ML17334B522
| ML17334B522 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 12/30/1994 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17332A493 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9501090349 | |
| Download: ML17334B522 (6) | |
Text
~ 4 gAS REC0
~0 Cy
~i Cl C
O IVi O
~0
++**+
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 205554001 SAFETY EV LUATION BY TH F
CE 0 U
EAR REACTO GU AT 0 RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.
168 TO FACILIT OPERATING LIC NSE O. DPR-58 ND AMENDMENT NO.
172 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
PR-NDIANA CHIGAN POWER COMPANY DONALD C.
COOK NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT NOS.
1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-315 AND 50-316
- 1. 0 INTRODUCTION By letter dated November 15, 1993, the Indiana Michigan Power Company (the licensee) requested amendments to the Technical Specifications (TS) appended to Facility Operating License Nos.
DPR-58 and DPR-74 for the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos.
1 and 2.
The proposed amendments would make various administrative or editorial changes.
The changes are intended to correct various oversights or errors in the TS, or to update the TS to reflect current plant conditions.
2.0 EVALUATION The TS changes requested by the licensee address 13 separate
- items, each of which is evaluated below.
2.01 ERRONEOUS DESCRIPTION OF OPERATOR ACTION FOR ROLLUP DOORS In Amendment Numbers 124 and ill, for D.C.
Cook Units 1 and 2, respectively, dated May 19,
- 1989, a footnote was added to TS 3.9. 12 to allow the crane bay roll-up door and the drumming room roll-up door to be opened under administrative control during movement of fuel within the storage pool or crane operation with loads over the storage pool.
As part of this change, an example of appropriate administrative controls was added to the bases.
However, this example states that an individual could be stationed at the door to open it in the event of an emergency.
This wording is contrary to the actual intended function of stationing an individual for compensatory action.
As stated in the Safety Evaluation for Amendments 124 and 111, "... the person stationed at the crane bay door would be in communication with personnel in the spent fuel pool area so that he would be readily informed of an emergency and, if needed, actuate the door closure mechanism."
Since the purpose of stationing an individual at the door would be to close the door to prevent radioactive gases from escaping through the door, the licensee has proposed to revise the wording in the bases to correctly reflect that.
Based on the
- above, the proposed change is acceptable.
950i090349 94i230 PDR ADQCK 05000315 P
2.02 INCORRECT UNIT NUMBERS FOR FIRE DETECTION SYSTEMS AND INCORRECT ROON DESCRIPTION Table 3.3-10 in the Unit 1 TS lists fire detection system locations at the charcoal filter ventilation units and other locations.
The listing of the charcoal filter ventilation units incorrectly has a number "2" prefix for the units indicating a Unit 2 piece of equipment when they are in fact, in Unit 1.
The licensee has proposed to correct the listing to reflect the Unit 1
location.
This change is acceptable.
The corresponding list for Unit 2 is correct.
Table 3.3-11 in the Unit 2 TS lists fire detection system locations, with one noted at the U2 Diesel Fuel Oil XFNR.
Rm.
The room in which the detector is actually located contains the Diesel Fuel Oil Transfer Pump not the Diesel Fuel Oil Transformer.
Therefore, the licensee has proposed to revise the listing to correctly list the location as the U2 Diesel Fuel Oil Transfer Pump.
This change is acceptable.
The corresponding listing for Unit 1 is correct.
2.03 CORRECTION OF FIGURE REFERENCE In TS 3.11.2.4, for both units, the first sentence of the limiting condition for operation refers to Figure 5.1.3.
This is incorrect and inconsistent with the standard numbering of technical specifications.
The correct reference is to Figure 5. 1-3.
The licensee has proposed to correct the reference and the change is acceptable.
2.04 REFERENCE
'TO CORRECT VERSION OF FSAR TS 6.2.1.a, for both units, states that organizational charts will be documented in the FSAR.
However, the FSAR is not a current document as it has been superseeded by the UFSAR (Updated Final Safety Analysis Report) which is maintained up to date.
The licensee has proposed to revise the reference to reflect the current document.
The change is acceptable.
2.05 REFERENCE TO 10 CFR 55 TS 6.4, for both units, references Appendix A to 10 CFR 55.
- However, 10 CFR 55 has been rewritten and the material previously included in Appendix A is now part of the body of 10, CFR 55.
