ML20238B177
| ML20238B177 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 08/27/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20238B046 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8709090555 | |
| Download: ML20238B177 (6) | |
Text
_ _ _ . _ _ _ -
9 .
k .
k"
[n ase UNITED STATES 8 g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666 f ?*
l L g gg l SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLFAR REACTOR REGULATION '
SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 85 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-54 SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY LISTRICT k RANCHO SECO NUCLEAR GENERATING ST* TION p DOCKET NO. 50-312 i
? I. INTRODUCTION r -
A. ' DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION s~
R
" The proposed action would amend Appendix A of the Technical Specifications for the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station by:
(1) increasing the number of fire detectors required to be operable in each fire clarm zone; (2) adding fire alarm zones, fire suppression zones, and fire hose stations to those presently subject !
to Technical Specification Operability requirements; and (3) by !
making certain format and editorial changes.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to License and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and
) Opportunity for Hearing related to the requested action was ,
published in the Federal Resister on September 1A. 3986, No i comments or requests for hearing were received.
]
B. BACKGROUND INFORMATION '
Following a fire at the Brown's Ferry Nuclear Station in March 1985, the staff initiated an evaluation of the need for is2 proving the fire ;
protection programs at all licensed nuclear power plants. As a !
result of this evaluation, Amendment No. 18 to the Operating License for the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station (the facility) was issued on February 24, 1978. This amendment added interim Limiting Conditions for Operation, Surveillance, and Administrative e
requirements fo; fire protectione to the facility technical specifications.' The:e interim requirements were subsequently modified by Amendment No. 35, dated August 20, 1981. Among other
{
items, this amendment revised the interim specifications to reflect the completion of plant modifications designed to enhance fire {
I protection.
In February 1981, the Commission revised its regulations by adding Section 50.48 and Appendix R to 10 CFR 50. These new regulations fornially defined the administrative and facility requirements )
j necessary to satisfy General Design Criterion 3 (Fire Protection) of Appendix A to 10 CFR 50. As a, result of issuance of 10 CFR 50.48, the licensee prepared an updated fire hazard analysis of the facility to determine if modifications were necessary to provide conformance with the revised guidance. Based on information 8709090555 B70027 '
PDR ADOCK 05000312 t P PDR - - _ . - ---------O.
p F
2 ,
(
developed by this updated analy. sis, the licensee determined additional fire detectors and fire suppression systems should be included in the Limiting Conditions for Operations set forth in the facility Technical Specifications.
the licensee requested the technical specifications be revised toBy lett reflect these additional requirements. Minor changes to this request were transmitted by the licensee's letter of November 25,
' .1985; February L 20,1986'and December 24y 1986.s Most of therchenges proposed by'th licensee in these submittals are a resultW the updated Yire hhzard analysis.
Concurrent with the above, however, the licensee has added new structures to the facility. One of these is the Nuclear Services Electrical Building (NSEB). The licensee previously proposed
[' revisions to the facility Technical Specifications which would 7 extend the coverage of the specifications to the safety-related and I fire protection features of this new structure. In the course of the staff's review of this proposed amendment, the need for certain additional specifications was identified. Based on the licensee's conmiitment (letter dated May 16, 1985) to request these additional specifications in the near future, the initially proposed revised specifications for the NSEB were issued by Amendment No. 68 which was transmitted to the licensee by letter dated June 4, 1985. All of the technical specifications additions and changes to which the licensee coenitted in the letter of May 16, 1985, are included in the present submittal.
1 C. SCOPE OF REVIEW This review has considered only the changes in the facility -
technical specifications requested by the licensee. It has not considered those portions of the technical specifications for which changes were not requested. In performing this review we have considered whether the changes would reduce any of the operational or administrative requirements implemented at the facility. Whether or not such change would:a reduction was proposed, we have evaluated whether the !
