10. TS Paae 186. Specification 3.7.D.3 Replace the phrase ", an orderly shutdown shall be initiated and the reactor shall be in" with "the reactor shall be in the."

11. TS Paae 186. Specification 4.7.D.3 Insert with the words "Not Used."

12. TS Paae 217. Specification 3.9.B.4 Replace the phrase ",.a reactor shutdown shall be initiated within two hours and the reactor placed in a cold condition within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after initiation of shutdown" with

" restore at least one system to operable status within two hours or ] lace the reactor in the cold condition within the following 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />."

13. TS Paae 217. Specification 3.9.B.5 Insert with the word " Deleted."

14. TS Pace 238. Specification 3.11.A.3 Replace the phrase:

"within 3 days, the reactor will be shutdown in an orderly manner and in the Cold Shutdown Condition within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or if refueling operations are in progress, such operations will i

be terminated in an orderly manner" with "within 3 days, the reactor shall be in cold shutdown within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> and any handling of irradiated fuel, core alterations, and operations with a potential for draining the reactor vessel shall be suspended as soon as practicable."

i L

t

. 15.

TS Pace 238. Snecification 3.ll.A.4 Insert with the words, "Not Used."

16. TS Paae 241. Soecification 3.11.D.2 Delete the words, " total for any calendar month."

17. TS Paae 241. Specification 3.11.D.3 Replace the phrase "an orderly shutdown shall be initiated and the reactor shall be placed in a" with "the reactor shall be placed in the."

18. TS Paae 241. Specification 4.11.D.3 Insert with the words "Not Used."

The NRC staff has reviewed the proposed changes included in the first category and has determined that phrases such :s " initiate an orderly load reduction" and "an orderly shutdown shall be initiated" are not defined in the facility l

TS or in the NRC's " Standard Technical Specifications for General Electric J

Boiling Water Reactors (GE-STS)." The proposed changes would delete these phrases.

The revised TS would then contain statements such as " place the i

reactor in the cold shutdown condition" or " isolate the main steam lines."

i The proposed deletions would not change any TS requirements but would provide clearer and more definitive instructions. Therefore, these proposed' changes 1

are acceptable.

Elimination of these phrases is applicable to items.1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9,10,12,14, and 17 of the Category A proposed changes.

The proposed deletion of the phrase " total for any calendar month" from TS 3.ll.D.2 (item 16 of the Category A proposed changes) was evaluated by the NRC staff.

This phrase was originally intended to limit the allowable out-of-1 service time of one Emergency Service Water System during a given month to a i

maximum of 7 days. However, as presently written, this phrase could be misinterpreted to allow an out-of-service time began at the end of one calendar month to continue into the beginning of another calendar _ month and for the total out-of-service time to then exceed the intended allowable out-J of-service time.

The removal of this phrase precludes such a possibility and makes TS 3.ll.D.2 consistent with other TS in applying out-of-service times and is, therefore, acceptable.

The licensee also proposed to add the words "Not Used" or " Deleted" to several TS sections for which there currently are no associated LC0 or surveillance requirements for an existing TS (e.g., Surveillance Requirement 4.ll.A.4 was added by License Amendment No, 114 but no corresponding LC0 was added at that time, therefore, inserting "Not Used" as LCO 3.11. A.4 is now being proposed; likewise, inserting the word " Deleted" as LC0 3.9.B.5 is now being proposed to signify the deletion of LC0 3.9.B.5 by License Amendment No. 95.) These changes are purely administrative, do not change any TS requirements, and are, therefore, acceptable. Addition of the words "Not Used" or " Deleted" is applicable to items 4, 11, 13, 15, and 18 of the Category A proposed changes.

TS 3.7.A.5.d requires the reactor to be placed in a cold condition if the requirements of TE-3.7.A.5.a, b, and c cannot be met. TS 3.7.A.8.a also requires the reactor to be placed in a cold condition if the requirements of

T i i TS 3.7.A.1 through 3.7.A.6 cannot be met.

Item 7 of the Category A proposed changes would delete the requirements of TS 3.7.A.5.d and replace them with the word " Deleted." The NRC staff has concluded that this proposed change is acceptable since the requirements of TS 3.7.A.8.a are redundant to the requirements of TS 3.7. A.5.d.

The second category of proposed changes would include the following:

Cateaory B Chanaes - Addition of Comoletion Times to LC0 Action Statements 1.

TS Paae 42. Table 3.1-1. Note 1.C Replace the sentence:

" Reduce power to less than 30 percent of rated."

with

" Reduce power level to less than 30 percent of rated within four hours."

l 2.

TS Pace 65. Table 3.2-1. Note 2.0 At the end of note 2.C,-insert the i

words, "within four hours."

3.

