ML17321A792
| ML17321A792 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 08/05/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17321A791 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8508150453 | |
| Download: ML17321A792 (6) | |
Text
"~cu
+4 0
P)~i J!
O
+
'~
o"
/p +a*+~
UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, O. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 86 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-58 AND AMENDMENT NO.
72 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-74 INDIANA AND MICHIGAN ELECTRIC COMPANY DONALD C.
COOK NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT NOS.
1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-315 AND 50-316
~0J lOP)~ i Qtglg,'ORI GO lb~
IXICI Pl~
LPJ~
oa I'6+
t IDIO.a, Introduction By letter dated May 10, 1985, the Indiana and Michigan Electric Company (IMEC) submitted seven changes to the electrical power system technical specifications, and proposed new technical specifications to add requirements for the undervoltage trip attachments and shunt trip attachments for the Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos.
1 and 2.
The new technical specifications are in partial response to Generic Letter 83-28 item 4.3, Reactor Trip Systems Reliability (Automatic Actuation of the Shunt Trip Attachment for Westinghouse Plants).
The staff's safety evaluation of the Westinghouse Owners Group, June 14, 1983 submittal of the generic Westinghouse design identified the following items:
a)
Confirmation that shunt trip components have been seismically qual ified.
b)
Submission of the proposed technical specifications appropriate for this modification.
Our evaluation of the seven changes to the electrical power system section and the addition of requirements for the undervoltage trip attachments and shunt trip attachments (item 8 below); follows.
Evaluation 1.
The licensee proposes to add the following qualifiers in the technical specification (T/S) in an effort to make both Units 1 and 2 identical and to be able to identify the required battery bank precisely.
Unit 1:
T S 3.8.2.3 a
e 3 4 8-8 and T/S 3.8.2.5 a
e 3 4 8-13 gualifiers are. to be added on the following T/S, so that it would read 1) on T/S 3.8.2.3:
change from battery bank AB to battery bank No.
1 AB 2) on T/S 3.8.2,5:
change from battery bank N to battery bank No.
N
Unit 2:
T/S 3.8.2.3 a
e 3/4 8-8 qualifiers are to be added on T/S 3.8.2.3 so that it would read from battery bank No.
1 to battery bank Ho.
2 AB and from battery bank Ho.
2 to battery bank No.
2 CD.
The above changes will help to identify the battery banks within a unit and the proposed change neither affects plant operations nor represents a change in plant safety bapis.
Therefore, the above proposed T/S change request for Units 1 and 2 is acceptable.
2.
To clarify the definition of "cell electrolyte level" to be when the level of'he cell is up to the bottom of the maximum leve1 mark the licensee proposes to add a phrase "and full electrolyte level (fluid at the bottom of the maximum level indication mark)'n'the following T/S of Units 1 and 2:
Unit 1:
T/S 4.8.2.3.2.a.2 4.8.2.3.2.b.2 4.8.2.5.2.a.2 4.8.2.5.2.b.2 (page 3/4 8-9)
(page 3/4 8-9)
(page 3/4 8-14)
(page 3/4 8-14)
Unit 2 T/S 4.8.2.'.2.a.2 4.8.2.3.2.b.2 4.8.2.5.2.a.2 4.8.2.5.2.b.2 (page 3/4 8-9)
(page 3/4 8-9)
(page 3/4 8-13)
(page 3/4 8-13)
The licensee explains that this change is needed because the maximum level indication mark is approximately as large as the space between ttfe level graduations themselves and this added phrase specifies the exact maximum level.
In our review, we determined that 4.8.2.3.2.b.3 should also be clarified as to the level indication marks.
The licensee has agreed to these changes.
Also,,the licensee included a
change in the temperature that specific gravity is measured at (or corrected to) from the present 70'F to 77'F in Unit 2 T/S 4.8.2.3.2.b.2.
This change was previously approved and the additional change is made as a correction to the previous oversight.
In view of the fact that the subject change involves neither any existing battery parameters nor a significant change in plant safety
- basis, the above T/S changes are acceptable.
The proposed change to Unit 1 T/S 4.8.2.3.2.c.3 has been modified to address the battery charger test, which happens to be a current provision on T/S 4.8.2.3.2.c.4 and proposes to delete the T/S 4.8.2.3.2.c.4, while the existing content of T/S 4.8.2.3.2.c.3 on the battery service test has been moved to T/S 4.8.2.3.2.d.
Subsequently, existing T/S 4.8.2.3.2.d
moves to T/S 4.8.2.3.2.e.
This proposed realignment was necessary to be consistent with the Unit 2 T/S and the standard T/S format.
Therefore, the proposed request of T/S rearrangement is acceptable and these changes should be reflected on No.
4 and No.
5 of the following T/S changes.
4.
The proposed change replaces the existing Unit I and 2 T/S 4.8.2;5.2.d for battery train N and T/S 4.8.2.3.2.d for battery train AB and CD. It reads "d.
At least once per 18 months, during shutdown (MODES 5 or 6), by verifying that the battery capacity is adequate to supply and maintain in OPERABLE status the emergency loads for the times specified in Table 4.8-1A with the battery charger disconnected.
