ML20205F703
| ML20205F703 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 03/20/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205F686 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8703310255 | |
| Download: ML20205F703 (7) | |
Text
'
c p no
/
uq'o dNITED STATES
!E-([*g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
// e WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. ita TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-16 GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION AND JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-219
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated November 7,1986, GPU Nuclear (the licensee) requested an amendment to Provisional Operating License No. DPR-16 for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (0yster Creek). The amendment would revise Sections 3.12 and 4.12, Fire Protection, of the Appendix A Technical Specifications (TS), regarding fire protection and the Alternate Shutdown Facility. Specifically, the approved changes to the TS are the following:
(1) Add Sections 3.12.I/4.12.I and Tables 3.12-6/4.12-1, the limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO) and the Surveillance Requirements for the operability for the Alternate Shutdown Facility.
(2) Revise Table 3.12-1 " Fire Detection Instrumentation" to include new detectors which have been added, new fire area / zone designations, and new detection systems.
(3) Revise Table 3.12-2 " Spray / Sprinkler Systems" to include new fire suppression systems and new fire area / zone designations.
(4) Revise Table 3.12-3 " Hose Stations" and Table 3.12-5, " Hydrants and Hose Houses" to include new fire area / zone designations.
(5) Revise Table 3.12-4 "Halon Systems" to include changes in the 480 Volt Switchgear Room Halon System and new fire area / zone designations.
2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION The licensee has proposed changes to the TS to incorporate new requirements related to the Alternate Shutdown Facility which was installed during the Cycle 11 Refueling (Cycle 11R) outage to comply with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R.
Also, additional changes were requested by the licensee to reflect changes in plant fire protection features due to changes made by the i
licensee at the plant.
$((kDbh P
l j
i
\\
. The Alternate Shutdown Facility has been reviewed by the NRC staff. The staff's Safety Evaluation accepting the design was issued on March 24, 1986.
The staff reviewed the licensee's proposed Alternate Shutdown Facility for j
Oyster Creek in accordance with Appendix R criteria. Based on that review, it l
concluded that the performance coals for accomplishing safe shutdown in the event of a fire, i.e., reactivity control, inventory control, decay heat removal, pressure control, process monitoring and support functions were met by i
the proposed alterrate safe shutdown facility. Therefore, the staff concluded that the requirements of Appendix R, Sections I!1.G.3 and III.L were satisfied by the facility.
The evaluation of the licensee's proposed changes to Sections 3.12 and 4.12, Fire Protection, is given below. The evaluation is based on the information provided in the licensee's November 7,1986 application. This evaluation is separated into the five changes listed in Section 1.0 above.
Sections 3.12.I/4.12.I; Tables 3.12-6/4.12-1 The licensee has proposed changes to Section 3.12 and 4.12 of the TS to add limiting conditions for operation and surveillance requirements for the Alternate Shutdown Facility monitoring instrumentation. This is adding TS Section3.12.Itorequire(1)theinstrumentationtobeoperabledgringplant power operations and when reactor coolant tempereture is above 212 F and (2) the reactor to be shut down if the instrumentation is not operable. The instrumentation is listed in proposed Table 3.12-5. This is also adding TS Section 4.12.I to require periodic surveillance of the channels for this i
instrumentation. The frequency of surveillance and the surveillance checks are j
listed in proposed Table 4.12-1.
The licensee stated that the Alternate Shutdown Facility was installed in compliance with Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50 to provide an alternate means of l
achieving and maintaining safe reactor shutdown in the unlikely event of a fire in the control roon or the associated cable spreading rooms. The Facility was designed to eliminate any impact on the probability or consequences of other accidents evaluated for Oyster Creek.
Isolation and electrical separation is I
provided in the Alternate Shutdown Facility by providing key locked switches and electrical circuit isolators to assure that normal and emergency plant operations (other than fire) are unaffected by the Facility. Operation of the facility during a fire condition is accomplished by operation of the key locked switches which transfers centrol functions to the Facility while disconnecting and isolating these functions in the area affected by the fire.
The licensee explained that the Alternate Shutdown Facility provides a similar means of control for achieving safe shutdcwn as that which could be accomplished from the control room. The Facility utilizes existino plant systems and The isolation and electrical separation established design capabilities.
assures that operation from the control room wf11 be unaffected durino normal oremergency(otherthanfire) conditions. Where the Facility interfaces with safety systems, the licensee stated either qualified electrical isolators are previded or the interfacing circuits and equipment is designed to safety-grade standards.
)
4 4 -
The licensee explained further that isolation and electrical separav. ion of the Alternate Shutdown Facility essures the-existing capabilities are retained to mitigate and/or prevent accidents as that which existed prior to installation of the Facility. The installation of this facility increases the margin of safety by providing a means to improve safe shutdown capability in the event of a fire in the control room or cable spreading rooms.
