ML17320A370
| ML17320A370 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 02/07/1983 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17320A368 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8302170423 | |
| Download: ML17320A370 (2) | |
Text
IP,S
$ltgI Wp
+
0 C
I ~(
0
\\
J 0
ky*y4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.
68 TO'FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-58 AND AMENDMENT NO.
50 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-74 INDIANA AND MICHIGAN ELECTRIC COMPANY DONALD C.
COOK NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT NOS.
1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS.
50-315 AND 50-316 Back round The standard technical specifications require that if the CO system in a fire area is isolated for maintenance or other activitifs which require personnel to enter the fire area, a continuous fire watch must be established in the fire areas affected.
Due to the config-uration of certain plant areas, isolation of~the C02 system for main-tenance in one area may require the isolation of CO systems in several interconnected areas to permit personnel t3 access the area in which the maintenance is to be performed.
Evaluation To alleviate the need for a large number of fire watch personnel in such a case, i.e.,
one for each area as isolated, the licensee has proposed the use of a roving fire watch patrol that would visit each area within 25-35 minutes.
Me have evaluated this proposal and find that as written, a portion of the proposed changes are unacceptable i.e, the action statements that would only require establishment of a roving fire watch patrol in areas "not occupied by w'orkers".
The presence of a worker who is not a qualified fire watch does not provide adequate assurance that an effective fire watch is maintained.
By telephone call on January 10, 1983 the licensee agreed to delete the statement, "which are not occupied by workers" from the action statements, and to refer to the qualifications needed for the roving fire watch patrol in the bases section..
Mith these
- changes, we find that for the spaces in question, the use of a roving fire watch patrol provides an acceptable level of safety.
In addition, the licensee letter of December 30, 1982 also proposed the use of TV cameras in high exposure areas.
Subsequently, the licensee verbally withdrew this proposal.
ThIs, this aspect of the December 30, 1983 letter has. not been evaluated.
8302i70423 830207 PDR ADOCK 050003l5 p
E nvi ronmenta 1
C ons iderati on We have determined that the amendments do not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and wi11 not result in any significant envirormental impact.
Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendments involve an action which is insignificant frcm the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR
$51.5(d) (4), that an enviroanental impact statement or negative declaration and eiviron-mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance. of these amendments.
Conclusion Me have concluded, based on the considera.ions discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendments do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, do not create the possibility of an accident of a type different from any evaluated previously, and do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, the amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed
- manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commissfon's regulations and the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
'Dated:
February 7, 1983