ML17321A776
| ML17321A776 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 08/05/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17321A775 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8508140455 | |
| Download: ML17321A776 (13) | |
Text
pbbs AfOy
+4 PO
~y
~
O
+~
gO
+a*a+
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.
87 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-58 AND AMENDMENT NO.
73 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-74 INDIANA AND MICHIGAN ELECTRIC COMPANY DONALD C.
COOK NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT NOS.
1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS.
50-3'15 AND 50-316 Introduction By letter dated December 17, 1984, the Indiana and Michigan Electric Company
( IMEC) submitted an application to amend Facility Operating License Nos.
DPR-58 and DPR-74 for the Donald C.
Cpok Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos.
1 and 2.
The amendments would change the Technical Specifications to update the offsite organization chart, and organization and responsibilities of the Plant Nuclear Safety Review CoIITIIittee (PNSRC) and the Nuclear Safety and Design Review Coranittee (NSDRC), to update the reporting requirements
- -'ddressed by the recent revision to 10 CFR 50. 73, to revise the containment
'solation valve listing, to correct an error in reference to the battery electrolyte temperature for surveillance, and to make a number of editorial changes..
By letter dated June 4, 1985, IMEC submitted additional information as additional clarification of the proposed technical specification changes.
The June 4, 1985 letter also included an amended:technical specTfieation to increase the committee meeting quorums in conjunction with the previously proposed increased committee membership and to include additional clarifying language on coIIIIittee meeting attendance and sub-committee reviews.
The June 4, 1985 proposed technical specifications do not represent a significant departure from the December. 17, 1984 submittal in I
I
- ,8508140455 850805 PDR.
ADOCK 0500031'5 P
that the quorum requirements are set by the approved number of conmittee members and the additional footnotes proposed by the licensee on committee attendance and sub-committee reviews was provided at NRC request but is not required to be in the technical specifications.
Evaluation A)
Administrative Controls A brief description and our evaluation of the proposed changes are discussed separately below:
1.
Figure 6.2-1 (Offsite Organization Chart) for Units 1 and 2 is changed to reflect the reorganization that occurred as a result of the quality assurance enhancements that were made pursuant to NRC recomnendations and as a result of the corporate move to Columbus, Ohio.
These changes are acceptable as they do not diminish the level of corporate support to the nuclear plant.
Sections 6.5.1.2 and 6.5.1.5 are changed to reflect title changes and changes in the membership of the Plant Nuclear Safety Review Comnittee (PNSRC).
The following management positions are added:
Assistant Plant Manager Naintenance Assistant Plant Manager Operations Technical Superintendent Engineering Technical Superintendent Physical Sciences guality Control Superintendent The following positions are deleted from PASRC membership:
Instrument and Control Engineer Nuclear Engineer Chemical Supervisor Performing Supervisory Engineer
The above changes are reflected in a new organizational chart enclosed with the June 4, 1985, submittal (Attachment 3, p. 6).
Page 4 of Attachment 3 provides a background sketch of the individuals filling the r
new positions.
This change would enhance management participation in and knowledge of specified PNSRC responsibilities by having higher level management personnel as PNSRC members.
It is, therefore, acceptable.
3.
The licensee proposes that a footnote be added to Sections 6.5. 1.2 and 6.5.2.2 for Units 1 and 2 which would specify that PNSRC and NSDRC membership changes resulting from title and reorganization changes could be made without prior NRC approval, but that the licensee would notify NRR of the change within 30 days.
This proposal is unacceptable as stated since it could result in a change to the license without prior NRC approval.
We propose to withhold a decision on this item until after further discussion with the licensee to clarify the licensee's
~nd the staff's interpretation of this requirement.
It may not be necessary for the licensee to specify titles of members of the Committee and, therefore, be required to notify NRC when a member's title changes or the member is replaced; rather the licensee might specify the numbers and qualifications of the membership such that notification of the NRC would be required only when the numbers or qualifications of members'hange.
