ML032230010
| ML032230010 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 08/22/2003 |
| From: | Schuaibi M NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD3 |
| To: | Powers R Indiana Michigan Power Co |
| Shared Package | |
| ML032370494 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC MB6322, TAC MB6323 | |
| Download: ML032230010 (22) | |
Text
August 22, 2003 Mr. Robert B. Powers, Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Indiana Michigan Power Company Nuclear Generation Group 500 Circle Drive Buchanan, MI 49107
SUBJECT:
DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 - ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTS REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE EDITORIAL CHANGES TO THE OPERATING LICENSES AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (TAC NOS. MB6322 AND MB6323)
Dear Mr. Powers:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued the enclosed Amendment No. 279 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-58 and Amendment No. 261 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-74 for the Donald C. Cook (D. C. Cook) Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2. The amendments consist of changes to the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications (TSs) in response to your application dated August 23, 2002, as supplemented July 2, 2003.
The amendments revise (1) the Operating Licenses to delete obsolete and expired license conditions and make administrative and editorial changes, and (2) the TSs to make administrative and editorial changes.
The NRC staff has determined that your proposed changes to delete the radiation monitoring instrumentation identification numbers from certain TSs were not fully justified in your application and they do not fit in the category of an administrative or editorial change.
Therefore, the NRC staff has not approved these proposed changes as part of License Amendment Nos. 279 and 261 . Through discussions with your staff, we understand that you will be submitting the necessary information to support these changes in a future request.
The NRC staff will handle this request under separate cover.
A copy of our related safety evaluation is also enclosed. A Notice of Issuance will be included in the Commissions next biweekly Federal Register notice.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Mohammed A. Shuaibi, Sr. Project Manager, Section 1 Project Directorate III Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316
Enclosures:
- 1. Amendment No. 279 to DPR-58
- 2. Amendment No. 261 to DPR-74
- 3. Safety Evaluation cc w/encls: See next page
ML032230010 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 cc:
Regional Administrator, Region III Michigan Department of Environmental U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Quality 801 Warrenville Road Waste and Hazardous Materials Div.
Lisle, IL 60532-4351 Hazardous Waste & Radiological Protection Section Attorney General Nuclear Facilities Unit Department of Attorney General Constitution Hall, Lower-Level North 525 West Ottawa Street 525 West Allegan Street Lansing, MI 48913 P. O. Box 30241 Lansing, MI 48909-7741 Township Supervisor Lake Township Hall Mr. John B. Giessner P.O. Box 818 Director, Technical Projecs Bridgman, MI 49106 Indiana Michigan Power Company Nuclear Generation Group U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 500 Circle Drive Resident Inspectors Office Buchanan, MI 49107 7700 Red Arrow Highway Stevensville, MI 49127 David A. Lochbaum Union of Concerned Scientists David W. Jenkins, Esquire 1616 P Street NW, Suite 310 Indiana Michigan Power Company Washington, DC 20036-1495 One Cook Place Bridgman, MI 49106 Michael J. Finissi Plant Manager Mayor, City of Bridgman Indiana Michigan Power Company P.O. Box 366 Nuclear Generation Group Bridgman, MI 49106 One Cook Place Bridgman, MI 49106 Special Assistant to the Governor Room 1 - State Capitol Joseph E. Pollock Lansing, MI 48909 Site Vice President Indiana Michigan Power Company Nuclear Generation Group One Cook Place Bridgman, MI 49106
INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-315 DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT 1 AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No. 279 License No. DPR-58
- 1. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has found that:
A. The application for amendment by Indiana Michigan Power Company (the licensee) dated August 23, 2002, as supplemented July 2, 2003, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commissions rules and regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; B. The facility will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission; C. There is reasonable assurance (i) that the activities authorized by this amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commissions regulations; D. The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and E. The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Commissions regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.
- 2. Accordingly, the license is amended by changes to the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications as indicated in the attachment to this license amendment, and paragraph 2.C.(2) of Facility Operating License No. DPR-58 is hereby amended to read as follows:
(2) Technical Specifications The Technical Specifications contained in Appendices A and B, as revised through Amendment No. 279 , are hereby incorporated in the license. The licensee shall operate the facility in accordance with the Technical Specifications.
