ML17332A744
| ML17332A744 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 04/19/1995 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17332A743 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9504250440 | |
| Download: ML17332A744 (6) | |
Text
~gS IIa0(
(4 P0 Cy O
0 VJ+o 4p*y4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, O.C. 2055$-0001 SAFETY EVALUATION B HE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 194 TO ACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-58 AND MENDME NO.
TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-74 NDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY ONALD C.
COOK NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT NOS.
1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS.
50-315 AND 50-316
- 1. 0 INTRODUCTION By letter dated April 6, 1994, the Indiana Michigan Power Company (the licensee) requested amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Nos.
DPR-58 and DPR-74 for the Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos.
1 and 2.
The proposed amendments would delete part of License Condition 2.C.(4) to Facility Operating License No. DPR-58 and part of License Condition 2.C.(3)(o) to Facility Operating License No. DPR-74.
The licensee also proposed changes to three of the modifications listed in Table 1 of the safety evaluation report (SER) of July 31, 1979, that supported amendments nos.
31 and 12 to Operating Licenses No.
DPR-58 and No. DPR-74, respectively.
2.0 BACKGROUND
By letter dated July 31,
- 1979, Operating License No.
DPR-58 and Operating License No.
DPR-74 were amended to add a condition relating to facility modifications for fire protection.
By these amendments, paragraph 2.C.(4) of Operating License No.
DPR-58 and paragraph 2.C.(3)(o) of Operating License No.
DPR-74 read identically as follows:
"The licensees may proceed with and are required to complete the modifications identified in Table 1 of the Fire Protection Safety Evaluation Report for the Donald Cook Nuclear Plant dated June 4,
1979.
These modifications shall be completed in accordance with the dates contained in Table 1 of that SE or Supplements thereto.
Administrative controls for fire protection as described in the licensee's submittals dated January 31, 1977 and October 27, 1977 shall be implemented and maintained."
Table 1 is attached to the SER that supported Cook Units 1 and 2 amendments nos.
31 and 12 forwarded to the licensee by letter dated July 31, 1979.
Table 1 lists 23 modifications to be performed by the licensee in accordance with commitments made by the licensee during a fire protection review.
The purpose of these modifications was to provide additional fire protection safety features such as additional sprinkler systems and to increase fire resistance capability of fire doors, fire dampers, fire floor hatches, and fire barrier penetration seals.
Table 1 also specified the refueling outages'y which these modifications were to be completed.
9504250440 9504i9 PDR ADOCK 050003i5 P
By letter of April 6, 1994, the licensee requested that part of License Condition 2.C.(4) to Operating License No.
DPR-58 and part of License Condition 2.C.(3)(o) to Operating License No.
DPR-74 be deleted.
The part to be deleted reads as follows:
"The licensees may proceed with and are required to complete the modifications identified in Table 1 of the Fire Protection Safety Evaluation Report for the Donald Cook Nuclear Plant dated June 4,
1979.
These modifications shall be completed in accordance with the dates contained in Table 1 of that SE or Supplements thereto."
As'a basis for this request, the licensee stated that these modifications have been completed and the reference to Table 1 no longer applies.
In the letter of April 6, 1994, the licensee also stated that changes were made to three of the modifications listed in Table 1 and provided a
determination of no significant hazards as required per 10 CFR 50.92.
These three modifications and the changes made to the three modifications were as follows:
(1) Table 1,
Item No. 7C., specified that the licensee provide a
cascade recharging station in each unit.
The licensee indicated that it had subsequently replaced these cascade recharging stations with an air compressor; (2) Table 1, Item No. 9, specified that metal hatches in four different locations be protected with fire proofing material.