(1) increase the probability or consequences of accidents ' cont.idered in the FSAR,- (2) create the possibility of an accident not considered in the FSAR, or (3) reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification.
e
_______~N1--_A-- '
3 II. EVALUATION Specification 3.14.1. The licensee proposes to revise sub paragraphs 1 and 2 of this specification to require all fire detectors in all areas listed in Table 3.14-1 be operable. The IPensee states this change is proposed because reanalysis of the system cesign and Control Room display features has shown the present Operability requirement (based on approximately 50% of the installed detectors) does not adequately address the cross-zoning features of some of the detection systems. Also, in some cases loss of a second detector would not be detectable in the i
Control Room. For these reasons, the licensee proposes to increase the number of detectors required to be operable in each Detection Zone to the total number presently installed (i.e. 100%), and to require establishment of an hourly fire patrol for any zone listed in Table 3.14-1 where any fire detector is not operable.
We have reviewed the licensee's proposed revision of Table 3.14-1 and confirmed that the number of detectors required to be operable in each
}
zone has been approximately doubled. Accordingly, because the proposed change will provide improved assurance of the capability to detect the I occurrence of fires in areas important to safety, we conclude the !
proposed change is acceptable. This conclusion, however, should not be j interpreted as approval or disapproval of the design of the fire l detection system. This matter is subject to review in connection with the staff's review of the UFHA.
l In addition to increasing the number of fire detectors required to be {
operable in each zone, the licensee proposes to increase the number of l
j Detection Zones subject to the Technical Specifications. Specifically, j
._ the licensee proposes to add Zones 5, 7, 20, 21, 31, 32, 33, 35, 42, 43, 46, 53, 54, 79, 80, 83, 85, 87, 89, 104, 109, and 110 to the zones
~
already listed in Table 3.14-1. The licensee states these additions are needed to provide fire protection for portions of redundant systems important to safety as determined by the UFfiA. We note that in proposing to add these Detection Zones to Table 3.14-1, the licensee has not i proposed deletion of any of the presently listed zones. Because the !
proposed revision does not delete any present zones and adds zones based
, on the results of the UFHA, we find the proposed revision acceptable.
The licensee also proposes to change the names of some of the plant l locations referenced in Table 3.14-1 and the other Tables proposed for l inclusion in this section of the Technical Specifications. The licensee ;
states these changes are proposed to provide consistency with the titles l and zone designations used on Control Room displays. We have reviewed ;
the proposed changes and conclude they are editorial in nature and therefore, acceptable.
- Specification 3.14.1.2.a. When Fire Detector Operability requirements are not met inside containment, this specification presently requires the licensee to inspect the containment once per 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />, or monitor containment air temperature at specified locations at least once per hour using a multi point strip chart recorder (TJR-07). The licensee proposes to revise this specification to delete reference to the strip chart recorder. As an alternative, the licensee proposes to simply reference
' l B 4 1
the instrument sensors that measure these tem)eratures. A licensee ;
representative states this is being proposed )ecause these sensors can be !
read via instruments other than TJR-07. For example, the same I temperatures can also be read on the plant computer. Thus, by making this change, the licensee can continue to satisfy this specification even if l TJR-07 is out of service.
The purpose of this specification is to provide alternate means for detecting the occurrence of a fire inside containment when the fire detectors in that area do not meet operability requirements. This may be
-done either by inspection inside containment or by monitoring specific .
containment temperatures. The licensee proposes to amend this specification by allowing the temperatures at the specified locations to
. be monitored using any available instrumentation. Inasmuch as the proposed change does not reduce present monitoring requirements, but merely allows greater flexibility in meeting these requirements, we conclude the proposed change is acceptable.
t Specification 3.14.2.2 This specification describes the action to be taken by the licensee when one fire pump or fire water supply is inoperable. The licensee proposes to revise this specification to correct a typographical error involving references to reporting requirements. Based on our review, we conclude that the proposed change does correct a typographical error, and is appropriate and acceptable.
Specification 3.14.3. The licensee proposes moving the fire zones currently listed in sub-paragraphs a through 1 of Section 3.14.3.1 (which lists the zones where Spray and/or Sprinkler systems must be operable),
to a proposed Table 3.14-2. Based on the results of the UFHA, the ,
licensee also proposes to include the Spray and/or Sprinkler systems for '
the following additional suppression zones in Table 3.14-2: 5, 6, 7, 18, 19, 31, 33, 35, 47, 83, 85, 87, 89, 104 and 110. The licensee has proposed rewording this specification to reflect the addition of Table 3.14-2, and has also proposed some other minor changes in wording. ~ Based on our review, we conclude the proposed changes will not reduce present requirements for the operability of these fire protection systems.