The battery terminal voltage shall be maintained 0'10 volts throughout the battery service test."
The intent of this request is to clarify the term "shutdown" to mean MODES 5 or 6.
Also, the surveillance is properly identified as the battery service test.
The request involves no change in battery parameters and conforms with the standard T/S format.
Therefore, this request is acceptable.
5.
Under the present T/S at least once per. 60 months, the discharge test is performed to verify the battery capacity is at least 80K of the manufacturer s rating and, in addition, this discharge test is to be
-..performed subsequent to the satisfactory completion of the required
- -battery service test.
This deviates from the standard T/S requirement which eliminates the requirement to do a battery service test if a performance di'scharge test has been performed.
The basis is that the performance discharge test is a more severe test than the service test and adequately demonstrates the capacity and capability of the battery to perform its function.
Thus, it is deemed unnecessary to perform the service test at the time when the discharge test is performed.
To avoid the unwarranted, degradation of the battery due to two successive discharge
- tests, at every five years when the performance test discharge is performed, the service test is not required.
The licensee proposes to replace the existing T/S to read as fellows.
The changes are applicable to T/S 4.8.2.3.2.e f'r battery train AB and CB and T/S 4.8.2.5.2.e for battery train N of both Units I and 2.
"e.
At least once per 60 months, during shutdown (MODES 5 or 6), by verifying that the battery capacity is at least 805 of the manufacturer.'s rating when subjected to a performance discharge test.
This performance discharge test shall be performed in place of the battery service test.
In view of the fact that the proposed change conforms with the standard T/S and makes both unit's T/S identical, the proposed T/S change is acceptable.
6.
The licensee proposed to remove the asterisks shown on Table 4.8-1A on page 3/4 8-10 for both units for their two DC load divisions (AB battery loads and CD battery loads).
The asterisks are used to indicate that the AC power sources to the inverters should be turned off at the start of the test and turned on at the end of the specified time interval.
The licensee stated that the above procedure is no longer applicable as a
result of design changes made in the critical reactor instrumentation.
(The equipment in question will not have AC power sources.)
- Thus, the footnote designating when such power sources should be turned on or off is no longer applicable.
The proposed request is acceptable.
ln our review we also determined that the licensee modification might remove some of the loads during test.
In discussions with the licensee it was agreed that a footnote would be added to tab1e 4.8-1A indicating that the channel static inver ters would be replaced during tests with actual or simulated connected loads.
We find this acceptable.
7.
The licensee proposed to delete the reference to tie breakers between bus trains (i.e.,
AB or CD) being open from Unit I and 2 T/S 3.8.2.5 and 4.8.2.5.1 and to delete the sentence "standby circuits provide the capability to connect the train N battery system to the AB or CD station battery trains," from both the Unit I and Unit 2 bases',
page B 3/4 8-1.
The licensee explained that the standby circuits were disconnected because mechanical interlocks could not be provided for the manually operated switches whereby'he reference to them should be removed from the T/S and
- the bases.
- However, by letter dated June 20, 1985, the licensee informed
" us that the interlocking capability for the battery chargers will remain intact so that there will not be any incident wherein both trains could be connected at the same time.
We find the proposed T/S change acceptable.
8.
The licensee has not responded whether the shunt trip components have
'een seismically qualified.
The licensee has agreed to confirm this in their response to Generic Letter 85-09.
The licensee proposed a
revision to the technical specifications Table 4.3-1, "Reactor Trip System Instrumentation Surveillance Requirements".
The staff has found that the proposed Technical Specifications address independent testing of the undervoltage and the shunt trip attachments during power operation for reactor trip breakers only and independent testing of the control room manual switch contacts during each refueling outage.
The proposed Technical Specifications do not address independent testing of the undervoltage and shunt trip attachments during power operation for reactor trip bypass breakers.
The tests are necessary to ensure reliable reactor trip breaker operation.
Generic Letter 85-09 whic hich was sent to the licensee on May 23, 1985, provided the additional guidance.
Since Generic Letter 85-09 was sent to the licensee after the licensee had proposed this amendment, the licensee has agreed to comp1y with the requirements of Generic Letter 85-09 regarding the surveillance requirements of reactor trip bypass breakers.
The staff has reviewed the licensee's submittal of May 10, 1985 and concludes that the proposed technical specifications address independent
testing of the undervoltage and shunt trip attachments during power operation for reactor trip breakers an'd independent testing of the control room manual switch contacts during each refueling outage and are, therefore, acceptable.
However, the licensee should submit proposed technical specifications for independent testing of the undervoltage and shunt trip attachments during-power operation for bypass breakers as outlined in Generic Letter 85-09.
Environmental Consideration
'hese amendments involve a change in the installation or use of the facilities'omponents located within the restricted areas as defined in 10 CFR 20.
The staff has determined that these 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 Cmmission has previously issued a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, these amendments meet 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 these amendments.
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 these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
oNed:
August 5, 1985 Princi al Contributors:
N. Trehan P.
Kang D. Wigginton