ML20094M307
| ML20094M307 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 08/03/1984 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20094M303 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8408150615 | |
| Download: ML20094M307 (3) | |
Text
j cQ UNITED STATES N. y.l([ g }
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
_, f L _-
dp j _
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
/
?....
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT N0. 82 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
-li0 Introduction By letter dated February 25, 1983, the Power Authority of the State of New U
York (the licensee) submitted a proposed four part amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-59 for the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power f
Plant, one part of which would change the frequency of the-surveillance check for operability of the unit coolers serving the emergency core cooling system (ECCS) components in the East and West Crescent Areas of
-the reactor building. Specifically, the proposed change in Section 4.11.B of the FitzPatrick Technical Specifications (TSs) surveillance requirement stipulates that these coolers be checked for operability once each three
' months. This change replaces the existing requirement that these coolers L
be checked for operability during the _ surveillance testing of the-
~
associated ECCS pumps. By letter dated May 3, 1984, the licensee has provided additional clarifications regarding the proposed change. The 4'
remaining three parts of this proposed four part amendment have been l
treated as a separate action.
i i
3-2.0 Evaluation f
i The licensee states in its submittals that the existing requirement on frequency of surveillance. tests'on these unit coolers requires that they be tested several. times a month'. This result's from the fact that none of the coolers is uniquely associated with any one specific ECCS pump.
- Instead, each cooler in either of the two crescent areas is associated with all of the ECCS (core spray,' residual heat removal (RHR) and high pressure coolant i
injection (HPCI)) pumps in that area. Therefore, all of the coolers in an individual area collectively ensure proper temperature conditions in that a rea. The two crescent areas together coritain a' total of seven ECCS pumps,
-each of which is required to be tested at least once per month for operability-in accordance with the existing FitzPatrick-TSs.
Each crescent area also contains five unit coolers.
In addition, should one of the two core spray pumps or one of the four RHR pumps become inoperable, existing
~
TSs surveillar.ce stipulations will require daily' tests on either the operable core spray system pump or all of the remaining RHR purrps, i
. whichever is appropriate.. This, in turn, will result in daily tests on all. the~ coolers in applicable areas.
8408150615 840803 DR ADOCM 05000333 p
- The licensee contends that the existing test frequency for these coolers is excessive and creates an unnecessary operational burden, particularly since personnel must enter these areas to conduct the tests. The licensee further notes, since testing is performed during normal plant operation, frequent entry into the crescent areas to perform those tests conflicts
-with ALARA considerations on radiological exposure to personnel.
- Finally, the licensee's submittals state that-these coolers are reliable and dependable as evidenced by their operating history.
We have reviewed the existing surveillance requirement on the testing frequency for the unit coolers and the licensee's proposed. changes. We have also compared the Standard Technical Specifications (STS) for BWR/4 Reactors, Surveillance Requirement Section 4.5 for the ECCS pumps, to the proposed FitzPatrick TS change.
Based on our review of the licensee's submittals and the STS, we conclude the following:
The coolers are reliable as evidenced by their operating. history.
The units coolers serve the crescent areas during normal plant -
operation as well as during operation of the ECCS pumps..Because of this continuous service, there is additional assurance that they will be operable during accident situations and perform their intended function.
We consider it inappropriate to require a more stringent test frequency for the coolers which serve the areas housing the ECCS pumps than that for the pumps themselves. The current staff position on the frequency of surveillance testing of the ECCS pumps for operability as stated in the STS is once per three months. The STS refers to Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code for inservice testing of these pumps which currently specifies a test frequency of once per three months.
The existing surveillance requirement on the operability of the unit coolers requires an excessive number of tests.
Performance of the periodic surveillance test requires personnel to enter the crescent areas.
Frequent testing, as required by the existing surveillance requirements, may result in unnecessary
. radiation exposures to personnel, thus conflicting with sound ALARA practices.
" ~ ~
Existing surveillance testing requirements on the ECCS pumps are not changed as a result of the proposed TS revision.
Based on the above considerations, we conclude that the licensee's proposed frequency of tests for operability of the crescent area unit coolers (once per three months) meets the current staff guidelines in this regard, and is therefore acceptable.
- - g
'.m L
- L3.0 Environmental Ccnsideration
~
This amendment involves a ' change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR 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 occupation radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has 'een no public comment on o
such finding. - Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligib,ility 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 this amendment.
4.0- Conclusions We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there.is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) public such activities will be conducted in~ compliance with the Commission's regulations and th issuance of this amenoment will not be inimical to the common
- defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
T. Chandrasekaran Dated: August 3,1984 B
ee S
I i
2