ML17321A326
| ML17321A326 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 12/03/1984 |
| From: | Alexich M INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. (FORMERLY INDIANA & MICHIG |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17321A327 | List: |
| References | |
| AEP:NRC:0895A, AEP:NRC:895A, NUDOCS 8412070283 | |
| Download: ML17321A326 (8) | |
Text
I REGULATOR INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
('RIDS)
ACCESSION NBR;8412070283 DOC ~ DATE: Sll/12/03, NOTARIZED:
NO...
DOCKET: 0 FAOIL:50 315 Donald C',"Cook Nuclear Power Planti,'Unit li:Indiana L
05000315 50 316'onald O',
Cook Nuclear Power Planti Unit 2~ Indiana 8
05000316 AUTH,NAME!
AUTHOR AFFILIATION ALEXICH~M,P,'ndiana 8 Michig'an Electric tCo,'RECIP
~ NAME~
RECIPIENT AFFIL'SATION DENTON~H,R ~
Office of Nuclear Reactort Regulationi Director
'SUBJECT':- Application for amends~ to Licenses
.DPR~58 8
DPR 74',chbnging Te'ch "Specs'.to make. number of, operating
'coolant~loops'equired in Mode"3 consistent w/safety analysis ih FSAR ~
DISTRIBUT'ION CODE':
A001D COPIES RECEIVED:LTR, ENCL g, 'IZE'."
,(
,TITLE'.: OR Submi'ttal:
General Distr ibution NOTES'
'L-e10/25/70 OL'el?/23/72'5000315
-05000316 RECIPIENT<,
ID CODE/NAME)
NRR ORB 1 BC 01 04 INTERNAL: ACRS 09 ELD/HDS3 NRR/DL< DIR, ETB EG COPIES LTTR ENCL~
7 7
"6' 1
0 1
1 1
1 1
1 REC IPIENT-ID CODE/NAME ADM/LFMB NRR/DE/MTEB NRR/DL'/ORAB NRR/DSI/RAB RGN3~
COPIES
'LT'TR ENCL' 0
1 l.
.1 0,
1 1
1 1
iEXTERNAL: LPDR NSIC
=
03~
05
?
2 1
1 NRC'DR NTIS 02' 1
1 1
+ check P/gg~~- DVD7 TOTAL NUMBER.OF COPIES REQUIRED:- LTTR 27 ENCL 20
I tt (Ca f
l (f
( lt l,
n
'1
~
~
f 13 ft W
~
I ~
INDIANA8 MICHIGAN ELECTRIC COMPANY P.O. BOX 16631 COLUMBUS, OHIO 43216 December 3,
1984 AEP:NRC:0895A Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Unit Nos.
1 and 2
Docket Nos.
50-315 and 50-316 License Nos.
DPR-58 and DPR-74 REACTOR COOLANT PUMP TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS CHANGE REQUEST Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Denton:
This letter and its attachments constitute an application for amendment to the Technical Specifications for the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Unit Nos.
1 and 2.
Specifically, we are proposing to change T/S Section 3.4.1.2 and the Bases page B 2-7 for both Units 1 and 2.
The reasons for the proposed changes and our analyses concerning significant hazards considerations are contained in Attachment 1 to this letter.
The proposed revised Technical Specification pages are contained in Attachment 2.
We believe that the proposed changes will not result in (1) a significant change in the types of effluents or a significant increase in the amounts of any effluent that may be released offsite, and (2) a significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
These proposed changes have been reviewed by the Plant Nuclear Safety Review Committee (PNSRC) and will be reviewed by the Nuclear Safety and Design Committee (NSDRC) at their next regularly scheduled meeting.
In compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.91(b)(1),
a copy of this letter and its attachments have bee'n transmitted to Mr. R. C. Callen of the Michigan Public Service Commission and Mr. George Bruchmann of the Michigan Department of Public Health.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 170.12(c),
we have enclosed an application fee of
$150.00 for the proposed amendments.
ooI 3 Co~
(
+ gd9 8412070283 841203 PDR ADOCK 05000315 P
~,
~
~
r hhl 7
~
It
~ W
'I
~>>\\',t ft,>>>>thh
)t)l\\>>>>'hlf Nl t
ll
N J"
N
)
~
~
~ )
~ f>>t g
)C>>
>>>>gal
) N) h,")
)')"l~,'CI C>>>t 1
1
~ t >>t>>1" P)jh '.Cth ~ l'h "CC t>>4
).'n').'+r),
\\
tp>>
r I
'I
~ tt>>
~
~
~
~)
fh Cj
]>>)t>>
Ny,
)J tc) rg
,o
)5" N~
I N,
>> ~f)C)C I
Ct 1
>>J A>>).i)i q C,C C
( ~ j," P")g)
~ Cl
~
'?