Therefore, the licensee has proposed to revise the reference to simply refer to 10 CFR 55.
The change is acceptable.
2.06 DESCRIPTION OF P-8 INTERLOCK Amendment Numbers 140 and 127 for D.C. Cook Units 1 and 2, respectively, dated June 28, 1990, modified the TS for the reactor protection system to change the logic for the reactor coolant pump breaker position above permissive P-8 from one out of four breakers open to two out of four breakers open.
This change was requested to avoid a spurious reactor trip on a false signal from a single reactor coolant pump breaker auxiliary contact.
Although the change was properly incorporated in TS Table 3.3-1, "Reactor Trip System Instrumentation, the change was not incorporated in the description of the
P-8 interlock at the end of the table.
Therefore, for consistency the licensee has proposed to revise the description at the end of the table to correctly describe the current configuration.
In addition, the licensee proposed to delete the word "POWER" from the Unit 1 text to be consistent with the Unit 2 text.
The proposed change to reflect the previously approved amendment is consistent with the change which was already considered and approved by the staff and is therefore acceptable.
The deletion of the word "POWER" from the Unit 1 TS, does not materially affect the description of the P-8 interlock and provides consistency, and is therefore acceptable.
2.07 CORRECTION OF METEOROLOGICAL TOWER LOCATION Amendment Numbers 127 and 113 for D.C.
Cook Units 1 and 2, respectively, dated July 3, 1989, modified the TSs to reflect the installation of a new meteorological monitoring system and provide proper reference to meteorological tower and associated instrumentation locations.
As part of this amendment Figure 5.1-3, "Site Boundary for Liquid and Gaseous Effluents,"
was modified to show the location of the new meteorological tower.
This amendment however, did not correct the reference in TS 5.8.1, for Unit 1, and TS 3.3.1, for Unit 2, which states that the location of the meteorological tower is shown on Figure 5. 1-1.
In addition Figure 5.5-1 was not corrected to show the location of the new meteorological tower.
Therefore, the licensee has proposed to correct the reference in TS 5.8. 1, for Unit 1, and TS 5.5.1, f'r Unit 2, to refer to Figure 5. 1-3 for the meteorological tower location, and to delete the meteorological tower depiction from Figure 5. 1-1.
The proposed change reflects the new meteorological tower location previously
- approved by the staff and is therefore acceptable.
2.DB REMOVAL OF OUTDATED FOOTNOTES FOR POST-ACCIDENT INSTRUMENTATION The first footnote the licensee has proposed to delete addresses the containment sump level and containment water level.
The footnote states that the requirements for these instruments will become effective after the level transmitters are modified or replaced and become operational.
The footnotes for both units specify specific refueling outages during which the equipment modification will be done.
For both units these modifications have been done and the instrumerits have been in ser vice for. several years.
Therefor e the specifications have been applicable for some time, the footnote specifying the beginning of effectiveness is no longer necessary, and the deletion is acceptable.
In addition, the note in the Unit 1 bases which provides the specific date reference for applicability is also no longer necessary and is acceptable to delete.
The corresponding note in the Unit 2 bases was previously deleted by Amendment Number 119.
The second footnote the licensee has proposed to delete is the "*****"
f'ootnote for Table 3.3-11 for Unit 1 and Table 3.3-10 for Unit 2, associated with a specified safety valve position indicator acoustic monitor.
The footnote exempts a specific acoustic monitor from its normal operability requirements for the remainder of a specified fuel cycle.
The footnote addition was requested and approved by the staff due to inoperability of an
,acoustic monitor that would have otherwise necessitated a unit shutdown.
'Since the specified fuel cycles have passed and the monitors have since been restored to service,
%he deletion of the footnotes is acceptable.
The last footnote proposed to be deleted is footnote 4 on Table 4.3-10 for Unit 2.
This footnote states that the core exit thermocouples will not be installed until the 1988 refueling outage and therefore, surveillances will not be required until that time.
Since the installation has been completed and surveillances have been required since installation, the note is no longer necessary and the deletion is acceptable.
2.09 CORRECTION OF ERROR IN STORAGE POOL VENTILATION SYSTEH FLOW RATE The last paragraph in TS 4.9.12.b.4 for Unit 2 requires verifying operability of charcoal adsorbers by testing "while operating the [spent fuel storage pool exhaust] venti1ation system at a flow rate of 30 0000 cfm plus or minus 10X."