The licensee is in agreement on withholding a decision at this time on the proposed change.
4.
Section 6.5:2.2 for Units I and 2 is changed to 'reflect a title change and membership changes for the NSDRC as follows:
Manager, guality Assurance (added)
Consulting Engineer, Nuclear Operations Division (added)
V.P., Fossil Plant Operations (former V.P., Mechanical Engineering)
Executive Assistant to President and Chief Operating Officer of IEHECo. (replacing the President and Chiqf Operating Officer)
-4 Descriptions of the above positions (with the exception of the Manager, gA, which is in the FSAR) and a
new organizational chart is enclosed with the licensee's June 4, 1985, submittal (Attachment 3, pp.
2 and 3).
The proposed changes do not detract from the capabilities of the NSRDC with the exception of the deletion of the President and Chief Operating Officer of IhMECo.
We agree with this deletion,
- however, since this individual would normally be much too occupied with other duties to serve on the NSRDC.
We, therefore, find the proposed changes acceptable.
5.
Section 6.5.2.5 is changed for both Units I and 2 to delete the condition related to the NSDRC meeting frequency for the initial year of facility operation.
Since the initial year has
- passed, this change is acceptable.
- 6.
Section 6.5.2.6 for Units I and 2 is changed to clarify the definitioq of "quorum" as follows:
A.quorum, the minimum number of regular members and alternates required to hold a
NSDRC @ecting, shall be eight (8) members, of whom no more than two (2) shall be "Designated" or "Temporary" Alternates.
The Chairman or Acting Chairman shall be present for all NSDRC meetings.
If the number of members present is greater than a quorum, then the majority participating and voting at the meeting shall not have line responsibility for operation of the f ac i 1 ity.
In addition, the'icensee proposes that a footnote be added to Section 6.5.2.6 for Units I and 2 which states that regular NSDRC members are expected to attend the meeting whenever possible, anC that alternates may attend as voting members only on an irregular hasis.
If both a regular member and his alternate attend a meeting, only the regular member may participate as a voting member, and the alternate is considered a guest.
We find this revised definition of a quorum, with the explanatory footnote, acceptable.
7.
The licensee proposes that a footnote be added to Section 6.5.2.7 for Units 1 and 2 which states that independent reviews may be performed by groups which report directly to the NSDRC and which must have NSDRC membership participation.
The Technical Specifications require that the NSRDC be responsible to assure that independent reviews are performed.
This requirement is met by having groups that report to the NSRDC perform the actual reviews.
Therefore, we find this clarifying footnote acceptable.
8.
The licensee proposes to delete Section 6.5.2.7.i for both Units 1 and 2.
These deletions would eliminate the requirement for the NSDRC to review the reports and meeting minutes of the PNSRC.
The licensee contends that these reviews are redundant and do not result in any increase in plant safety..
The staff does not agree.
A principal function of corporate safety review groups traditionally has been to maintain an oversight over the activities of plant safety review groups.
We have discussed this matter with representatives of the licensee and we propose to withold a decision on this item pending the outcome of further discussions.
We believe the licensee's request for change stems from a difference in interpretation of the extent to which the NSDRC reviews matters previously reviewed by the PNSRC.
The licensee is in agreement on withholding a decision at this time on the proposed change.
9.
The licensee proposes
( I) to change the spellinq of the word "Chairman" in Section 6.5. 1.6.g of the Unit 2 Technical Specifications; (2) to change the word "modification" to "solidification". in Section 6.5.2.8.m of the Unit 1 Technical Specifications; and (3) tn change Recommended"
Yg i@I to Recommend", in Section 6.5. 1.7.a of the Unit 2 Technical Specifications.
These changes are purely administrative in nature, correct obvious errors in the Technical Specifications, and are acceptable.
10.
