ML20205N404
| ML20205N404 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 04/12/1999 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205N401 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9904160265 | |
| Download: ML20205N404 (5) | |
Text
.
eatog k
UNITED S1 ATES y*,
l j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'f WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
/
- ..+
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 252 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-59 POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK JAMES A. FITZPATRICK N'JCLEAR POWER PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-333
1.0 INTRODUCTION
On May 16,1998, the Power Authority of the State of New York (the licensee, also known as the New York Power Authority) submitted proposed changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs) for the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant. The proposed changes consisted of revisions to TS Sectinn 6, deleting requirements for Plant Operating Review Committee (PORC) review of the fire protection program and implementing piocedures. The licensee also proposed deletion of redundant fire protection program inspection and audit requirements. In response to a June 25,1997 request from the NRC staff, the licensee provided additionalinformation on September 9,1997. Th!s additionalinformation did not affect the NRC staff's proposed finding of no significant hazards consideration, and was within the scope of the amendment application as noticed.
2.0
SUMMARY
AND JUSTIFICATION OF PROPOSED CHANGES The changes proposed by the licensee and their basis are summarized below.
2.1 PORC Review Responsibi'ities TS Section 6.5.1 describes the function, membership, and responsib:lities for the FitzPatrick FORC. The licensee has proposed to delete TS 6.5.1.6.j, which contains one of the responsibilities of the PORC, and currently reads as follows:
J. Review the FitzPatrick Fire Protection Program and implementing procedures and changes thereto.
Presently, as stated in TS 6.5.1.6.j, the PORC is required to review all changes to the fire protection program and implementing procedures. The licensee believes that this requirement represents an unnecessary administrative burden on the PORC, since the large majority of changes reviewed are not safety-significant. The I;censee states that its pm.)osal makes PORC review responsibilities for fire protection issues more consistent with the other responsibilities given in TS 6.5.1.6.
9904160265 990412 PDR ADOCK 05000333 P
. PORC responsibility for review of fire protection requirements was added by Amendment 218, which included relccation of fire protection program requirements in accordance with the guidance of Generic Letter (GL) 88-12, " Removal of Fire Protection Requirements from the Technical Specifications." Thereafter, FitzPatrick Amendment 222 established a new review and approval process for procedures required by TS 6.8, which includes fire protection program procedures. This process requires that procedures be reviewed by qualified individuals, and approved by appropriate plant management. If safety and/or environmental evaluations are required, the PORC is required to review those evaluations. It is the licensee's position that this process provides for appropriate PORC review of changes when safety and/or environmental evaluations are required. Otherwise, less significant changes which do not impact safety or environmental considerations can be made without imposing an unnecessary administrative burden on the PORC.
The licensee states that there are several mechanisms in place which ensure the effectiveness of the fire protection program will be maintained. First. Amendment 218 revised the Facility Operating License to include a lic^nse t.,ondition which states, in part:
The licensee may make changes to the approved fire protection program without prior approval of the Commission only if those changes would not adversely affect the ability to achieve and maintain safe shutdown in the event of a fire.
The fire protection program is also included in the FitzPatrick Final Safety Analysis Report, Section 9.8.5, so the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 apply. This regulation prohibits changes to the facility without prior NRC approval if it is determined that the change constitutes an unreviewed safety question. The licensee also notes that TS 6.5.2.9 requires the Safety Review Committee to inspect and audit the fire protection program.
In summary, the licensee believes that PORC <eview of all fire protection program and implementing procedure changes is unnecessary, and that safety is assured by the rigor of the procedure review and approval process, and other license requirements as discussed above.
2.2 Fire Protection Program and Audit Requirements l
The fire protection program is the subject of TS Section 6.14. The licensee proposes deletion of TS 6.14.A and 6.14.B, which currently read as follows:
A.
An independent fire protection and loss prevention inspection and audit shall be performed annually utilizing either qualified licensee personnel or an outside fire protection firm.
B.
An inspection and audit by an outside qualified fire consultant shall be performed at intervals no greater than 3 years.
The licensee proposes to replace TS 6.14.A and 6.14.B with the statement "THIS SECTION PURPOSELY BLANK."
