ML20197C261
| ML20197C261 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 10/31/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20197C252 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-84-11, NUDOCS 8611060019 | |
| Download: ML20197C261 (2) | |
Text
_ _ _ _
pmtm p
jo,,
UNITED STATES g
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c
j WASHWGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.102 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
The Power Authority of the State of New York (the licensee) in their submittal dated October 9,1984, proposed revisions to Section 3.6.D (Coolant Leakage) of the James A. FitzPatrick Technical Specifications (TS). These revisions imposed a more restrictive reactor coolant leakage limit and surveillance requirements, and were originally submitted in an amendment request dated September 28, 1981, based on guidelines specified in NUREG-0313, Revision 1.
The revisions were subsequently updated as a result of an NRC request to comply with the guidelines in Generic Letter 84-11. The proposed TS changes include the following:
1.
The increase of unidentified reactor coolant leakage within any 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period shall not exceed 2 gpm.
2.
The reactor coolant leakage rate shall be monitored and recorded every 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />.
3.
The inoperability period of the primary containment sump monitoring system shall not exceed 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
2.0 EVALUATION The proposed TS revisions impose a more restrictive reactor coolant leakage limit and require that more frequent surveillance of system leakage be performed. These changes are part of a defense in depth to assure leak before break for reactor coolant boundary piping and are consistent with the guidance specified in NUREG-0313, Revision 1 and in to Generic Letter 84-11 for these specific items. However, one of the positions contained in Generic Letter 84-11 requires that J
visual examination of the reactor coolant piping be performed (for leakage) after each deinertment of the primary containment and, that this requirement be included in the TS. This requirement was not addressed in the licensee's submittal. We therefore request that the licensee provide an amendment to incorporate the visual examination requirement, or provide their justification why this item is not appropriate for the FitzPatrick facility.
8611060019 861031 PDR ADOCK 0500 3
P
' We conclude that the proposed changes to the Fitzpatrick TS are acceptable on the basis that they satisfy the criteria specified in Generic Letter 84-11. The requirement for visual examination of the reactor coolant piping following containment deinertment should be the subject of a separate action.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
S This 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 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 ne 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. 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.
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 the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
W. Koo Dated: 10-31-86