The staff has reviewed the licensee's proposed TS 3.12.I, 4.12.I Table 3.12-6 i
and Table 4.12-1 on the Alternate Shutdown Facility in its application dated November 7, 1986. These proposed TS have been compared to the TS on the remote shutdown monitoring system in the BWR Standard Technical Specifications (STS),
NUREG-0123, Revision 4.
The SWR STS apply to Oyster Creek for its Alternate Shutdown Facility and provide an example of acceptable TS for this facility.
The remote shutdown monitoring system at Oyster Creek is the Alternate Shutdown Facility.
l The licensee's proposed TS are consistent with or more conservative than the i
BWR STS except for the following:
(1) the licensee proposes to restore the inoperable channels to operable status within 30 days or shut down instead i
of within 7 days in the BWR STS, (2) the licensee did not propose for Tables 3.12-6 and 4.12-1 the list of the transfer switches for required surveillance l
and (3) the licensee did not propose for Tables 3.12-6 and 4.12-1 the list of l-control circuits for required surveillance. The transfer switches are to transfer control from the control room to the Alternate Shutdown Facility. The i
control circuits are the circuits to control systems and equipment from the
]
facility. The channel check cannot be done on the fuel zone reactor water level instrument and shutdown cooling system flowmeter instrument in Table 4.12-1 because the fuel zone instrumentation does not work during power operation when the recirculation pumps are working and the flowmeter does not work until shutdown cooling is in operation. This was prcvided in a phone call with the licensee on February 24, 1987.
The licensee has not provided justification for proposing that the Alternate i
Shutdown Facility may be inoperable for 30 days instead of 7 before shutting down and not proposing the transfer switches and control circuits for Tables 3.12-6 and 4.12-1 and revising the limiting conditions for operation and surveillance requirements in TS 3.12.I and 4.12.I to include transfer switches 4
and control circuits. Because there are no existing TS on the Alternate l
Shutdown Facility, the licensee's proposed TS are acceptable until the licensee's justification based on the Oyster Creek-specific fire protection system for the control room can be evaluated. The licensee will be requested to propose new TS or provide its justification within 90 days.
Table 3.12.1 i
The proposed changes to Table 3.12.1, Fire Detection Instrumentation, are to (1) provide new designations for the fire area / zones, (2) change the description l
of the location of the 08-FZ-10A fire zone, (3) add six detector zones with their fire area / zone designations and required number of detectors, (4) reduce i
l the required number of detectors for fire zone OB-FZ-68, 480 switchgear room, zones 1 and 2, to account for the fact that this room has been divided into two I
fire zones, 08-FZ-6A and OB-FZ-6B and (5) increase the total number of required
[
detectors for the combined fire zones 08-FZ-6A and OB-FZ-68.
l
a
. The licensee. stated that additional fire detectors were added to existing fire detection systems to provide coverage for safety-related and safe shutdown related cabling. The proposed changes to the table included new detection systems which were installed for the upper cable spread room and cable bridge tunnels. These additions have been uesigned consistent with similar fire protection features provided in other arees of the plant and in accordance with the applicable requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R.
The fire detectors and fire detection systems alert operators to a possible fire condition and in some cases initiate fire suppression systems.. protection of safety-related equipment from inadvertent operation of fire suppression systems is provided where necessary.
The licensee explained that periodic updates of the plant Fire Hazards Analysis (FPA) have resulted in new fire area / zone designetions to more accurately identify the characteristics of these areas. These changes are administrative in nature and do not affect plant normal or emergency operations.
The licensee further explained that new fire detectors added to existing fire detection systems and the new detection systems are designed to the same requirements and criteria as existing fire detection systems throughout the plant. These additions improve fire detection capabilities and maintain the existing margin of safety.. The fire area / zone designation changes have no effect on plant operations nor fire suppression capability.
The staff has evaluated the licensee's proposed changes to Table 3.12.1.
The proposed changes are to establish new fire area / zone designations in the TS, more accurately describe the detector zones and identify the additional fire detectors added to existing fire detection systems. These are administrative changes to the TS to properly describe the Oyster Creek fire detection instrumentation and are acceptable to the staff.
Table 3.12.2 The proposed charges to Table 3.12.2 are to (1) provide new desigraticns for i
the fire areas and (2) add two water suppression systems to the table. The new fire area designations are those in the FHA for Oyster Creek. The fire areas I
are not changing. The additional fire suppression systems are for the upper cable spread room and the cable bridge tunnels.
The licensee explained that the water suppression systems provided for the upper cable spread room and cable bridge tunnels were designed and installed consistent with similar systems in other plant areas and in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R.
The application of water to the cables used in the plant does not result in cable degradation. Provisions have been made by the licensee to protect safety-related equipment from the effects of inadvertent operation of suppression systems and water runoff.
l l
The licensee further explained that periodic updates of the FHA have resulted in new fire area / zone designations to more accurately identify the characteristics of these areas. These changes are administrative in nature and do not affect plant normal or emergency operations.