- 3. This license amendment is effective as of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/RA/
L. Raghavan, Chief, Section 1 Project Directorate III Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Attachment:
Changes to the Operating License and Technical Specifications Date of Issuance: August 22, 2003
ATTACHMENT TO LICENSE AMENDMENT NO. 279 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-58 DOCKET NO. 50-315 Replace the following pages of Facility Operating License No. DPR-58 with the attached revised pages. The changes are identified by marginal lines indicating the areas of change.
REMOVE INSERT 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 5a -
Replace the following pages of the Appendix A Technical Specifications with the attached revised pages. The revised pages are identified by amendment number and contain marginal lines indicating the areas of change.
REMOVE INSERT 3/4 3-19 3/4 3-19 3/4 3-36a 3/4 3-36a 3/4 7-6 3/4 7-6 3/4 9-13 3/4 9-13 6-1 6-1 6-2 6-2 6-3 6-3 6-4 6-4 6-5 6-5 6-12 6-12 6-14 6-14 6-15 6-15
INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-316 DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT 2 AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No. 261 License No. DPR-74
- 1. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has found that:
A. The application for amendment by Indiana Michigan Power Company (the licensee) dated August 23, 2002, as supplemented July 2, 2003, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commissions rules and regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; B. The facility will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission; C. There is reasonable assurance (i) that the activities authorized by this amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commissions regulations; D. The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and E. The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Commissions regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.
- 2. Accordingly, the license is amended by changes to the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications as indicated in the attachment to this license amendment, and paragraph 2.C.(2) of Facility Operating License No. DPR-74 is hereby amended to read as follows:
(2) Technical Specifications The Technical Specifications contained in Appendices A and B, as revised through Amendment No. 261 , are hereby incorporated in the license. The licensee shall operate the facility in accordance with the Technical Specifications.
- 3. This license amendment is effective as of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/RA/
L. Raghavan, Chief, Section 1 Project Directorate III Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Attachment:
Changes to the Operating License and Technical Specifications Date of Issuance: August 22, 2003
ATTACHMENT TO LICENSE AMENDMENT NO. 261 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-74 DOCKET NO. 50-316 Replace the following pages of Facility Operating License No. DPR-74 with the attached revised pages. The changes are identified by marginal lines indicating the areas of change.
REMOVE INSERT 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 -
9 -
10 -
10a -
11 -
11a Replace the following pages of the Appendix A Technical Specifications with the attached revised pages. The revised pages are identified by amendment number and contain marginal lines indicating the areas of change.
REMOVE INSERT 3/4 3-17 3/4 3-17 3/4 3-19 3/4 3-19 3/4 3-20 3/4 3-20 3/4 3-35a 3/4 3-35a 3/4 4-20 3/4 4-20 3/4 7-6 3/4 7-6 3/4 7-16 3/4 7-16 3/4 8-4 3/4 8-4 3/4 9-12 3/4 9-12 5-9 5-9 6-1 6-1 6-2 6-2 6-3 6-3 6-4 6-4 6-5 6-5 6-12 6-12 6-14 6-14 6-15 6-15
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 279 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-58 AND AMENDMENT NO. 261 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-74 INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-315 AND 50-316
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By application dated August 23, 2002, as supplemented July 2, 2003, the Indiana Michigan Power Company (the licensee) requested changes to the Facility Operating Licenses (OLs) and Technical Specifications (TSs) for the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2. The proposed amendments would revise (1) the Operating Licenses to delete obsolete and expired license conditions and make administrative and editorial changes, and (2) the TSs to make administrative and editorial changes.
The supplement dated July 2, 2003, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staffs original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register on October 15, 2002 (67 FR 63695).
2.0 EVALUATION 2.1 Changes to Operating Licenses 2.1.1 License Conditions 2.C(5) (Unit 1) and 2.C(3)(s) (Unit 2)
The licensee proposed to delete License Condition 2.C(5) in the Unit 1 OL and License Condition 2.C(3)(s)1 in the Unit 2 license because the information contained in these license conditions is redundant to information contained in the TSs for each unit. License Conditions 2.C(5) and 2.C(3)(s) were added to the OLs by License Amendment Nos. 169 and 152 for Units 1 and 2, respectively, to control the loading of fuel into the spent fuel pool. The information contained in these license conditions is also contained in TS 5.6.1.1.c and TS 5.6.4 for Units 1 and 2. The NRC staff concludes that these license conditions are redundant to the 1
In its July 2, 2003, supplemental letter, the licensee referred to License Condition 2.(3)(s), but provided justification for deleting License Condition 2.C(3)(s). During a telephone conference on August 8, 2003, the NRC staff confirmed that the licensees intent was to propose deletion of License Condition 2.C(3)(s).
