ML17325A021
| ML17325A021 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 03/27/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17325A020 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8704060090 | |
| Download: ML17325A021 (2) | |
Text
aP ~ ~~CDP UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.
102TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-58 AND AMENDMENT NO.
88 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-74 INDIANA AND MICHIGAN ELECTRIC COMPANY DONALD C.
COOK NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS I AND 2 DOCKET NOS.
50-315 AND 50-316 INTRODUCTION By lette~ from M.P. Alexich to H. Denton dated December 22,
- 1986, Indiana and Michigan Electric Company requested changes to Operating Licenses DPR-58 and DPR-74.
At present the Design Features Section 5.3. 1, Fuel Assemblies, of the D.C.
Cook Nuclear Plant Technical Specifications for Unit I (which is fueled with westinghouse fuel) identifies a maximum total fuel rod weight of 2,236 grams of uranium.
Recent changes by Westinghouse to the fuel design, including chamfered pellets with a reduced dish and use of the integrated dry route process, have increased fuel weights slightly.
The proposed change will delete the weight limits from the Technical Specifications to allow use of the slightly heavier fuel.
Although D.C.
Cook Unit 2 (which is fueled with Exxon fuel) has not exceeded the technical specification maximum total fue1 rod weight as presently designed, the licensee has requested that the deletion of fuel rod weight also be applied to the Unit 2 technical specification in the Design Features Section 5.3. 1, Fuel Assemblies, of the D.C.
Cook Unit 2 Technical Specifications.
The licensee also proposes to correct typographical
- errors, EVALUATION The important safety related parameters which are indi~ectly affected by fuel weight, such as reactor criticality, power level, power distribution and the rate of decay heat production, are all regulated by requirements in the Limiting Condition for Operation sections of the Technical Specifications.
In addition, the fuel weight is implicitly included in the nuclear design ana'lysis performed for each reactor operating cycle and used to evaluate conformance with established limits for Design Basis Events.
For small fuel weight increases without a significant change in fuel design, there is no impact on the safety ana1ysis.
A significant change in the fuel design would be the subject of review and changes to the other governing Technical Specifications or may be an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10 CFR 50.59.
8704060090 870327
, PDR ADOCK 05000315 P '
'DR
We therefore conclude that there will be no significant safety impact in deleting the maximum fuel weight from Technical Specification 5.3.1.
We also find this action preferable to changing the Specification each cycle to accommodate the applicable weight, or to specifying an artificial upper value of the weight to bound future variations.
The proposed change is therefore acceptable.
We have also reviewed the errors brought to our attention and agree they are typographical errors and the changes are appropriate.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION These amendments involve a change in the installation or use of the facilities'omponents 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 significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite and that the~e 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 coment on such finding.
Accord-ingly, these amendments meet the eligibilitycriteria for cateaorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Sec 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22tb) no environ-mental 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 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.
Principal Contributors:
D. Wigginton L. Bell Dated:
Harch 27, 1987