I The licensee stated that the new fire suppression systems are designed and installed to the same reouirements and criteria as existing suppression systems throughout the plant. The addition of these systems maintains the margin of safety established. The fire area / zone designation changes have no effect on plant operations nor fire suppression capability.
The staff has evaluated the licensee's proposed changes to Table 3.12.2.
The proposed changes are to establish new fire area / zone designations in the TS, more accurately identify the location of the spray or sprinkler systems and add two additional sprinkler systems. These are administrative changes to the TS to properly describe the Oyster Creek spray or sprinkler systems and are acceptable to the staff.
Table 3.12.3 and Table 3.12-5 The proposed changes to Table 3.12.3, Hose Stations, and Table 3.12-5, Hydrants and Hose Houses, are to (1) provide new designations for the fire areas / zones, (2) add an additional hose station, (3) revise the description of the location of the hose station to spell out the word turbine and add the word elevation to the locations in the reactor building.
l The licensee stated that the proposed changes only reflect administrative revisions to fire area / zone designations. The revised designations clarify fire area / zone locations and characteristics of these fire areas / zones. The proposed changes also identify the additional hose station added to the plant.
These changes are administrative in nature and do not materially affect any plant systems, operation, or analyses. These proposed changes are acceptable to the staff.
i i
Table 3.12.4 The proposed changes to Table 3.12-4, Halon System, are to (1) provide new designations for the fire areas, (2) acknowledge the 480 volt switchgear room has beel divided into two fire areas, (3) revise the location cf but do not reduce the minimum number of charged tanks of halon and (4) acknowledge the halon system for the control room panels is two separate systems.
In order to comply with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, the licensee stated that it divided the 480 volt switchgear room into two fire areas separated by a 1-hour fire barrier. The existing halen system for this area was modified by the licensee to provide independent fire suppression capability for each zone in this area. The modification was designed in accordance with applicable requirements and design criteria that was previously invoked for this area prior to the installation of the fire barrier.
u.n
.+
6-The licensee explained that changes to fire area / zone-designations are administrative in nature and do not affect any plant systems, operations, or analysis except that tro new fire zones have been established to identify additional separation of safety-related and safe shutdown systems and components. The changes modify the area of coverage but do not affect cry operational characteristics or operational parameters. The modification has been designed consistent with similar fire protection features in other areas of the plant.
The staff has. evaluated the licensee's proposed changes to Table 3.12.4 The proposed changes are to establish new fire area / zone designations in the TS, more accurately identify the location of the halon systems and to properly show the minimum number of charged halon ' tanks for each location. These are administrative changes to the TS to preperly describe the Oyster Creek halon system and are acceptable to the staff.
Technical Specifications (TS) On Accumulators Not Needed In its application dated November 7, 1986, the licensee provided its justification for not submitting TS on the minimum open-close cycles for the accumulators and the accessibility of local air cylinders, to be provided for the air operated valves. The staff requested these TS in its letter dated March 24, 1986.
The licensee stated that the air accumulators are passive components not subject to operational controls. The design is integral to the instrument air system and provides a backup source of air pressure to operate the isolation condenser control valve if needed for a minimum of 10 valve cyclings.. The licensee's analysis shows only 6 cyclings are needed. The spare air bottle is in the local area of the accumulators and provides for additional cycling of the valves. This is further assurance that pressurized air is available. The accumulators and the spare bottle was seen by the NRC Project Managers in a tour of the Reactor Building on February 5, 1987.
Based on the above, the staff concludes that TS are not needed #or the accumulators and spare air bottle.
Conclusion As discussed above, the staff has concluded that the licensee's proposed amendment to the TS in its application dated November 7,1986, is acceptable.
The staff, however, requests that the licensee propose the following additional TS:
(1) add transfer switches and control circuits for the Alternate Shutdown Facility to Tables 3.12-6 and 4.12-1, (2) revise the limiting conditions for operation and surveillance requirements in TS 3.12.I and 4.12.I to include the transfer switches and control circuits and (3) require the plant to shut down if the Alternate Shutdown Facility is inoperable for more than 7 days. The licensee will propose these TS or provide sufficient justification that the TS in its application are sufficient.
gg 4
A 7-
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change to a requirerent with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes to the surveillance reouirements.
The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that ray be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative cccupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public commer.t on such firding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(cif9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.??fb1 no environmental impact statement nor environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reascrable assurance that the health and safety o# 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 this amendment will not be inimical to the corron defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.
5.0 REFERENCES
1.
Letter from P. B. Fiedler (GPUN) to Director, NRR, NRC, TSCR No.155, dated November 7, 1986.
2.
Telephone conversation between J. Donohev (NRC) and G. Bush (GPUNI, dated February 24, 1987.
Principal Contributor:
J. Donobew Dated: March 20, 1987.