TSs and the TSs provide sufficient control of the information in these license conditions.
Therefore, the NRC staff finds deletion License Conditions 2.C(5) for Unit 1 and 2.C(3)(s) for Unit 2 acceptable.
2.1.2 License Conditions 2.C(8) (Unit 1) and 2.C(3)(u) (Unit 2)
The licensee proposed to delete License Condition 2.C(8) in the Unit 1 OL and License Condition 2.C(3)(u)2 in the Unit 2 OL because these license conditions are no longer applicable.
License Conditions 2.C(8) and 2.C.3(u) were added to the OLs by License Amendment Nos. 169 and 152, for Units 1 and 2, respectively, to modify TS controls for load movement over the spent fuel pool during the spent fuel pool re-rack project. These license conditions were applicable during the spent fuel pool re-rack project, which was completed by the licensee in 1993. Therefore, these license conditions are considered obsolete. Based on the above, the NRC staff finds deletion of License Condition 2.C(8) for Unit 1 and License Condition 2.C.(3)(u) for Unit 2 acceptable.
2.1.3 License Conditions 2.C(9) (Unit 1) and 2.C(3)(w) Unit 2 The licensee proposed to delete License Condition 2.C(9) in the Unit 1 OL because this license condition has been satisfied. License Condition 2.C(9) was added to the Unit 1 OL by License Amendment No. 227 to allow a one-time extension of the TS 4.4.5.3 steam generator surveillance requirement to perform nondestructive examination of the steam generator tubes every 24 moths. This license condition allowed the extension until the start of Cycle 17, but no later than January 31, 2001. The license condition also explicitly states that in the event the steam generators are replaced prior to the start of Cycle 17, the retired steam generators are exempted from further surveillance under TS 4.4.5.3. The licensee replaced all four steam generators in Unit 1 in 2000, prior to the end of Cycle 16. Since the replacement of the steam generators occurred prior to the start of Cycle 17, the license condition has been satisfied.
Based on the above, the NRC staff finds deletion of License Condition 2.C(9) for Unit 1 acceptable.
The licensee proposed to delete License Condition 2.C(3)(w)3 in the Unit 2 OL because this license condition has been satisfied. License Condition 2.C.3(w) was added to the Unit 2 OL by License Amendment No. 232 to allow an extension of the TS 4.4.5.3 steam generator tube inspection interval from 40 calendar months to 56 calendar months. The license condition provided an extension until the start of Cycle 13, but no later than June 30, 2002. The licensee successfully completed the required inspections on February 6, 2002. Therefore, the license 2
In its August 23, 2002, application, the licensee referred to License Condition 2.C.3(u), but provided justification for deleting License Condition 2.C(3)(u). During a telephone conference on August 7, 2003, the NRC staff confirmed that the licensees intent was to propose deletion of License Condition 2.C(3)(u).
3 In its August 23, 2002, application, the licensee referred to License Condition 2.C.3(w), but provided justification for deleting License Condition 2.C(3)(w). During a telephone conference on August 7, 2003, the NRC staff confirmed that the licensees intent was to propose deletion of License Condition 2.C(3)(w).
condition has been satisfied. Based on the above, the NRC staff finds deletion of License Condition 2.C(3)(w) for Unit 2 acceptable.
2.1.4 License Condition 2.C(10) (Unit 1)
The licensee proposed to delete License Condition 2.C(10) in the D.C. Cook Unit 1 OL because this license condition has been satisfied. License Condition 2.C(10) was added to the OL by License Amendment No. 265 to allow a one-time extension of the TS 4.6.5.3.1.b.3, 4.6.5.3.1.b.4, and 4.6.5.3.1.b.5 requirements to verify that the opening, closing, and frictional torque values for the ice condenser inlet doors are within specified limits. The extension deferred the requirement until prior to ascension into Mode 4 at the completion of the fuel cycle 18 refueling outage unless the unit enters Mode 5 for sufficient duration prior to the fuel cycle 18 refueling outage. The license condition required the licensee to perform the surveillance testing earlier if the unit enters Mode 5 for sufficient duration prior to the fuel cycle 18 refueling outage. The licensee completed the testing on May 30, 2002, on a schedule consistent with the license condition. Therefore, the licensee has satisfied the license condition. Based on the above, the NRC staff finds deletion of License Condition 2.C(10) for Unit 1 acceptable.
