ML20247C194
| ML20247C194 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 09/05/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247C192 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8909130273 | |
| Download: ML20247C194 (2) | |
Text
_.
o UNITED STATES l
~h
~k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 l
s...../
~
l SAFETY. EVALUATION.BY.THE.0FFICE OF. NUCLEAR. REACTOR. REGULATION l
RELATED TO. ANENDMENT.NO.135.TO FACILITY OPERATING. LICENSE.NO..DPR-59 POWER. AUTHORITY.0F..THE STATE 0E.NEW. YORK JAMES A..FITZPATRICK. NUCLEAR. POWER. PLANT DOCKET.NO. 50 333
]
INTRODUCTION
{
By letter dated April 24, 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 resolve a potential for misinterpreting the High Pressure Water Fire Protection System (HPWFPS) Limiting Condition For Operation Specification 3.12.A.I.b.
EVALUATION Specification 3.12.A.1.b requires that the HPWFPS flow path be available from the river through distribution piping to sectionalizing control or isolation valves to the yard hydrant curb valves and to the first valve ahead of the water flow alarm device on each sprinkler, hose standpipe or spray system riser which ir required to be operable. A literal interpretation of this would indicate ti.at each hose station must contain an operable isolation va'ive and a water flow alarm device. Each hose station riser does have an isolation valve, and flow through each sprinkler and spray system riser (i.e., the Fixed Water Suppression System) does contain an alarm. However, there are no water flow alarm devices associated with the design of the hose station risers.
Branch Technical Position CMEB 9.5-1, " Guidelines for Fire Protection for Nuclear Power Plants," which is incorporated into Section 9.5.1 of the NRC Standard Review Plan, NUREG-0800, defines a Sprinkler System, in part, as a network of piping connected to a reliable water supply which will distribute the water throughout the area protected through sprinklers. The system is usually activated by heat, and includes a controlling valve and a device for activating an alarm when it is in operation. CMEB 9.5-1 defines a Water Spray System as a network of piping similar to a sprinkler system except that it utilizes open-head spray nozzles.
It defines a Standpipe and Hose System as a fixed piping system with hose outlets, hoses, and nozzles connected to a reliable water supply to provide effective fire hose streams to specific areas inside the building. A review of this document indicates that flow alarms are required for the Sprinkler and Water Spray Systems, but not for the Standpipe and Hose Stations.
3;re as8@
P
o l
( l
(
In its letter of January 11, 1977, the licensee responded to an NRC request to compare the Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant Fire Protection Program with the guidelines of Standard Review Plan Section 9.5.1.
The letter contained a description of the various alarms and concluded that the water flow alarms are provided in accordance with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) code and the-Standard Review Plan.
In the safety evaluation attached to Amendment No. 47 to the FitzPatrick TS dated August 1, 1979, the NRC discussed various aspects of the FitzPatrick Fire Protection Sy(or the lack thereof) were not addressed.In the discussion concerning the in stem.
flow alarms However, in the discussion concerning the fixed water suppression system, the flow alarms for the fixed system were discussed. The conclusion reached in the safety evaluation was that, subject to various modifications which were described but did not involve the alarm systems, the design was acceptable.
Based on this information and analysis, and a review of the applicable NFPA codes, it is concluded that water flow alarms were not intended to be included in the design of the hose station risers.
It is further concluded that the proposed change will not affect the conclusions reached in either the Final Safety Analysis Report or the Safety Evaluation Repo.. accident analysis.
For these reasons the proposed changes can be considet.J to be administrative in nature and it is appropriate that the proposed wording change be incorporated.
The revision is, therefore, approved.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves a change in administrative procedures or requirements.
Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Part 51.22(c)(10). Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement of environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
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 Consnission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health ar.d safety of the public.
Dated:
september 5, 1989 PRINCIPAL. CONTRIBUTOR:
D. LaBarge
__