ML20137R782
| ML20137R782 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 11/21/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137R774 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8512060083 | |
| Download: ML20137R782 (2) | |
Text
'
~h UNITED STATES 8
h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION, SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 97 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-59 POWER AUTHOR /TY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK _
JAMES A. FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-333
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated Mry 2, 1985, the Power Authority of the State of New York (the licensee) proposed revisions to Section 4.7.A of the FitzPatrick Technical Specifications (TS) concerning prim.try containment airlock test requirements. The proposed revisions were r,rompted, in part, by the Comission's amendment to 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, effective October 22, 1980, regarding leak testing of containment airlocks. The Comission's amendment provides greater flexibility of testing in the case of frequent airlock usage.
2.0 EVALUATION Paragraph III.D.2(b) of Appendix J to 10 CFR 50 specifies three air!cck test requirements. Paragraph III.D.2.(b)(1) requires that containment airlocks be demonstrated operable by conducting a leak test every 6 months during periods when containment integrity is required, by pressurizing the interior of the airlock to Pa (Pa is the calculated peak containment internal pressure related to the design basis ac:ident.) and verifying that.
the leakage rate is within its specified limit. TS 4.7.A.2.c(3)(a) has been proposed to comply with this portion of Appendix J and is therefore acceptable.
Paragraph III.D.2(b)(iii) of Appendix J requires an airlock test be perfortred within 3 days after the airlock has been opened (or at least once every 3 days for openings more frequent than every 3 days) during periods when containment integrity is required. The proposed TS 4.7.A.2.e.(3)(c) revises the time interval for testing from once every 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to once every 3 days to comply with this portion of Appendix J and is therefore acceptable. Paragr3ph III.D.2(b)(iii) further specifies that te, sting the airlock seals in lieu of the entire airlock fulfills the 3-day test requirement, TS 4.7.A.2.e.(4)provided no maintenance has been done on the airlock.(b) and (c Appendix J and are, therefore, also acceptable.
8512060083 851121 PDR ADOCK 05000333 l
P PDR I
l Paragraph III.D.2(b)(ii) of Appendix J requires that airlocks opened during periods when containment integrity is not required shall be tested at the end of such periods at not less than Pa. The licensee, in its letter of May 2,1985, requested an exemption from the. requirements of Paragraph III.D.2(b)(ii) of Appendix J.
The licensee proposed to conduct a seal test in lieu of the entire airlock test following a period during which containment integrity is not required and no maintenance has been performed on the airlock that could affect sealing capability. The seal test would be conducted at Pa (45 psig) with a leakage limit of 120 SCFD. The Commission granted the requested exemption on September 18, 1985. TS revisions have been proposed by the licensee to make airlock testing requirements consistent with this exemption and are therefore acceptable.
The licensee has also proposed TS revisions which now specify the test pressure Pa (45 psig) and leakage criteria 0.05 La (La is the maximum allowable leakage rate at pressure Pa.) (268 SCFD), as required by Paragraph III.D.2(b)(iii) and (iv) of Appendix J.
These revisions have been proposed to make the TS comply with this portion of Appendix J and are therefore acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
S 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 and changes in surveillance requirements.
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 Comission 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 eli exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)gibility criteria for categorical 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
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 activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.,
Principal Contributor:
L. Ruth l
Dat'ed:
November 21, 1985
-l l
_. -