2.1.5 License Conditions 2.C(11) (Unit 1) and 2.C(3)(y) (Unit 2)
The licensee proposed to delete License Condition 2.C(11) in the Unit 1 OL and License Condition 2.C(3)(y)4 in the Unit 2 OL because these license conditions are no longer applicable.
License Conditions 2.C(11) and 2.C(3)(y) were added to the OLs by License Amendment Nos. 270 and 251 for Units 1 and 2, respectively. These license conditions allowed a one-time extension of TS 3.7.4.15, Actions a and b, for Units 1 and 2 regarding essential service water loop operability. The extension for each unit was added to allow essential service water pump replacement. The licensee has completed replacement of the essential service water pumps.
In addition, the extension period for the license conditions expired on January 31, 2003, and the license conditions are no longer required. Based on the above, the NRC staff finds the deletion of License Conditions 2.C(11) and 2.C(3)(y) for Units 1 and 2, respectively, acceptable.
4 In its July 2, 2003, supplemental letter, the licensee referred to License Condition 2.(3)(y), but provided justification for deleting License Condition 2.C(3)(y). During a telephone conference on August 8, 2003, the NRC staff confirmed that the licensees intent was to propose deletion of License Condition 2.C(3)(y).
5 License Condition 2.C(11) for Unit 1 incorrectly includes a reference to TS 3.4.7.1. License Amendment No. 270 approved an extension to TS 3.7.4.1 and the safety evaluation for this amendment correctly identifies TS 3.7.4.1.
2.1.6 License Condition 2.C(3)(x) (Unit 2)
The licensee proposed to delete License Condition 2.C(3)(x)6 in the Unit 2 OL because this license condition has been satisfied. License Condition 2.C(3)(x) was added to the OL by License Amendment No. 234 to allow an extension of the TS 4.8.1.1.2.e.1, 4.8.1.1.2.e.7, 4.8.2.3.2.d, and 4.8.2.5.2.d surveillance intervals for the emergency diesel generator engines and the station batteries. The license condition allowed the surveillances to be performed during Cycle 13 refueling outage, but no later than December 31, 2001. The licensee completed the surveillance requirements consistent with the schedule in the license condition.
Therefore, the license condition has been satisfied. Based on the above, the NRC staff finds deletion of License Condition 2.C(3)(x) for Unit 2 acceptable.
2.1.7 License Condition 2.I(1) (Unit 2)
The licensee proposed to delete License Condition 2.I(1)7 in the Unit 2 OL because this license condition is no longer applicable. License Condition 2.I(1) was added to the OL by License Amendment No. 100 to authorize the licensee to replace the steam generators for Unit 2. The licensee completed the replacement of the Unit 2 steam generators in 1988 and the unit was returned to service on March 17, 1989. Therefore, this license condition is no longer applicable. Based on the above, the NRC staff finds deletion of License Condition 2.I(1) for Unit 2 acceptable.
2.1.8 License Condition 2.I(2) (Unit 2)
The licensee proposed to delete License Condition 2.I(2)8 in the Unit 2 OL because this license condition is no longer applicable. License Condition 2.I(2) was added to the OL by License Amendment No. 100 to remove applicability of certain TSs during the steam generator replacement project. The license condition defined a period of the project as beginning when the last fuel assembly from the Unit 2 core is placed in the spent fuel pool and ending when the first fuel assembly is removed from the spent fuel pool to refuel the Unit 2 core. The licensee completed the replacement of the Unit 2 steam generators in 1988 and the unit was returned to service on March 17, 1989. Therefore, this license condition is no longer applicable. Based on the above, the NRC staff finds deletion of License Condition 2.I(2) for Unit 2 acceptable.
6 In its August 23, 2002, application, the licensee referred to License Condition 2.C.3(x), but provided justification for deleting License Condition 2.C(3)(x). During a telephone conference on August 7, 2003, the NRC staff confirmed that the licensees intent was to propose deletion of License Condition 2.C(3)(x).
