ML20081L634
| ML20081L634 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 07/01/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20081L626 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9107050219 | |
| Download: ML20081L634 (3) | |
Text
. _ _ _ _
po%g b-UNITED STATES Tc-i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
' o, WAsHINoTON, D.C. 20066 s..../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.171 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. OPR-59 POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK JAMES A. FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DOCKET N0. 50-333
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated June 21, 1990, the Power Authority of the State of New York (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the James A. FitzPatrick NuclearPowerPlant,TechnicalSpecifications(TS). The requested changes include: (1) reduction in the minimum residual heat removal-(RHR) flow rate from 9900 gpm to 8910 gpm in TS 4.5.A.3,-and (2) deletion of the extended Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) of-fourteen days -(instead of the -
required seven days) for the 'A' Low Pressure Coolant Injection (LPCI) and Containment Cooling Subsystems to be inoperable as specified in footnotes to TS Sections 3.5. A.3.a and 3.5.B.3, respectively.
The reduction in the RHR pump flow rate is to eliminate problems-inherent _in testing the pumps near-runout conditions and permit more accurate'and repeatable inservice testing.
The deletion of the extended LCO in the footnotes to TS Sections-3.5.A.3.a and 3.5.B.3 eliminates out-of-date information as this extension was previously approved on a temporary basis for cycle 9 in TS-Amendment No.153. This removal of the extended LC0 is therefore an administrative _ change.
2.0- DISCUSSION The Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) for the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant consists of the following systems:
(a High_ Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI) system.
(b Automatic Depressurization System (ADS).
(c Core Spray System (consisting of two-loops, one pump per loop, each pump powered from separate diesel generators).
(d) Low Pressure Coolant Injection (LPCI) mode of the RHR ' system (consisting of two loops,_two pumps per loop, with each pump in.a loop powered.from a different diesel generator).
Each of the two LPCI subsystems consists of two RHR pumps, with A and C in one subsystem and B-and D in the other. They are tested in accordance with TS Section 4.5.A.3 to ensure that adequate core The current criterion is that. the _ flow for ea. cooling capaci_ty_ is available.
ch pump must be at -least 9900 gpm against a system head corresponding-to a reactor vessel to primary containment differential pressure of at least 20 psid.
At the RHR finw rate of 9900.gpm, 9.107050219 910701 PDR ADOCK 05000333 P
..-....-.-..-...---..-.a..-...
d,
the pumps are on the steep part of their head capacity curve.
In this region of the pump performance curve, small variations in flow result in large variations in pressure.
In order to reduce the impact of flow measurement uncertainties and facilitate more accurate and more repeatable inservice testing, the licensee proposed to reduce the required minimum RHR pump flow by 10 percent to 8910 gpm. This reduction would permit surveillance testing outside the flow sensitive region of the pump curve.
The deletion of the temporary 14-day LCO conditions eliminates extraneous and out-of-date information from the Technical Specifications.
3.0 EVALUATION The licensee has proposed a TS change to reduce the allowable RHR pump flow rate from its present allowable value of 9900 gpm to 89.v gpm, a ten percent reduction. To justify this change, the licensee used a LOCA analysis ("JAF NPP SAFER /GESTR - LOCA Analysis," General Electric Company, NEDC-31317P, October 1986) and a safety evaluation performed by GE ("Huclear Safety Evaluation for a 10% Decrease in LPCI Flow," JAF-SE-90-024, February 5,1990) in its submittal.
The LOCA analysis performed using the approved SAFER /GESTR evaluation models per Appendix K to 10 CFR Part 50, demonstrates that, for a ten percent reduction in PHR flow, the peak cladding temperature (PCT) will increase by 88 F.
Since the current limitir.g licensing PCT is more than 600*F below the allowable 2200 F, the plant will continue to meet the requirements of Appendix K of 10 CFR Part 50 and 10 CFR 50.46 with over 500 F margin. Therefore, the proposed reduced LPCI flow rate to 8910 gpm is acceptable based on LOCA considerations.
The LPCI system is also relied on to supply makeup water to the reactor during postulated fire events in accordance with Appendix R of 10 CFR Part 50. These are not pipe break events but are postulated fire events which can threaten the ability of the plant to maintain reactor vessel water inventory depleted by decay heat and sensible heat boiloff. The analysis shows that for the worst case Appendix R fire, the PCT is estimated to increase no more than 60 F assuming a 10 percent decrease in LPCI flow rate.
