ML17321A587
| ML17321A587 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 04/24/1985 |
| From: | Alexich M INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. (FORMERLY INDIANA & MICHIG |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| AEP:NRC:0934, AEP:NRC:934, NUDOCS 8505020095 | |
| Download: ML17321A587 (6) | |
Text
r.'",.t REGULATOR~NFORMATION DISTRIBUTION ~TEM (RIDS)
~
CCESSION NBR;8505020095 DOC,DATE: S5/00/20 NOTARIZED:
NO DOCKET FACIL:50 315 Donald C,
Cook Nuclear Power Pl anti Unit 1q Indiana 8
05000315 50 316 Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Power Planti Unit 2i Indiana.8 05000316 AUTH>>NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION ALEXICHiM,PE Indiana 8 Michigan Electric Co, RECIP,NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION DENTONiH.R>>
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regu)ationi Director
SUBJECT:
Offers preliminary ideas in effort to clarify Tech Specs while.maintaining some general format L writing in unambiguous 8 easily understood
- language, DISTRIBUTION CODE:
A0010 COPIES RECEI)EO:LTR "ENCL SIZE:
TITLEj OR Submittal:
Gener al Distr ibution NOTES:
OL: 10/25/7~
OL: 12/23/72 05000315 05000316 RECIPIENT IO CODE/NAME NRR ORB1 BC Ol INTERNALS ACRS 09~
ELO/HDS3 NRR/DL DIR NRR/OL/TSRG NRR/DSI/RAB-RGN3 COPIES LTTR ENC 7
7 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME AOM/LFMB NRR/DE/MTEB NRR/DL/DRAB METB REG FILE 04 COPIES LTTR ENCL EXTERNAL; EGEG BRUSKEg S
, NRC POR 02 LPDR NSIC 03 05 2
1 TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:
LTTR 28 ENCL 2
v W
I" 4
~
k 0
- (
g N
J 1t A
'I g l'
INDIANA8 MICHIGAN ELECTRIC COMPANY P.O. BOX 16631 COLUMBUS, OHIO 43216 April 24, 1985 AEP:NRC:0934 Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant Unit Nos.
1 and 2
Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316 License Nos.
DPR-58 and DPR-74 SUGGESTED GUIDELINES FOR CLARIFYING TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Denton:
As a follow-up to discussions with your staff, we would like to offer some preliminary ideas on the effort to clarify the technical specifications for the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant.
The purposes of this effort are as follows:
1)
Clarify the technical specifications while maintaining the same general format.
2)
Write the technical specifications in language that is unambiguous and easily understood.
3)
Focus on the conditions required by the control room operator to control plant systems and ensure safe operation.
4)
Maintain compliance with existing NRC regulations and ensure th'at all required systems function in a manner that ensures public health and safety.
5)
Expand and clarify definitions to eliminate the possibility of multiple interpretations of the technical specifications.
6)
Expand the Bases to address
~wh the surveillance requirements are to be implemented.
For each system, the Bases may address the attendant, systems and components that are required to function in order to ensure safety if that is not clear from the specification itself.
The Bases may also address alternative methods for demonstrating safety.
7)
Where possible and justifiable, eliminate onerous surveillance requirements and expand surveillance intervals.
r 8505020095 850424 PDR ADOCK 050003l5 P
"h M
M ~
~
II I'
~
r It h
II
~,
1 II MI 4
I II'
)
I II W
I M
Mr. Harold R. Den ll AEP:NRC:0934 8)
For fire protection, change Action Statement from a requirement, to shut down the plant to a less punitive measure.
Change all standing fire watches to roving fire watches or remote surveillances as appropriate.
9)
Delete redundant information where such deletion seems appropriate.
10)
Combine the technical specifications that deal with a single system or component, i.e., consolidate them into one section for each system or component if possible.
12)
Move equipment listings and details of surveillance requirements to the Bases section or separate documents if appropriate.
Direct the surveillance requirements toward what NRC inspectors will look for.
Our clarification effort willbe, focused mainly on three sections of the technical specifications document:
Definitions, Surveillance Requirements, and Bases.
As a corollary to, item Nos.
(3) and (11) above, we would consider moving to the Bases section those Surveillance Requirements that are not under the direct control of the control room operators.
The Bases section might also be used to amplify and clarify other conditions and design details that are not directly related to the main functions of the control room operators.
In considering the Definitions section, we would focus attention on clarification of the words and phrases that could be the source of multiple interpretations.
These would include, for example, words such as "surveillance," "shall be determined/demonstrated,"
"basis," "limits,"
"response time," "operating," "functional test," "procedures," "verify,"
"out of service," "inspect/inspection,"
"compliance,"
and "conformance."
We look forward to working with your staff to resolve this most important matter.
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,
)
M. P. Alex'ch Vice Pres'dent cm cc:
John E. Dolan W.
G. Smith, Jr. - Bridgman R. C. Callen G. Bruchmann G. Charnoff NRC Resident Inspector Bridgman
I t
~ r
~
aitfl t,,
+
air)f tt ~ ) g h
I I
g tt h
il,, lt h
"I F
I )'r hv
,at I
~ ".
~ )'ch c ~ V I
'It tfg F',ver r ", ~
I aJt
~, ) r tl 'I
'w w I)")
Qct vttt hr )
r I
It '.
I t
)
g(g
'I'fgf) r
<<I '
Fq'hg )ft $)F)
CI ""
" f I'trf r rr h
V t
rat
)'
~hra I
I e,
(
fete
~
t er) h h'c
~ +
.f, t
Peg
~
V
$ff I, I,off',
)
ft'f I t
v
)
h e
V I
F rat'
)ee'P)
)
~
~ Ifr ht.j P.f I
Cg~r",
<<f>>
h,t ffl,l f-r
~ )-tff~
gf a, ptg ft) rr r, ')
-I i) <>
FI' r)'i I'). ta 9 K
'I I ",
c> f ff'I lathe t>> g fpf')
~,
"=hfh r '
)
~
~I r Il II J'
e IF)'I lf k )
a
't~ )a),
I)rc, ir)
II g Ilc +-)F)a F)tf a Ii h) a ale et' I
v>> )tr) hr)~*r I
I
= c)+
I h
h~~t '.t I'I
\\
1 F
)il h
'hc, t,
h h
I
'I I
I' I 'I-ch a
r II I
aat'F I
- !)"X *t, h
) I'"
(
e.hff a
)
v fir ra FI
" War
) g i
~
"fg II1 et I
I et r
~
c l
~
~
t
~
t clif
,f,
~ )
fl
~
F