Further, the additional zones proposed by the licensee for inclusion in Table 3.14-2 will provide additional assurance of the capability to suppress fires in areas containing equipment or components important to safety. Accordingly, we find the proposed changes to this specification acceptable.
Specification 3.14.4 and 3.14.5. Changes similar to those proposed for Specification 3.14.3 have been proposed for these Specifications which address Carbon Dioxide Suppression Systems and Fire Hose Stations, respectively. In each case, the licensee proposes to relocate zones presently listed in the body of the Specification to a separate Table.
, As a result of preparing the UFHA, the licensee also proposes to add additional zones for each of these systems. Specifically, the licensee proposes to add the Carbon Dioxide Systems located in zones 11, 53, 54, 79 and 80 to those presently subject to operability and surveillance requirements; and similarly proposes to add eighteen fire hose stations located in the Turbine Buildina and two stations located on the third floor of the Nuclear Services Electrical Building. Based on our review s
E.o
, .1
-L 1 a
,< .i g ,+ 'S _
i g ' 10 I ; of the proposed changes, we conclude they are similar to those~ described- +
above for Specification 3.14.3; and are acceptable,for the same reasons.~.
s Specification 3.14.6. This specification sets forth operability l requirements for Fire Barrier Penetration Fire Seals. -The licensee .l proposes to revise.this specification to use language similar to that used in the Technical Specifications for recently licensed facilities 1(e.g., San Onofre Units 2 and 3, and Palo Verde Unit 1). The effect of E
.this change.in wording is to extend the applicability of the Operability 6 requirement.beyond items that seal openings in fire barriers (e.g.,' cable penetrations, fire doors,_ fire dampers, etc.) and apply it also to the ;
' fire barriers', themselves (walls, floors, ceilings, cable tray l enclosures, etc.). Based on our review of the wording proposed by the l licensee, we conclude it is equivalent to that used in the Technical Specifications of recently licensed facilities-and does not reduce any >
present requirements. Therefore, because extending Operability zl requirements.to rated fire barriers'(in addition to the barrier penetrations) provides increased assurance'that the spread of fires can
%e .
be controlled.as stated in the UFHA, and because there is no reduction in
~
~j present ' requirements, we conclude the proposed change in language. is )
acceptable. j Specification 3.14, Basis The licensee has proposed certain revisions to j.7 the text of the Basis for this' specification. We find these proposed
. revisions'are consistent with the other proposed changes we have found acceptable, and do not reduce the present margin of safety. Accordingly, we conclude these are editorial changes and are acceptable.
Specification 4.18.6 Tus specification prescribes the surveillance to-
_., be performed for rated fire barriers. The licensee has proposed to revise the wording'of this specification to be consistent with the proposed' increased scope of $ specification 3.14.6 (see above). We conclude the prop 1 sed change would provide increased assurance of the operability of rated fire barriers and is, therfore acceptable.
Specification 6.9.5.E This specification requires the licensee to submit Special Reports to the Commission when specified fire protection '!
, operability requirements cannot be satisfied. The licensee proposes to revise the present specification by adding paragraph references to the
, sections of the Technical Specifications requiring Special Reports for I
inoperable-fire protection equipment. We conclude this is an editorial change'and is acceptable.
NSEB Commitments By letter dated May 16, 1985, the licensee committed to apply for technical specification revisions which would require the operability of certain additional fire protection equipment located in the NSES. Our review has confirmed the licensee has acceptably included i r each of these items in the present subsittal. Accordingly, we conclude the licensee has satisfied the commitments made in paragraph one of the May 16, 1985- letter.
S 6
c .
b '
. .- .. _ _- _ - - -_ .. - d
i y
} .:
5.- i
$. 6 I 4 ; !
III. CONCLUSIONS Environmental Consideration This amendment involves changes in 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 amendment involves no significant i!
< increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is not significant i.
t increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amend-c : ment involves no significant hazards. consideration and there has been no y
' public coment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the t
eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact state- 4 h ment or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment. f 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 pro)osed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance wit 1 the Connission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical '
to connon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
, Principal Contributors: 1 i G. Zwetzig, Region V '
i C. Ramsey, Region Y
]
1 Dated: August 27, 1987 I
i 1
i k
I
-_u____ m __ "