TS Pace 65. Table 3.2-1. Note 2.0 At the end of note 2.0, insert the i

words, "within four hours."

i 4.

TS Paae 107. Specification 3.4.C At the end of the existing paragraph, 1

add the sentence:

"If these requirements are not met, restore the system to the above limits within eight hours or take action in accordance with Specification 3.4.D."

5.

TS Paae 124b. Specification 3.5.J.4 Replace the phrase "the hot shutdown condition" with "at least the hot shutdown condition within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />."

The current TS contain five LCOs (items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the Category B proposed changes) where the action statements do not include a time limit'for completing the specified actions. The proposed changes would add time limits for completing the specified actions. The addition of time limits for completing actions specified in action statements is authorized by 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2) which states that when an LC0 of a nuclear reactor is not met, the licensee shall shut down the reactor or follow any remedial action permitted by the TS until the condition can be met.

The proposed time limits are consistent with time limits specified elsewhere in the TS for similar actions.

3 Therefore, the NRC staff finds the proposed changes acceptable.

4

a

~

. 4 The third category of proposed changes would include the following:

Cateaory C Chances - Revision of LCO Action Statement Reauirements 1.

TS Pace 65. Table 3.2-1. Note 2. A Replace note 2.A " Initiate an orderly.

shutdown and have the reactor in cold shutdown condition in 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />" with

" Place the reactor in the cold condition within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />."

2.

TS Pace 107. Specification 3.4.D Replace the phrase "the cold condition within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />" with "at least hot shutdown within the following 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />."

3.

TS Paae 142. Specification 3.6.D.5 Replace the phrase "immediately initiate an orderly shutdown and be in at least hot standby condition within the next 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> and in" with "be in at least hot shutdown within the next 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> and in the."

Item 1 of the Category C proposed changes would require the reactor to be placed in a " cold condition" rather than in " cold shutdown." The proposed change from " cold shutdown" (defined in TS Definition 1.0.1.3)-to " cold condition" (defined in TS Definition 1.0.C) differs only in that cold shutdown requires the reactor mode switch be in the shutdown position and the reactor vessel to be vented.

Placing the reactor mode switch in the shutdown position injects a scram signal into the reactor protection system.

Initiation of a scram signal is undesirable and unnecessary in that it causes a control rod drive system pressure transient.

It is also unnecessary to vent the reactor vessel in this condition. Therefore, the NRC staff finds this proposed change acceptable.

Item 2 of the Category C proposed changes would revise TS 3.4.D to require the reactor to be in hot shutdown within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> rather than in the cold condition within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> as is required in the current TS if the standby liquid control system is inoperable. This proposed change in time and mode requirement is consistent with current NRC staff positions and with the guidance of the GE-STS. Therefore, the NRC staff finds the proposed change acceptable.

Item 3 of the Category C proposed changes would revise TS 3.6.D.5 to require the reactor to be in hot shutdown within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> rather than in hot standby within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> if the primary containment sump monitoring system is inoperable. This proposed change in mode requirement is consistent with current NRC staff positions and with the guidance of the GE-STS. Therefore, the NRC staff finds the proposed change acceptable.

3.0 STATE CONSULTATION

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.

t.

e-

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. 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 32390). 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, j

and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common i

defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

Principal Contributor:

D. Brinkman Date: July 12,1993 l

4

July 12, 1993 Docket No. 50-333 Mr. Ralph E. Beedle Executive Vice President - Nuclear Generation Power Authority of the State of New York 123 Main Street White Plains, New York 10601

SUBJECT:

ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT FOR JAMES A. FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT (TAC NO. M86249}

The Commission has issued the enclosed Amendment No.192 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-59 for the James A. Fit 7 Patrick Nuclear Power Plant.

The amendment consists of changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) in response to your application transmitted by letter dated February 25, 1993.

The amendment revises certain TS Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO)_

action statements to adopt consistent terminology for the action statements and to more clearly distinguish between the different actions associated with' each LCO.

The amendment also adds required completion times to action statements that previously did not specify completion times and revises the resulting mode to be achieved if the action specified in the LC0 action statement cannot be maintained.

A copy of the related Safety Evaluation is enclosed. A Notice of Issuance will be included in the Commission's next regular biweekly Federal Reaister notice.

Sincerely, Original signed by:

John E. Menning, Project Manager Project Directorate I-1 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

1.

Amendment No.192 to DPR-59 2.

Safety Evaluation cc w/ enclosures:

See next page Distribution:

See attached sheet

• See previous concurrence LA:PDI-I PM:PDI-1 PM:PDI-I OGC*

D:PDI-1 I

CVogan p.d DBrinkmaNmm JMenning kt CMarco RACapra

$lh/93 4 /24/93 f,/n/93 06/08/93 o7//2./93

/

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY Document Name:

FIT 86249.AMD i

I

.