ML17321B029
| ML17321B029 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 01/07/1986 |
| From: | Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17321B030 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8601160511 | |
| Download: ML17321B029 (6) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COWISSION 7590-01 INDIANA AND MICHIGAN ELECTRIC COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-316
/
NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE AND PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission (the Coneission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No.
DPR-'74 issued to Indiana and Michigan Electric Company (the licensee) for operation of the Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit No.
2 located in Berrien County, Michigan.
The amendment would extend the 18 month surveillance frequency by 2 months for testing the reactor trip. system instrumentation, the epgineered safety feature actuation system instrumentation, the containment sump level and flow monitoring instrumentation, the reactor coolant system relief and block valve instrumentation, the reactor coolant pump spray headers, the electrical power systems including:
the alternate
- source, diesel generator and batteries, the energy core cooling system subsystem, some snubbers, and inspection of the divider barrier seal.
These revisions to the technical specifications would be made in response to the licensee's application for amendment dated December 13, 1985 as supplemented by letter dated December 19, 1985.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations.
The Commission has made a proposed det'ermination that the amendment re-quest involves no significant hazards consideration.
Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50. 92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not
( I) involve a significant 8601160511 860113 PDR ADOCN, 0500031b P
7590-01 increase in the probability or consequences of an accident'.previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety..
The 18 month surveillance requirements are part of the periodic.tests to assure operability of safety systems and components.
The Technical Specifica-tions provide additional margin in the frequency of these tests;
- however, D. C. Cook Unit 2 will begin to exceed the margin by the end of January 1986.
The request to extend the 18 month limit until the end of March 1986 is supported by the licensee's justification that operation has been demonstrated
'\\
on a less frequent basis or that a visual 'inspection of passive cqnponents will
/
be performed to the extent practical.
The extension requested by the licensee would. for the most part, allow the plant to finish operation on the current fuel cycle and defer for up to two months the detailed operability surveillance requirements with all the proper procedures.
There are no proposed changes to the equipment, instrumentation, setpoints, or operation which would further question the safety significance or alter previous hazards analyses for the'.
C.
Cook Unit 2.
For the reactor trip system instrumentation, the engineered safety feature
.r actuation system instrumentation, and the reactor coolant system pressure relief and block valve instrumentation, the monthly functional tests are more stringent than required.
These tests demonstrate functionality and verify calibration of trip setpoints, actuation, and alarms.
The response times for the systems were demonstrated as late as November and mid December except for the pressure relief valves which were cycled during September 1985.
The containment sump level and flow monitoring instrumentation has also shown no indication of problems during surveillance required by the current Technical Specifications.
The diesel
A
7590-01 generators were run and paralleled to their busses on November 17 a'nd Oecember 2,
1985 which demonstrated their operability and the licensee has visually inspected the batteries to insure there is no significant physical deteri'oration.
On November 11,
- 1984, a safety injection actuation occurred and all systems op-crated properly and all valves were correctly aligned.
The emergency core cooling system throttle valves used for flow balancing had been locked in place since the last surveillance assuring that the flow balance has not changed.
Therefore, the operability of the above systems including valve line-ups has been demonstrated during the current fuel cycle on a less frequent basis than 18'months and it is unlikely that the 2 month extension will contribute to or result in inoperability of the systems.
~
~
There are three passive systems involved in the 2 month extension.
The spray header for the reactor coolant pumps area is inside containment and is not expected to be subject to deterioration for the extension period.
The divider seal barrier was last inspected in March 1984 and showed the seal in good condition; no degradation is expected.
Some snubber tests will be affected by the extension and the licensee has committed to visually inspect the accessible snubbers for any sign of physical deterioration such as loss of fluid, rust, etc, that may affect operation.
Inaccessible
The Commission has considered the licensee's proposed changes in light of the three criteria for amendment requests involving no significant hazards con-sideration.
First, there are no changes tq,equipment, setpoints or operation of active systems for which operability has been sufficiently demonstrated less frequently than 18 months, and therefore, the proposed amendment would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
7590-01 evaluated.
For the passive
- systems, we, agree that any additional deterioration of'pray headers or the barrier seal penetration for 2 months will be insignifi-cant and the licensee will visually inspect the batteries and most of the snubbers involved.
There may be some increase in the probability of non-inspected snubber s to fail but this increase is not significant and the consequences of previously evaluated accidents are unaffected by the proposed extension.
- Second, since accidents which might be caused by inoperability or the possible failure of a few snubbers during the extended inspection interval are the same as those previously evaluated, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any, accident pre-viously evaluated.
Third, since operability has been sufficiently demonstrated and the licensee will inspect most of the affected snubbers during the remainder of the interval, the reduction in safety margin is considered to be insignificant.
Therefore, based on these considerations and the three criteria given above, the Comission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission has determined that failure to act in a timely way would result in shutdown of Unit 2.
Therefore, the Commission has insufficient time to issue its usual 30-day notice of the proposed action for public comment.
If the proposed determination becomes final, an opportunity for a hearing wi11 be published in the Federal
~Re ister at a later date and any hearing re-quest will not delay the effective date of the amendment.
If the Commission decides in i,ts final determination that the amendment does involve a significant hazards consideration, a notice of opportunity for
w
~
I ~
5 7590-01 a prior hearing will be published in the Federal
~Re ister and, if a hearing is granted, it will be held before any amendment is issued.
The Comaission is seeking public comments on this'proposed determination of no significant hazards consideration.
Coments on the proposed determination may be telephoned to B. J. Youngblood, Project Director, PWR Project Directorate f4, Division of PWR Licensing-A, by collect call to 301-492-7000 or submitted in writing to the Rules and Procedures Branch, Division of Rules and Records, Office of Administration, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission, Washington, D. C. 20555, Attn:
Docketing and Service Branch.
All comments received by January 24, 1986, will be considered in reaching a final determination.
A copy of the application may be examined at the gomaission's ar Public Document
- Room, 1717 H Street,'.
W., Washington, D. C. and at the Maude Preston Palenske Memorial Library, 500 Market Street, St. Joseph, Michigan 49085.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 7th day of January 1986.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION oungbl od, Directo PWR P
ject irectorate 8
Divis on of PWR Licensing-A