ML20245F700
| ML20245F700 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 06/22/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245F697 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8906280214 | |
| Download: ML20245F700 (6) | |
Text
s hm M8" o
UNITED STATES
'I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 74 p.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 r
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.
132 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 INTRODUCTION By letter dated March 22, 1989, the Power Authority of the State of New York (PASNY or the licensee), requested changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) for the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant. The changes would clarify the surveillance requirements for maintaining the discharge piping of the Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS) and of the Reactor Core Isolation
' Cooling System (RCICS) filled with water whenever they are required to be operable. Another minor editorial change is also included.
DESCRIPTION Since the ECCS and the RCICS are designed for automatic and rapid startup under all conditions when they must be considered operable, their discharge piping must be kept filled with water to prevent water hammer damage should startup occur. A supply of water at low pressure is connected to each system and periodic, manual venting from the high point of each system ensures that the piping is full of water. Present TS specifies that the discharge piping of the Core Spray System (CSS) and the Low Pressure Coolant Injection System (LPCIS) - which are a part of the ECCS - must be vented prior to the monthly system operability test and following any period during which the respective systems have been declared inoperable prior to declaring them operable.
However, these systems may be declared incperable as a result of conditions which do not involve a loss of water in the discharge piping (e.g.,
instrumentation problems, valve operator problems). For these conditions, venting is not needed in order to ensure that the discharge piping is full of water. Therefore, to more clearly address the venting need and ensure that venting occurs when appropriate, this TS proposal would revise the surveillance requirement such that venting and filling cperations must be conducted following any period when the piping has not been maintained in a filled condition, rather than following any period of system inoperability. Thus, venting is related to a loss of water condition and the monthly system operability test, I
rather than any other condition and is considered acceptable. This change,
affects TS Section 4.5 G.2.
)
l 1
l P
8906280214 890622 l
e PDR ADOCK 05000333 P
= _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
i
l
,0 t
2 1.
.Another proposed change would delete the requirement to vent the CSS discharge piping from.the high point whenever the CSS is lined up to take a suction from the Condensate Storage Tank (CST). This evolution is presently required j
by.Section 4.5.G.3 on a monthly basis.
~The normal CSS suction lineup is from the suppression chamber..To transfer the lineup to the CST requires shutting the suppression chamber key-locked -
motor operated valve and opening the manual valve to the CST. The licensee has-stated that,'if the lineup is shifted to the CST, the CSS would not be-
- considered operable and that venting.would be addressed by procedures which.
l
- would be developed or in place at the time. The staff agrees that this is appropriate.
'Also, this monthly venting requirement is redundant to the existing monthly venting surveillance requirement in Section 4.5.G.1, which states that the CSS must be vented prior to the monthly operability test. Furthermore, since this amendment will require that the CSS be vented following _any period when it was
~
not maintained in a filled condition, this requirement will apply before the system is returned to service, regardless of the suction flow path.
Therefore, the staff agrees that proper requirements. remain in place which will protect the ECCS and RCIC discharge piping from water hamer damage.
An editorial' change to Specification 3.5.G.a would add "of" between " purposes" and " satisfying"' to clarify the statement.
The proposed changes clarify the intent of the Technical Specifications, improve the consistency within.the Technical Specifications, and correct an editorial error. The proposed changes do not involve modification of any existing i
equipment,' systems, or components; nor do they change any administrative controls or limitations imposed on existing plant equipment. The changes do not alter the conclusions of the plant's accident analyses or radiological' release analyses as documented in the Final Safety Analysis Report or Safety Evaluation Report. They are, therefore, acceptable.
~ ENVIRONMENT 1. CONSIDERATION This amendment involves a change to surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, l
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 eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Part 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51.22(b) no environmental j
impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
1 I
q
f.
i CONCLUSION We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there j
is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be i
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 1
this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
L Dated:
June 22, 1989 PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTOR:
D. E. LaBarge
)
I i
l
, ;p nn
\\'
q%,,
i UNITED STATES
., +
, g,F g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
7.
t WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g..../
i SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE'0F NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.
132 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-59 POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK i
1 JAMES A. FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT f
DOCKET NO. 50-333 INTRODUCTION By letter dated March 22, 1989, the Power Authority of the State of New York (PASNY or the licensee), requested changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) for the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant. The changes would clarify the surveillance requirements for maintaining the discharge piping of the 1
Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS) and of the Reactor Core Isolation
(
Cooling System (RCICS) filled with water whenever they are required to be k
operable. Another minor editorial change is also included.
DESCRIPTION j
i Since the ECCS and the RCICS are designed for automatic and rapid startup 4
under all conditions when they must be considered operable, their discharge piping must be kept filled with water to prevent water hammer damage should startup occur. A supply of water at low pressure is connected to each system i
and periodic, manual venting from the high point of each system ensures that l
the piping is full of water. Present TS specifies that the discharge piping of the Core Spray System (CSS) and the Low Pressure Coolant Injection System (LPCIS) - which are a part of the ECCS - must be vented prior to the monthly system operability test and following any period during which the respective systems have been declared inoperable prior to declaring them operable.
j However, these systems may be declared inoperable as a result of conditions which do not involve a loss of water in the discharge piping (e.g.,
instrumentation problems, valve operator problems). For these conditions, venting is not needed in otder to ensure that the discharge piping is full of water. Therefore, to more clearly address the venting need and ensure that venting occurs when appropriate, this TS proposal would revise the surveillance requirement such that venting and filling cperations must be conducted following l
any period when the piping has not been maintained in a filled condition, i
rather than following any period of system inoperability. Thus, venting is related to a loss of water condition and the monthly system operability test, rather than any other condition and is considered acceptable. This change,
affects TS Section 4.5.G 2.
Another proposed change would delete the requirement to vent the CSS discharge piping from the high point whenever the CSS is lined up to take a suction from the Condensate Storage Tank (CST). This evolution is presently required by Section 4.5.G.3 on a monthly basis.
The normal CSS suction lineup is from the suppression chamber. To transfer the lineup to the CST requires shutting the suppression chamber key-locked motor operated valve and opening the manual valve to the CST. The licensee has stated that, if the lineup is shifted to the CST, the CSS would not be considered operable and that venting would be addressed by procedures which would be developed or in place at the time. The staff agrees that this is appropriate.
Also, this monthly venting requirement is redundant to the existing monthly venting surveillance requirement in Section 4.5 G.1, which states that the CSS must be vented prior to the monthly operability test. Furthermore, since this amendment will require that the CSS be vented following Jan period when it was not maintained in a filled condition, this requirement will apply before the system is returned to service, regardless of the suction flow path.
Therefore, the staff agrees that proper requirements remain in place which will protect the ECCS and RCIC discharge piping from water hammer damage.
An editorial change to Specification 3.5.G.a would add "of" between " purposes" and " satisfying" to clarify the statement.
The proposed changes clarify the intent of the Technical Specifications, improve the consistency within the Technical Specifications, and correct an editorial error. The proposed changes do not involve modification of any existing equipment, systems, or components; nor do they change any administrative controls or limitations imposed on existing plant equipment. The changes do not alter the conclusions of the plant's accident analyses or radiological release analyses as documented in the Final Safety Analysis Report or Safety Evaluation Report. They are, therefore, acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves a change to 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 Commission 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 Part 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
e
~
4 ~
a.
3 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.
Dated:
June 22, 1989 PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTOR:
D. E. LaBarge l
l
\\
- _ - - - - - _ -