. The licensee states that these specifications are redundant to TS 6.5.2.9, and can be removed without reduction in fire protection program effectiveness.
3.0 EVALUATION 3.1 PORC Review of Fire Prote ; tion Program and Procedure Changes On June 25,1997, the NRC staff requested additional information regarding the proposed changes. The staff requested:
1.
A description of the screening process used for the fire protection program and j
procedure changes, and the criteria used to determine if a safety and/or environmental evaluation is needed, 2.
For fire protection program and procedere changes that do not require a safety or environmentalimpact evaluation a description of how the changes are documented, reviewed, approved, and implemented, including a discussion of 3
process procedures and organizational responsibilities, and
{
3.
An itemized summary of fire protection program enanges reviewed by PORC for the previous 2 years. The licensee was asked to determine whether or not a given change would have required PORC review if the proposed TS had been in
{
place, and to note if the PORC recommended changes providing a safety benefit.
The licensee provided the information requested on September 9,1997.
The licensee provides procedural controls that require TS-related procedures to be screened for safety and environmentalimpact. TS 6.8.(A).3 requires written procedures and administrative policies to implement the fire protection program. The licensee's September 9,1997, submittal describes controls which ensure implementation of this requirement, and also describes the procedure used to screen changes to determine if a safety and/or environmental impact evaluation is required. Changes are screened to determine if the activity is described in the final safety analysis report (FSAR), affects systems, structures or components described in the FSAR, or involves a test. If so, then the activity is assessed to determine if it is consistent with the FSAR requirements. If the activity is not consistent with the FSAR, a safety evaluation is completed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59. Changes are also assessed for environmental impact, and an environmentalimpact evaluation is completed, if required. If the TS are affected by the proposed change, a license amendment is initiated to address the issue. Safety and environmental screening, and any required safety or environmental evaluations are completed and approved by qualified individuals.
The licensee documented that only a small portion of fire protection program and procedure changes over a 2-year period would have required PORC review if the proposed change had been in place. This documentation demonstrates that a substantial administrative burden on the PORC could be avoided without affecting fardlity safety. Furthermore, the proposed change sets a review standard for the fire protection program that is consistent with other issues which also have significant safety implications for the facility.
, The NRC staff finds that this process for review and approval of fire protection program and procedures will provide for technical reviews by appropriately qualified individuals, and will ensure PORC attention is properly focused on more safety significant procedures and program changes.
The staff also finds that the remaining ragulatory controls on the fire protection program (the license condition, i0 CFR 50.59, and TS requirements for fire protection procedures and program audits) provide reasonable assurance of the continued effectiveness of the program. Therefore, the staff finds the proposed change acceptable. The staff also notes that the improved TS given in NUREG-1433 do not include any requirement for PORC review of fire protection procedures.
Therefore, the proposed change is also consistent with the current regulatory standard for this activity.
3.2 Deletion of Redundant Fire Protection and Audit Requirements The requirements of TS 6.5.2.9.g and 6.5.2.9.h are essentially the same as the requirements of TS 6.14.A and 6.14.B. The staff notes that TS 6.5.2.9.g presently includes an editorial error. This specification reads:
g.
An independent fire protection and loss of [ emphasis added] prevention inspection audit shall be performed annually utilizing either qualified offsite licensee personnel or an outside fire protection firm.
The use of the word "of" is grammatically incorrect in this case; the phrase should read " loss prevention." However, the staff believes that the purpose of this specification is clear, and that the licensee is obligated to conduct the appropriate fire protection and loss prevention audits on the specified frequency. The staff finds that TS 6.14.A and 6.14.B represent requirements ledundant to TS 6.5.2.9.g and 6.5.2.9.h. The deletion of TS 6.14.A and 6.14.8 does not reduce the licensee's obligation to conduct appropriate fire protection audits. Therefore, the proposed change is acceptable.
4.0 STATE CONSULTATION
in accordance with the Commisdon'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
This amendment changes recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or requirements.
Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmentalimpact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
~
r
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, (2) 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: J. Williams Date: April 12,1999