Since the resultant PCT is well below temperatures associated with fuel cladding damage, a reduction of 10 percent in FHR flow does not pose any threat to the fuel integrity.
Analysis of the suppression pool cooling mode of operation, the shutdown cooling mode of operation, and the containment cooling mode of operation shows that the RHR pumps operating at 8910 gpm exceed the design and FSAR flow rates for these modes.
In addition, the flow rates assumed in the design of these modes are less than the flow rate used in the design of the LPCI mode.
Therefore, the analysis concludes that there is no safety impact associated with this change to the flow criteria.
1
a 1
I 4 -
Based on the above evaluation, the proposed change to the RHR pump flow.
acceptance criteria is acceptable.
]
The deletion of the extended LC0 in the footnote-to TS Sections 3.5.A.3.a'and
)
3.5.B.3 for a LPCI subsystem and its associated containment cooling subsystem reflects the NRC staff's intent that the extended LC0 be effective only through i
the end of cycle 9.
The NRC staff determines.that the changes regarding deletion of the extended LC0 are administrative changes-and:cannot impact.the capability of the emergency core cooling subsystems or the containment cooling mode of RHR. Based on the above evaluation, the proposed change _to remove the extended LCO is acceptable.
4.0_ 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.
5.0 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 to the 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 involvesEno significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment'on such finding ( 55 FR 32330).
Accordingly, the amendment meets the'eli forth in 10 CFR 51 ?2(c)(9)gibility criteria for categorical. exclusion set PursuantLto10CFR.51.?2(b)_noenvironmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared _in connection-with the issuance of the amendment.
6.0 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, (?) 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 Contributor:
S. Sun Date: July 1, 1991
,.,. ~
..-..,.,-,,-,-,-.,,,....~..._.-,,.,_-,-,-w-...
-..--..w
July 1, 1991
'Dockct 110, 50-333 Distribution:
-Docket File ~~ ENRC & Local PDRs PDI-1 Reading SVarga JCalvo CVogan tir. Palph E. Beedle BMcCabe RACapra Executive Vice President - Nuclear Generation CCowgill RJones Power Authority of the State of New York OGC DHagan 123 fiain Street GHill(4)
Wanda Jones White Plains,tiew York 10601 CGrimes ACRS (10)
GPA/PA OC/LFMB
Dear fir. Beedle:
Plant File SSun
SUBJECT:
ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT FOR JAMES A. FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT (TACNO.77058)
The Conoission has issued the enclosed Amendment flo.171 to Facility Operating License No. DPR.59 for the James A. FitzPatrick !!uclear Power Plant. The amendment consists of changes to the Technical Specifica'., ions in response to your application transmitted by letter dated June 21, 1990.
The amendment reduces the Residual Heat Removal pump flow rate surveillance acceptance criteria from 9900 gpm to 8910 gpm.
This change allows more accurate and repeatable inservice testing by eliminating problems inherent in testing the pumps near runout flow conditions. The amendment also removes an out of-date 14. day LC0 approved only for cycle 9 by TS Amendment No.153.
A copy of the related Safety Evaluation is enclosed. A Notice of Issuance will be included in the Commission's next regular biweekly Federal Register notice.
Sincert.ly, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Brian C. McCabe, Project Manager Project Directorate 1-1 Division of Reactor Projects - 1/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
1.
Amendment tio.171 to DPR.59 t
l 2.
Safety Evaluation cc w/ enclosures:
See next page r
l oft ~"iPblillD ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~iPbr~11Pfi~~ ~ ~ -~iWxt~" ~ ~~~ ~~ ibEc~~
. _..... _ :... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ :. gg........ _ _
_U_:~
c x ___.;
- CVogan
- 0McCabe:avigf NAME
......:......_.......:...__._______]Ruon,s
/
Capra
- 6 //[/91,_s____......:h..a___......
~ ~~ ~~ ~ OFFTtl AL' Pit 0.b' t0Pr~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~
- }/[/91 DATE
- J //3 /91
- p/3/91
/ /91 f
Docunent Name: FITZ AMDT 77058
.gg lP