ML20127D796
| ML20127D796 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 05/02/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127D790 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8505170030 | |
| Download: ML20127D796 (4) | |
Text
UNITED STATES
,{
p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-l WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NJCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 88 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
By letter dated January 16, 1985 (Reference 1), the Power Authority of the State of New York submitted proposed changes to the Technical Specifications for the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant to permit reloading and operation for Cycle.7.
In support of these changes, the submittal included a Safety Evaluation, as well as the G(neral Electric (GE) Report,
" Supplemental Reload Licensing Submittal for the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Reload 6" (Reference 2), and an addendum (Reference 3) to the GE Report, " Loss-of-Coolant Analysis for James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant." The staff has reviewed this submittal and has prepared the following evaluation.
The proposed changes to the FitzPatrick Technical Specifications would specify the Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) Operating Limit for Incremental Cycle Core Average Exposure, define the vs. Operating Limit MCPR and identify the Maximum Average Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate (MAPLHGR) limits for all fuel types for Cycle 7 operation.
In addition, specifications relating to discharged fuel types would be deleted.
2.0 EVALUATION 2.1 Fuel Mechanical Design The fuel to be inserted into the core for Cycle 7 is similar to that customarily used for BWR reloads and is described in Reference 4.
This reference has been approved by the staff (Reference 5). We conclude that no further review of the fuel mechanical design is required.
2.2 Nuclear Design The nuclear design and analysis of the Cycle 7 reload was perfemed with methods and techniques which are described in Reference 4 and which are used in all reload analyses perfomed by GE. The results of the FitzPatrick anelyses are within the range of those reload cores previously reviewed by the staff and found to be acceptable. We therefore conclude that the nuclear design and analysis of the Cycle 7 reload is acceptable.
8505170030 850502 PDR ADOCK 05000333 P
. 2.3 Thermal-Hydraulic Design The methods and procedures employed in the thermal-hydraulic (T-H) design and analysis of the Cycle 7 core are described in Reference 4.
The value
.of 1.07 for the safety limit MCPR, approved in that reference, is used for Cycle 7.
The methods and procedures used to obtain the operating limit MCPR are those described in Reference 4 and are acceptable.
2.4 Thermal-Hydraulic Stability The FitzPatrick reload submittal relies on the GE cycle-specific analysis procedure (GESTAR) to demonstrate that the reactor has sufficient margin to be free of thermal-hydraulic instabilities. The maximum decay ratio calculated in the FitzPatrick submittal is 0.86.
Our evaluation (Reference 6) of the GE T-H stability methodology has shown that there is an uncertainty of 0.2 in the calculated decay ratio. Since the FitzPatrick decay ratio is based on a best estimate calculation, the true decay ratio could be as high as 1.06 (0.86 + 0.2).
Since a decay ratio greater than 1.00 indicates an undamped oscillation, the FitzPatrick analysis does not show any margin from undamped oscillations.
Our evaluation (Reference 6) of the GE T-H stability methodology also concludes that a core design consisting of approved GE fuel bundles in coniunction with GE SIL-380 operating recomendations incorporated into the Technical Specifications is in compliance with GDC 10 and 12 requirements.
Since the licensee could not show through analysis that T-H instabilities are prevented by design, the licensee has committed (Reference 7) to incorporate the operating limitations specified in GE SIL-380 into plant operating procedures prior to startup of Cycle 7, and to submit revised Technical Specifications that would reflect these limitations in a timely manner. With the licensee's commitment relative to the GE SIL-380 recommendations, the staff concludes that T-H instability does not pose a safety concern for continued operation of FitzPatrick, 2.5 Transient and Accident Analyses The transient and accident analyses for Cycle 7 have been performed using the methods contained in Reference 4.
The licensee has reported the results of those events which required reanalysis to support Cycle 7 operation.
Because the transient and accident analyses have been performed using previously approved methods, and the results, including those of the reanalyzed events, meet the staff's acceptance criteria, we conclude that these analyses are acceptable.
'2.6 MCPR and MAPLHGR Limits A-safety limit MCPR has been imposed to assure that 99.9 percent of the fuel rods in the core will not experience boiling transition during normal operation and anticipated operational transients. As stated previously, j
the safety _ limit of 1.07 was used for Cycle 7.
i i
~
To assure that the fuel cladding integrity safety limit MCPR will not.be violated during any anticipated transient, the most limiting events were
. reanalyzed for this reload (Reference 2) to determine which events
~ result in the largest reduction in MCPR. The operating limit MCPR was then established by adding the largest reduction factor in the MCPR to F
the safety limit MCPR. -Since acceptable methods (Reference-4).have been used we find the MCPR Technical Specification changes to be acceptable.
The MAPLHGR limit specified in the proposed Technical Specification changes
.is consistent with Reference 3 and is, therefore, acceptable.
Based on the preceding review, we find the proposed changes to the-FitzPatrick Technical Specifications to be acceptable. Additionally, based on the commitment of the licensee (Reference 7) regarding thermal-hydraulic stability, we find Cycle 7 operation of FitzPatrick acceptable, f
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
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 occupational radiation exposure. The Commission e
has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this 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 this amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
S-We have 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, and (2) such.
l activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common i
defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
5.0 REFERENCES
1.
. Letter, C. A. McNeill, Jr. (Power Authority of the State of New York) l-
-to D. B..Vassallo (NRC), January 16, 1985.
2.-
Supplemental Reload Licensing Submittal for James A. FitzPatrick l
Nuclear Power Plant Reload 6, General Electric, 23A 1806, November l
1984 i
l l
l l
. '3.
. Errata and Addendum Sheet No. 4 to NEDO 21662-2,."LOCA Analysis Report for James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant," December 1984.
'4.
GESTAR II
" General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel,"
NEDE-24011-P-A-6, April 1983.
5.
Approvsl letter, D. G. Eisenhut (NRC) to R. Gridley (GE) dated May 12, 1978 and supplements thereto, forming Appendix C to Reference 4.
6.
Letter, C. O. Thomas (NRC) to H. C. Pfefferlen (GE) dated April 24, 1985 - Acceptance for Referencing of Licensing Topical Report NEDE-24011, Rev. 6, Amendment 8, " Thermal Hydraulic Stability Amendment to GESTAR II."
7.
Letter, J. P. Bayne (Power Authority of the State of New York) to D. B. Vassallo (NRC), April 8, 1985.
Principal Contributor:
M. Chatterton Dated: May 2, 1985 I
.