The licensee proposes to change the wording in the Technical Specifications, Sections 6.5. 1.6.f, 6.5.2.7.g, and 6.6 for Units 1 and 2, from "Reportable Occurrences" to "Reportable Events."
This change is in response to Generic Letter 83-43, which relates to the reporting requirements of 10 CFR 50.73, and is acceptable.
The licensee also proposes to delete Sections 6.9. 1. 11, 6.9. 1. 12, and 6.9. 1. 13 in response to guidance provided in Generic Letter 83-43.
Section
- 6. 10. l.c has been revised to "all Reportable Events" and Section 6.6 changed to reduce the redundancy between the Technical Specifications and l
10 'CFR 50.73.
Me find these changes acceptable.
8),
Containment air service penetration isolation barriers.
The licensee proposes to use an automatic isolation valve (PCR-40),
in Lieu of a blind flange, outside containment, and a
check vaLve (PA-343)~ in lieu of the manual vaLve (PA-145) inside containment as the containment isolation barriers for the containment service air Line.
The automatic isolation valve is actuated upon receipt of p
Phase A isolation signal.
The purpose of this change is to permit the use of the containment air service penetration above t10DE 5.
We find that the'hange in isolation barriers meets the i so lation:"'requi rements of General Design I
'h P
Criterion 56, and, therefore, is acceptable.
Accordingly~ the proposed revision of Table 3.6-1 of the Technical Specifications to reflect the above design change is acceptable.
C)
Shutdown Margin - Reference to Control Rod Insertion Limits The licensee notes that Surveillance Requirements
- 4. l.l.l. 1 b and c
r improperly reference limits of Specification 3.1.3.5 for Unit 2... The Westinghouse Standard Specifications and the Unit I Technical Specifications properly reference the Control Rod Insertion Limits which in 3.1.3.5 for thosi instanc'es, however, the Control Rod Insertion Limit for Unit 2 is 3. 1.3.6.
The licensee's request is a
correction brought to our attention and is acceptable.
0)
Battery Surveillance Temperature The IMEC proposed a change to the existing Unit I Technical Specifications 4.8.2.3.2.a.2, 4.8.2.3.2.b.2 (Page 3/4 8-9), and 4.8.2.5.2.b.2 (Page 3/4 8-14) and Unit 2 Technical specification 4.8.2.3.2.b.2.
The proposed change will increase the temperature that specific gravity is measured at or corrected to from the present 70'F
0 ps
\\
I fA to 77'F.
The licensee states that the 70'F temperature shown in the above technical specifications is due to a typographical error and is inconsistent with the temperature used in other portions of the technical specifications.
in addition, the new temperature is more conservative and is consistent with standard practice.
We concur with C
the licensee and find the proposed change acceptable.
E)
Administrative Changes The licensee has requested a number of changes to correct references to amendment numbers', correct instrument identification numbers, correct reference indication marks, and delete obsolete footnotes.
The references to the amendment numbers is to properly identify the amendment to the applicable Unit.
The Unit 2 Technical Specifications incorrectly listed the Unit 1 instrument numbers in Table 3.3-6.
The Unit 2 footnote reference on Table 3.3-6 should apply to item 3 only and the additional footnote on that Table regarding the 1982 refueling outage is no longer applicable.
All of these changes are proper and correct and the change will have no bearing on safety or safe operation.
These changes are acceptable.
Environmental Consideration These amendments involve a change in the installation or use of the faci1ities components located within the restricted areas as defined in 10 CFR 20.
The staff has determined that these amendments involve no
. significant increase in the amounts, and no signifjcant change in the types,
of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation
- exposure, The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comnent on such finding.
Accordingly, these amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Sec, 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
.,(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the aj public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed
- manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the
/
Commission's regulations and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the. health and safety of the public.
Dated:
August 5, 1985 Princi al Contributors:
R. Benedict I. Schoenfeld L. Crocker M.
Emami R. Palla D. Wigginton
0 t
p 7
1 P