(emphasis added)
The flow rate required is obviously incorrect in either value or format.
In fact, as listed elsewhere'n TS 4.9.12 and in the Unit 1 TS, the correct flow rate is 30,000.
The licensee has proposed to correct the
- value, and the staff finds the proposal acceptable.
2.10 CORRECTION OF CRANE TRAVEL SURVEILLANCE REgUIREHENTS Currently Cook TS 4.9.7. 1 requires a demonstration of operability of the auxiliary building crane interlocks and physical stops which prevent crane travel with loads in excess of 2,500 pounds over fuel assemblies.
This text was taken essentially verbatim from NUREG-0452, Revision 4, "Standard Technical Specifications for Westinghouse PWRs."
However, the physical stops on the crane trolley and bridge rails are not in locations that prevent crane travel over fuel assemblies.
The protection against the transport of excessive loads over the fuel pool is provided only through the crane interlocks.
Therefore, the licensee has proposed to delete reference to the physical stops as a feature which restricts crane travel.
The use of a single method of protection from high load travel over the fuel pool is consistent with other staff decisions.
Other facilities have only a requirement for manual verification of acceptable load before transport over the pool and the requirement is entirely deleted from the improved "Standard Technical Specifications Westinghouse Plants",
Since the proposed change is consistent with existing plant design and staff positions, it is acceptable.
2.11 REHOVAL OF UNNECESSARY BASES HATERIAL ON APDHS Amendment Number 82 to the Cook Unit 2 TS, dated Hay 21,
- 1986, removed the Axial Power Distribution Honitoring System (APDHS) from use to be replaced with Allowable Power Level control.
The APDHS equipment was subsequently removed.
- However, bases section 3/4.3.3.7, which describes the function of the APDHS, was not removed at that time.
The licensee has proposed to delete the bases section and the deletion is acceptable.
2.12 CORRECTION OF CONTROL ROON CABLE VAULT FIRE PROTECTION REOUIREHENTS Cook Unit 1 TS 3.7.9.3 requires the low pressure COz systems located in the areas shown in Table 3.7-6 to be operable.
Table 3.7-6 lists, among other locations, Control Room Cable Vault (Backup)*.
The
- note states that the Control Room Cable Vault CO< System is only required to be operable when the Cable Vault Halon System is operable.
In fact, the CO< system is a backup to the Halon system and is required when the Halon system is jnoperable.
The footnote in the corresponding table for Unit 2 correctly states that the CO<
system is required when the Halon system is inoperable.
The licensee has proposed to correct the wording on the Unit 1 table and the staff considers the change acceptable.
2.13 CORRECTION OF AUTOMATIC TRIP LOGIC ACTION Table 3.3-1 in the Unit 2 TS lists various reactor trip system instrumentation by functional units with associated operability requirements and actions for inoperability.
Functional unit 22, "Automatic Trip Logic," is currently listed as being applicable in Modes 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 with two separate action requirements.
As currently listed it is not clear which action is applicable for which mode.
In fact, as correctly listed in the Unit 1 TS, Action 1
applies to Modes 1 and 2, and Action 14 applies to Modes 3, 4, and 5.
This confusing formatting was previously corrected by Amendment Number 107, but due to overlapping amendment submittals was reintroduced in Amendment Number 127.
The licensee's proposal to clarify which actions apply to which modes is an administrative improvement and therefore acceptable.
- 2. 14 ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES During the course of this review the staff identified a typographical error in the Unit 1 TS.
The last line of Section 5.7. 1 reads "applicant Surveillance Requirement",
when it should read "applicable Surveillance Requirement".
This error is corrected by this amendment.
In addition, for consistency, the
- footnotes on page 3/4 9-8 of the Unit 1
TS and page 3/4 9-7 of the Unit 2 TS are revised to read "Cook Nuclear Plant" rather than "D. C. Cook".
These are administrative changes and acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Michigan State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments.
The State official had no comments.
- 4. 0 ENVIRONHENTAL CONSIDERATION The amendments change requirements with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and change surveillance requirements.
The staff has determined that the amendments involve 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 the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding (58 FR 67849).
Accordingly, the amendments meet 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 amendments.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(I) 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 amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
John B. Hickman, NRR Date:
December 30, f994