7 In its August 23, 2002, application, the licensee referred to License Condition 2.K(1), but provided justification for deleting License Condition 2.I(1). During a telephone conference on August 7, 2003, the NRC staff confirmed that the licensees intent was to propose deletion of License Condition 2.I(1).
8 In its August 23, 2002, application, the licensee referred to License Condition 2.K(2), but provided justification for deleting License Condition 2.I(2). During a telephone conference on August 7, 2003, the NRC staff confirmed that the licensees intent was to propose deletion of License Condition 2.I(2).
2.1.9 License Condition 2.C(3) (Unit 1)
The licensee proposed to correct a typographical error in License Condition 2.C(3) for Unit 1.
The licensee proposed to replace the word that in the phrase ...with less that four reactor coolant loops... with the word than. The NRC staff has reviewed this change and concludes that it is an editorial in nature and it is therefore acceptable.
2.1.10 Repagination of and Editorial Changes to OLs for Units 1 and 2 The licensee proposed to repaginate the Unit 2 OL to reduce the number of pages. This reduction in the number of pages is due to the deletion of a number of license conditions.
Since the proposed repagination would not remove any information in the license, the NRC staff considers the repagination editorial in nature and finds this request acceptable. On the same basis, the NRC staff has repaginated the OL for Unit 1.
In addition, the NRC staff made minor editorial changes to the OLs for Units 1 and 2, such as underlining titles and correcting typographical errors.
2.2 Changes to Technical Specifications 2.2.1 TS 3.3.2.1, Table 3.3-3; TS 3.3.3.1, Table 3.3-6; and TS 3.3.3.1, Table 4.3-3 (Units 1 and 2)
The licensee proposed to capitalize the word purge in the
- footnote in TS 3.3.2.1, Table 3.3-3, and TS 3.3.3.1, Table 3.3-6, for Units 1 and 2. The licensee proposed the capitalization because the word is defined in the Definitions section of the TSs for each unit.
The proposed change is consistent with the convention used in the TSs to capitalize words defined in the Definitions section. The NRC staff considers the capitalization an editorial clarification and therefore acceptable.
The licensee also proposed to revise several incorrect component numbers listed in TS 3.3.2.1, Table 3.3-3 for Unit 2. The licensee proposed to replace the number designations T11A, T11B, T11C, and T11D for the 4-kV buses with T21A, T21B, T21C, and T21D. The incorrect numbering was introduced by License Amendment No. 224. The NRC staff reviewed the proposed change and determined that the second character in the number designation is the D. C. Cook unit number. Since these buses are for Unit 2, the correct number designations should include 2" as the second character. Based on the above, the NRC staff finds that this change is editorial in nature and therefore acceptable.
In addition, the licensee proposed to delete radiation monitor instrumentation identification numbers in the following TSs for Units 1 and 2:
TS 3.3.2.1, Table 3.3-3 TS 3.3.3.1, Table 3.3-6 TS 3.3.3.1, Table 4.3-3 The NRC staff has determined that these proposed changes were not fully justified in the licensees application and they do not fit in the category of an administrative or editorial change.
Therefore, the NRC staff has not approved these proposed changes. Through discussions with
the licensee, the NRC staff understands that the licensee will be submitting the necessary information to support these changes in a future request. The NRC staff will handle this request under separate cover.
2.2.2 TS Surveillance Requirements 4.7.1.2.c and 4.7.1.2.d (Units 1 and 2)
The licensee proposed to add a 31-day frequency to TS Surveillance Requirements 4.7.1.2.c and 4.7.1.2.d for Units 1 and 2. This 31-day frequency was previously in the TSs, but was inadvertently deleted by License Amendment No. 164 for Unit 1 and License Amendment No. 149 for Unit 2. The licensee has maintained an NRC commitment to perform the surveillances in TS Surveillance Requirements 4.7.1.2.c and 4.7.1.2.d on a 31-day interval until the frequency is restored in the TSs. The NRC staff has reviewed the material supporting License Amendment Nos. 164 and 149 for Units 1 and 2, respectively, and agrees with the licensee that removal of the 31-day frequency was inadvertent. Therefore, the NRC staff finds that adding the 31-day frequency to these surveillance requirements is acceptable.
