ML20137W323
| ML20137W323 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/02/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137W307 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8510040279 | |
| Download: ML20137W323 (4) | |
Text
,
!omr4 k
UNITED STATES
[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\**..+/
.I~
SAFETY EVAltfATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REG'ULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 78 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-6 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY BIG ROCK POINT PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-155
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By generic letter-dated April 10, 1980, all power reactor licensees were requested by the NRC to propose certain Technical Specification (TS) changes-to resolve Multi-Plant Action D-17.
These changes would incorporate the standard definition of operability and limiting conditions for operation (LCO) which require safety systems relied upon in the safety analysis report to be operable and specify required actions in the event systems or components become inoperable.
By letters dated May 31, 1983, and June 1, 1983, Consumers Power Company licensee indicated that the TS (generic letter for Big Rock Point.1) do not include a de (the licensee) responded to the The and (2) do int.lude appropriate LC0 for the containment spray, core spray, reactor depressurization, and emergency power systems. The licensee further indicated that plant procedures do include an appropriate definition of equipment operability.
As part of the Systematic Evaluation Program the NRC determined in the Big Rock Point Integrated Plant Safety Assessment (NUREG-0828) that the licensee should include a formal definition of operability in the TS. The staff also concluded that the Big Rock Point TS should include appropriate LCO if both trains of redundant safety systems were inoperable.
In response to NUREG-0828, Consumers Power Company submitted proposed TS on November 14, 1984, as revised on January 17, 1985, which incorporate a formal definition of " operability" into the Big Rock Point TS. The request also incorporates LCO for safety systems. These systems include containment ventilation isolation valves and vacuum breakers, emergency condgn,ser system, core spray system, reactor depressurization system, and the contain-rient spray system.
1 851004027985100{55 1
ADOCK 05000p9p PDR P
l l
'. *C A Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to License And Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Opport'ilty for u
Hearing related to the requested action was published in the Tederal Register on May 21, 1985 (50 FR 20974). No public coments or requests for hearing were received.
2.0 EVALUATION The staff has conducted a review of the proposed changes and additions to the facility TS provided in the licensee's submittal dated November 14, 1984 (as revised). The evaluation performed for each change and addition has been provided below.
2.1 New Section 1.2.8 The new TS Section 1.2.8 adds to the existing TS, a definition of operable -
operability. This definition is consistent with the Standard Technical
- Specifications (STS) for Boiling Water Reactors with one exception. The word " safety" has been proposed to be added to the STS definition. The proposed definition states that a system is operable if it is capable of perfonning its " safety" function. Since the definition applies only to safety systems at the Big Rock Point Plant, this difference is inconsequential.
Thus, the staff finds the proposed TS to be acceptable.
2.2 Section 3.4.2(f)
Section 3.4 of the facility TS establishes the requirements for the containment sphere penetrations. Section 3.4.2, in particular, describes the methods of closure of these penetrations and the redundancy established to ensure containment integrity. Section 3.4.2(f) describes the containment sphere ventilation penetration requirements. As described, two 24-inch ventilation openings, one for supply and one for exhaust, currently exist at the facility. The TS for valve closure time and isolation signal sources are not affected by this proposed-TS change.
To ensure containment integrity in the case of a single failure of a ventilation valve, two valves (in series) exist in the ventilation supply line and two valves exist in the ventilation exhaust line ensuring containment isolation.
l Current TS also provide for the possibility of excessive external pressure on the containment sphere due to atmospheric changes.
In order to prevent this possibility, TS currently require the two valves in the ventilation supply line to automatically open whenever the differential pre 9sure exceeds I psi, overriding all other signals. Current TS, however, do not include similar requirements for the two ventilation exhaust valves. The proposed change will add to the TS the requirement for the two ventilation exhaust valves to function similarly. Since either of the two valves in the ventilation supply line failing to automatically open will prohibit containment sphere vacuum relief, the ventilation exhaust path becomes the l
redundant method. Therefore, the. staff finds these changes to be acceptable.
l l
v
' 2.3 New Section 3.4.3(d)
.1 C Section 3.4.3, Operating Requirements for Penetrations, does 'nqt c0Irrently include LCO. New Section 3.4.3(d) adds the LC0 for the vacutimirelief paths discussed in 2.2 above. The proposed LCO forces the plant to be taken to a shutdown condition within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> and to the cold shutdown condition within the following.?4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />, if both vacuum relief paths become inoperable.
A comparison between the proposed LC0 and STS LCO for similar equipment reveels these TS LCO are consistent with STS LCO, are appropriate for the Big Rock Point Plant and are therefore, found to be acceptable.
2.4 Section 3.6
~
TS Containment Requirements currently existing do not contain LCO. The proposed change to Section 3.6 will add to the existing TS appropriate LCO. These LCO, when conpared to STS LCO for containment integrity, are consistent with.the STS. These TS changes are appropriate for the Big Rock Point Plant and are therefore found to be acceptable.
2.5 Section 4.1.2(b)
TS currently existing for the emergency condenser loops do not contain LCO. The proposed TS change would insert appropriate LC0 for this equipment. Since LC0 are currently nonexistent, and since the new LCO are consistent with all of the other safety system LCO, we find this change to be acceptable.
~2.6 Sections 11.3.1.4, 3.1.5, and 11.3.3.4 The current TS for. Emergency Core Cooling System, Reactor Depressurization System, and Containment Spray System, as delineated in the above Section numbers, do not contain LCO. The proposed TS changes would add identical LCO for all cases in which both safety trains become inoperable. The proposed LCO are consistent with STS LC0 for equivalent systems, are appropriate for the Big Rock Point Plant, and are therefore, found to be acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change to a requirement with respect to the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has determined that the anendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be 19hased offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumula-tive 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 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 this amendment.
- \\
4.0 CONCLUSI0t!
t The staff has concluded, based on the considerations disc 7
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and will not be er. dangered by operation in the proposed manner y of the public and the issuance of this anendment will not be
, and defense and security or to the health and safety of the publi regulations n
5.0 ACKNOWLEDGFPENT c.
This evaluation was prepared by T. Rotella and R
. Dudley.
Dated:
October 2, 1985.
O M
r F*
f r
i
. - - _. _