C
'g 'C") '>>8>> ~t f
")C)l f>>t'>>0
')O'..'
Es N
>>CC
>>Nh
- 6) ~ 9 NC('+.-
+
1
" C)'") ~ ) 7 KA ~i>>lj...
~ ~
>>l
'I'N c r ~
I >>
h>>C
't CN,
( t t
h
~ )
>> ~
N ~
N C>>4&"
~ >> t
~ CN>>,)'
>> r
0 AEP:NRC:0895A Mr. Harold R. Denton r
\\
I This document has been prepared following Corporate procedures which incorporate a reasonable set of controls to insure its accuracy and completeness prior to signature by the undersigned.
Very truly yours, MPA/cm Attachments M.. Al ich
>gg qg Vice Pr eident V"$$ "
yY~
cc:
John E. Dolan W. G. Smith, Jr.
Bridgman G. Bruchmann R. C. Callen G. Charnoff NRC Resident Inspector - Bridgman
, l' h
g hll h
hlh
'l
~
ATTACHMENT 1 TO AEP:NRC:0895A REASONS AND 10 CFR 50.92 ANALYSES FOR CHANGES TO THE DONALD C.
COOK NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT NOS.
1 AND 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
Attachment 1 to AEP:NRC:0895A Page 1
The first change proposed here is to make the Technical Specification for the number of operating coolant loops required in Mode 3 consistent with the safety analysis in the FSAR.
Technical Specification 3.4. 1.2b, Units 1 and 2, is changed from <<At least one of the above coolant loops shall be in operation.>>"
to <At least two of the above coolant loops shall be in operation unless the reactor trip breakers are disconnected.>>"
Also, Technical Specification 3.4. 1.2.c is added; "At least one of the above coolant loops shall be in operation if the reactor trip breakers are disconnected.>>
This specification change corrects the discrepancy between the FSAR and the Technical Specifications brought to our attention in a recent review done by Westinghouse (the letter summarizing the review was attached to our correspondence AEP:NRC:0895, dated July 30, 1984).
This review states that the one coolant loop currently required to be in operation may not be adequate in the event of a bank withdrawal from subcritical.
A bank withdrawal cannot occur if the reactor trip breakers are disconnected, hence the Specification 3.4.1.2.c, that the breakers be disconnected if only one coolant loop is operating. If the reactor trip breakers are connected, two coolant loops must be operating in order to be consistent with the FSAR safety analysis.
- This, consequently, is the justification for the change in Technical Specification 3.4. 1.2.b from one to two coolant loops.
Since, these changes fns(itute a
'Qjhe'r'egas'le:of'.'safety'han
'the cut'r'en't'Techni'cal Specie'icatib'ns,'hey*
do not'onstitute a significant hazards consideration as defined by 10 CFR 50.92.
The second Technical Specification change is prompted by Noncompliance Report (NCR) REE-84-6-1 issued March 27, 1984.
This NCR identified a discrepancy in the Unit 1 Technical Specification Bases pa'ge B 2-7.
The time specified for the limit on the undervoltage signal delay (0.1 seconds) is not consistent with the Unit 2 Technical Specification or current plant installation (which require a delay of 0.9 seconds).
It is our current policy when making a change, such as this for consistency, to use the language of the Westinghouse Standard Technical Specifications (STS)
NUREG 0452, Revision 4).
Therefore, we propose to change the bases of both Units to the exact wording used in the STS (with the exception that the undervoltage signal delay will be set at 0.9 seconds, slightly more conservative than the 1.2 second delay referenced in the STS).
Since this change makes the Unit 1 Technical Specification equivalent to the previously approved Unit 2 Technical Specification, it does not present a significant hazards consideration as defined in 10 CFR 50.92.