The licensee subsequently requested and was granted a deviation from the guidelines contained in Appendix A to Branch Technical Position (BTP) Auxiliary Power Conversion System Branch (APCSB) 9.5-1 for unrated fire hatches; (3) Table 1,
Item 20, specified that the licensee (A) label diesel fire pump controllers as "Fire Pump Controller," (B) insert a wiring diagram in each controller, (C) identify components to agree with the wiring diagram, (D) add battery failure
- lights, (E) add means for testing the starting pressure
- switches, and (F) revise manual control at the engine to direct-start the engine, bypassing auto circuits.
The licensee subsequently installed a dedicated fire protection water supply system and is no longer taking credit for the original diesel fire pumps.
3.0 EVALUATION The staff has reviewed the request made by the licensee to delete the first two sentences of License Condition 2.C.(4) to Operating License No.
DPR-58 and License Condition 2.C.(3)(o) to Operating License No. DPR-74.
Based on the fact that the licensee has completed these modifications, the staff does not object to the deletion of these two sentences.
Therefore, the licensee may delete from License Condition 2.C.(4) and License Condition 2.C.(3)(o) the following sentences:
"The licensees may proceed with and are required to complete the modifications identified in Table 1 of the Fire Protection Safety Evaluation Report for the Donald Cook Nuclear Plant dated June 4, 1979.
These modifications shall be completed in accordance with the dates contained in Table 1 of that SE or Supplements thereto."
In its letter of April 6, 1994, the licensee also informed the staff that it had made changes to three of the twenty modifications listed in Table 1 and required by License Condition 2.C.(4) for Cook Unit 1 and License Condition 2.C.(3)(o) for Cook Unit 2.
The staff.,has reviewed these changes and provides the following evaluations.
Table 1,
Item No.
7C.
Table 1, Item No. 7C., specified that the licensee provide (1) 14 pressure/demand breathers in Unit 2, (2) 28 spare cylinders for the demand breathers, and (3) a cascade recharging station.
The licensee indicated that it originally installed a cascade recharging station in the Unit 1 turbine building, in the Unit 2 crane
- bay, and in the fire truck garage in accordance with the schedule provided in Table 1, and subsequently replaced these cascade recharging stations with an air compressor.
The staff has reviewed the change made by the licensee to Table 1, Item No.
7C.
This change consisted of replacing the cascade recharging stations as discussed above with air compressors.
In a letter of July 31, 1979, the NRC staff stated that, with the scheduled modifications, the fire protection program for Cook Units 1 and 2 would meet the guidelines contained in Appendix A to BTP 9.5-1 and was, therefore, acceptable.
Appendix A to BTP APCSB 9.5-1, states that "If air compressors are used as a source of breathing air, only units approved for breathing air should be used."
In response to an NRC staff inquiry regarding the suitability of the air compressors for breathing air, the licensee indicated that it performs monthly testing of the air systems to check for oil, water, etc.
Therefore, the use of an air compressor in lieu of cascade recharging stations in the Unit 1 turbine building, in the Unit 2 crane
- bay, and in the fire truck garage meets the guidelines of Appendix A BTP APCSB 9.5-1.
The staff concludes that the change to Table 1,
Item No. 7C., is acceptable.
Table 1,
Item No.
9 Table 1,
Item No. 9, specified that fire proofing material be installed on the metal hatches located in the control room floors and ceilings (two each),
in the switchgear cable vault floor (two each),
and in each auxiliary cable vault of Cook Units 1 and 2.
The licensee indicated that these hatches were originally protected with a fire-resistive material called Pyrocrete and this material was replaced with a material manufactured by Thermal
- Science, Incorporated.
The licensee subsequently decided not to take credit for the fire-resistive material installed on these hatches and to categorize these hatches as unrated.
By letters dated March 8,
- 1984, June 15,
- 1984, Hay 30,
- 1986, and October 16, 1987, the licensee requested an exemption from the requirements of Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50 for a number of unrated fire hatches which included the metal hatches listed above.
The staff reviewed the licensee's submittal and concluded that the acceptance criteria for fire area boundaries are contained in Appendix A to BTP APCSB 9.5-1, of August 23,
- 1976, not in Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50.