2.2.3 TS Section 6 - Plant Position Titles and Acronyms (Units 1 and 2)
The following table provides the licensee proposed changes to plant position titles and acronyms for plant onsite and offsite review committees:
Affected Unit No. Proposed Change Technical Specification 6.1.2 1 and 2 Replace Vice President - Nuclear Operations with Site Vice President Replace Shift Supervisor with Shift Manager" 6.2.1.c 1 and 2 Replace Vice President - Nuclear Operations with Senior Vice President -
Nuclear Operations 6.2.2.f 1 and 2 Replace Shift Supervisor with Shift Manager Delete Assistant Shift Supervisor 6.2.2.g 1 and 2 Replace Operations Superintendent with Operations Director Table 6.2-1 1 and 2 Replace SS with SM
Affected Unit No. Proposed Change Technical Specification 6.3.1 1 and 2 Replace Operations Superintendent with Operations Director 6.6.1.b 1 and 2 Replace Senior Vice President - Nuclear Generation with Site Vice President Replace PNSRC with PORC Replace NSDRC with NSRB9 6.7.1.a 1 and 2 Replace NSDRC with NSRB 6.7.1.b 1 and 2 Replace PNSRC with PORC 6.7.1.c 1 and 2 Replace NSDRC with NSRB Replace Senior Vice President - Nuclear Generation with Senior Vice President -
Nuclear Operations10 6.12.1.c 1 and 2 Replace facility Health Physicist with Plant Radiation Protection Manager 6.12.2 1 and 2 Replace Plant Health Physicist (Plant Radiation Protection Supervisor) with Plant Radiation Protection Manager" Replace Shift Supervisor with Shift Manager 6.13.1.b 1 and 2 Replace PNSRC with PORC 6.14.1.b 1 and 2 Replace PNSRC with PORC The NRC staff has reviewed the above changes and finds them administrative in nature and therefore acceptable.
2.2.4 TS 3.4.8 (Unit 2)
The licensee proposed to correct a typographical error in TS 3.4.8, Limiting Condition for Operation, Action a, in the Unit 2 TS. The licensee proposed to revise the statement to replace the word for with the word or in the phrase "...more than 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> during one continuous time interval for exceeding the limit line.... The NRC staff has reviewed this change and concludes that it is editorial in nature and therefore acceptable.
9 The licensee did not propose to replace "NSDRC" with "NSRB" in TS 6.6.1.b for Unit 1 in the technical analysis portion of its August 23, 2002, application. However, the licensee did include this change on the marked page in Attachment 1A to the August 23, 2002, application. During a telephone conference on August 15, 2003, the NRC staff confirmed that the licensees intent was to propose replacing "NSDRC" with "NSRB" in TS 6.6.1.b for Unit 1.
10 The licensee did not propose to replace Senior Vice President - Nuclear Generation with Senior Vice President - Nuclear Operations in TS 6.7.1.c for Unit 1 in the technical analysis portion of its August 23, 2002, application. However, the licensee did include this change on the marked page in A to the August 23, 2002, application. During a telephone conference on August 15, 2003, the NRC staff confirmed that the licensees intent was to propose replacing Senior Vice President -
Nuclear Generation with Senior Vice President - Nuclear Operations in TS 6.7.1.c for Unit 1.
2.2.5 TS 5.6.2.a (Unit 2)
The licensee proposed to include the word Westinghouse at the beginning of TS 5.6.2.a because it was inadvertently not included when the TS was last revised by License Amendment No. 220. The NRC staff reviewed the safety evaluation issued with License Amendment No. 220 and concluded that the amendment included approval of the use of the word Westinghouse at the beginning of TS 5.6.2.a. However, the word Westinghouse was inadvertently not included in the TS. Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that including the word Westinghouse at the beginning of TS 5.6.2.a is administrative in nature and therefore acceptable.
2.2.6 TS 3/4.7.5 (Unit 2)
The licensee proposed to add a new line in TS 3/4.7.5 for Unit 2 because the line was inadvertently left out by License Amendment No. 240. The new line would read as follows, 4.7.5.1.d After every 720 hours0.00833 days <br />0.2 hours <br />0.00119 weeks <br />2.7396e-4 months <br /> of charcoal adsorber operation by either: The NRC staff compared the TSs for Units 1 and 2 and found that line d in Surveillance Requirement 4.7.5.1 for Unit 2 is missing. The NRC staff reviewed Generic Letter 99-02 which initiated the licensees actions that led to License Amendment No. 240 and found that the proposed line is similar to sample TSs included in the generic letter. Since line 4.7.5.1.d is missing from the Unit 2 TS, (1) a line identical to the one proposed for Unit 2 was found to be acceptable for the Unit 1 TS as part of License Amendment No. 240, (2) the technical nature of the surveillance requirements for Units 1 and 2 are the same, and (3) the proposed line is similar to the sample TS included in Generic Letter 99-02, the NRC staff agrees with the licensee that the line was inadvertently left out during Amendment No. 240. Based on the above, the NRC staff finds that this change is administrative in nature and therefore acceptable.
