ML20205S143
| ML20205S143 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 11/07/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205S142 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8811100267 | |
| Download: ML20205S143 (4) | |
Text
_ _ _ ____ _ _ __.
a
[pM*0 0
o UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
a a
W ASHINGTON, D. C. 26655
\\....J SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.117 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-59 POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK JAMES A. FITZPATRICr NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-333
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated July 29, 1988 (Ref. 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 9.
In support of these changes, the subar.tal included a Safety Evaluation, as well as the General Electric (GE) Report, "Supplemental Reload Licensing Submittal for the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Reload 8," and 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.
2.0, EVALUATION 2.1 Reload Description For Cycle 9,184 irradiated fuel assemblies will be removed from the reactor core and replaced by 184 General Electric GE8x8ER assemblies.
?.? Fuel Mechanical Design The fuel (GE8x8EB) to be inserted into the core for Cycle 9 is similar to that customarily used for BWR reloads and is described in Reference ?.
The mechanical design methodology is described in Reference 3 and was used in this design for the GE8x8EB fuel.
Reference 3 has been approved by the staff (Ref.
4).
We conclude that the fuel mechanical design for the GE8x8E8 fuel is acceptable.
2.3 Nuclear Design The nuclear design and analysis of the Cycle 9 reload was perfomed with methods and techniques which are described in Reference 3 and which are used in all reload analyses performed by GE. The results of the FitzPatrick analyses 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 9 reload is acceptable.
P.4 Themal-Hydraulic Design The methods and procedures employed in the thermal-hydraulic (T-H) design and analysis of the Cycle 9 core are described in Reference 3.
The value of 1.04 8811100267 enito-DR ADOCK 0500o333 PDC
.o a-
. for the Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) safety limit, approved in that reference for the GEXL plus correlation, is used for Cycle 9.
The methods and procedures used to obtain the operating limit MCPR are those described in Reference 3 and are acceptable.
7.5 loss-of-Ccolant Accident Analyses The LOCA analyses in the reload were performed using the SAFER /GESTR code package and the application methodology described in Reference 5.
Since the licensee used approved methods, and the results 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 nonnal operation and anticipated cperational transients. As stated previously, the safety limit of 1.04 was used for Cycle 9.
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 /Ref.1) to determine which events result in tne largest reduction in CPR. The operating limit MCPR was then established by adding the largest reduction factor in the CPR to the safety limit MCPR.
Since acceptable rethods (Ref. 3) have been used, we find the MCPR Technical Specification changes to be acceptable.
l The Maximum Average Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate (MAPLFGR) limits specified in the proposed Technical Specification changes are less than or equal to the bounding MAPLHGR used in the SAFEP/GESTR-LOCA analysis (Ref. 3) and are, therefore, acceptable, j
2.7 Technical Specification Changes l
The following Technical Specification changes proposed by the licensee reflect the new fuel Cycle 9:
1.
P.evise the List 01 Figures.
2.
Revise the MCPR Safety and Operating Limits.
l 3.
Reword of Core Thennal Power Limit Bases.
4 Correct a 2pelling error.
5.
Update or add applicable MCPR, APLHGR, and MAPLHGR figures.
6.
Revise reactor core description to include the new GE8X8E8 fuel.
(
,------n-
0
-o
. 7.
Delete specifications associated with the discharged fuel and with the Cycle 8 specific analysis.
The proposed changes are acceptai31e since they are based upon aporuved analytical methods as discussed above.
2.8 Sumary Evaluation Rased on the above evaluation, we conclude that James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant may be loaded and operated for Cycle 9.
This conclusion is based on the following:
1.
The safety analyses have been performed by previously approved methods and procedures.
2.
The Cycle 9 core meets all of the staff's acceptance criteria.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONS!DERATION 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 Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public coment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Sec 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
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(11 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 cenducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
5.0 REFERENCES
1.
Letter, John C. Rrons (New York Pow r Authority) to USNRC, "Proposed Change to the Technical Specifications Regarding Reload 8/ Cycle 9,"
dated July 29, 1988.
?.
Supplemental Reload Licensing Submittal for James E. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Reload 6. General Electric, 23A 4825, November 1986, 3.
GESTAR-!!
"Gener51 Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel,"
NEDE-24011-P-A-8, July 1986
=
o e
t 4
Approval letter, D. G. Eisenhut (NRC) to R. Gridley (GE) dated May 12, 1978.
5.
NEDE-23785-1-PA, "The GESTR-LOCA and SAFER Models for the Evaluation of i
the Loss-of-Coolant Accident," Volume I, II and III, General Electric Company, June 1984 Dated: November 7. 1988 PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTOR:
1 G. Schwenk f
I
)
4 i
l
[
I l
E I
l s
l 1
I h
l i
!