Because deviations from BTP guidelines do not require exemptions, the staff informed the licensee that the exemption requested was treated as a deviation.
By letter of June 17,
- 1988, the staff informed the licensee that the existing fire protection features in the fire areas containing these hatches was acceptable in accordance with the guidelines of Section D.l.(j) of Appendix A to BTP APCSB 9.5-1 and that the deviation request for the unrated fire hatches was acceptable.
The licensee indicated that it intends to leave the fire resistive material in place.
The staff has reviewed the change made by the licensee to Table 1, Item No. 9.
On the basis of its evaluation of June 17, 1988, the staff concludes that the non-fire rating of the metal hatches listed in Table 1, Item 9, does not adversely affect the plant fire safety or the ability of the plant to safely shut down.
The staff, therefore, concludes that the change to Table 1, Item No. 9, is acceptable.
Table 1, Item No.
20 Table 1, Item No. 20, specified that the licensee (A) label the diesel fire pump controllers as "Fire Pump Controller,"
(B) insert a wiring diagram in each controller, (C) identify components to agree with the wiring diagram, (D) add battery failure lights, (E) add means for testing starting pressure
- switches, and (F) revise manual control at the engine to direct start the
- engine, bypassing auto circuits.
The licensee stated that it had performed these modifications as required.
However, this fire system used Lake Michigan as a water supply and as a result was susceptible to Zebra mussel infestation.
To mitigate this potential
- problem, the licensee installed a dedicated fire protection water supply system.
The existing diesel-driven fire pumps, 1-PP-75 and 2-PP-75, also called the screen house fire pumps, became a backup fire suppression water system.
By letter of March 31, 1993, forwarding amendments no.
171 for Cook Unit 1 and no.
154 for Cook Unit 2, limiting conditions for operation (LCOs) and surveillance requirements for the new dedicated fire protection system were added to Operating Licenses Nos.
The LCOs were consistent with the Standard Technical Specifications (STS) with one exception:
A deviation from one of the STS LCO time limits was justified by taking credit for the screenhouse fire pumps as a
fixed backup fire suppression system.
At the staff's request and to conform with the
- STS, the licensee subsequently revised its Technical Specifications so that the screenhouse fire pumps would no longer be taken credit for in the LCO time limit.
By letter of March 16, 1994, the licensee informed the staff that the screenhouse fire pumps were experiencing operational problems caused by Zebra mussels and that it intended to remove these pumps from service.
The March 16, 1994, letter also included the results of a probability risk assessment (PRA) analysis and an evaluation per 10 CFR 50.59 in support of this change.
The licensee stated it would use the Lake Township water as a
backup source of fire suppression water for the storage tank system.
By letters of March 16 and July 26, 1994, the licensee proposed to delete from Cook Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications bases the reference to the screenhouse fire pumps as a backup source of water for the fire suppression system.
The staff found this change acceptable as documented in a letter and SE of December 14, 1994.
The staff has reviewed the change to Table 1,
Item No. 20.
These changes were previously reviewed and found acceptable by the staff as documented in the letters of March 31,
- 1993, and December 14, 1994.
The staff therefore finds the removal from service of the screenhouse fire pumps acceptable.
The staff may review the evaluations performed by the licensee in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 during a future inspection.
4.0
~SUNHAR The staff has reviewed the amendments to License Conditions 2.C.(4) and 2.C.(3)(o) to Operating Licenses No.
DPR-58 and No. DPR-74, as proposed by the
- licensee, and finds these changes acceptable.
The staff has also reviewed the changes made by the licensee to three of the modifications listed in Table 1
of the July 31,
- 1979, SER, as discussed
- above, and finds these changes acceptable.
5.0 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.
- 6. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION The amendments change the requirements with respect to 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 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 (59 FR 49429).
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.
7.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has 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, (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:
D. Oudinot Date:
April 19, 1995
4 L
I M