2.2.7 TS 3.9.12 (Units 1 and 2)
The licensee proposed to delete the footnotes that exempted the main load block from the requirements in TS 3.9.12, Action a, for Units 1 and 2 because the footnotes are no longer applicable. The footnotes were added to the Units 1 and 2 TS by License Amendment Nos. 124 and 111, respectively, to (1) make TS 3.9.12, Action a, consistent with TS 3.9.7 for both units, which included similar footnotes, and (2) avoid problems with literal interpretation.
The footnotes in TS 3.9.7 were deleted in License Amendment Nos. 113 and 96 for Units 1 and 2, respectively. The NRC staffs review of License Amendment Nos. 113 and 96 overlapped with NRC staff review of License Amendment Nos. 124 and 111, resulting in the addition of the footnote to TS 3.9.12, Action a, after deletion of the similar footnotes in TS 3.9.7. This sequence of events resulted in the unnecessary addition of the footnotes to TS 3.9.12, Action a.
The NRC staff reviewed the licensees request and the referenced TS and associated NRC staff SEs for the referenced amendments. Based on its review, the NRC staff agrees with the licensee that the footnotes were added to TS 3.9.12, Action a, to make them consistent with similar footnotes in TS 3.9.7. Since the footnotes were deleted from TS 3.9.7, the NRC staff concludes that they are no longer necessary for TS 3.9.12, Action a, and finds that deletion of the footnotes is administrative in nature and therefore acceptable.
2.2.8 TS Surveillance Requirement 4.8.1.1.2.e (Unit 2)
The licensee proposed to delete a footnote for TS Surveillance Requirement 4.8.1.1.2.e that states that The provisions of Technical Specification 4.0.8 are applicable. The licensee stated that this footnote is no longer applicable because TS 4.0.8 was deleted by License Amendment No. 224. The NRC staff reviewed the Unit 2 TS and License Amendment No. 224 and confirmed that TS 4.0.8 was deleted. Therefore, the NRC staff agrees with the licensee that the subject footnote is not applicable. Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that deletion of the footnote is administrative in nature and therefore acceptable.
2.2.9 TS 6.9.1.9.2 (Units 1 and 2)
The licensee proposed to add a new reference e to TS 6.9.1.9.2. The new reference would read as follows:
- e. WCAP-12610-P-A, VANTAGE+ Fuel Assembly Reference Core Report This new reference reflects the upgrade to VANTAGE+ fuel for future Unit 1 and 2 cycles. The NRC staff reviewed the Unit 1 and 2 TSs and License Amendments Nos. 239 and 22011 for Units 1 and 2, respectively. The NRC staff determined that it had approved the use of VANTAGE+ fuel and reference e in License Amendment Nos. 239 and 220 for Units 1 and 2, respectively. Based on the above, the NRC staff finds that this change is administrative in nature and therefore acceptable.
2.2.10 Headers In addition to the changes discussed herein, the licensee proposed adding headers for certain TS pages. The headers identify the applicable TS sections and subsections and do not modify any technical requirements. Based on this, the NRC staff finds that the addition of these headers is administrative in nature and therefore acceptable.
3.0 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.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
These amendments relates to changes in recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or requirements. Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no 11 In its August 23, 2002, application and July 2, 2003, supplemental letter, the licensee referred to License Amendments Nos. 148 and 134 as justification for approval for the use of VANTAGE+ fuel.
These amendments approved the use of VANTAGE 5 fuel, but did not mention VANTAGE+ fuel. During a telephone conference with the licensee on August 12, 2003, the NRC staff confirmed that License Amendment Nos. 239 and 220 provided specific approval for VANTAGE+ fuel and the use of the associated report.
environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
5.0 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 Commissions 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 Contributors: A. McMurtray M. Shuaibi Date: August 22, 2003