ML17325A051
| ML17325A051 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 04/07/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17325A050 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8704150173 | |
| Download: ML17325A051 (3) | |
Text
~
~
gAS REGIj
~o ClOjg
+>>*<<+
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. P. 20555 1
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.
104 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-58 AND AMENDMENT NO.
91 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-74 INDIANA AND MICHIGAN ELECTRIC COMPANY DONALD C.
COOK NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1
AND 2 DOCKET NOS.
50-315 AND 50-316 INTRODUCTION By letter dated August 19, 1986, the Indiana and Michigan Electric Company (the licensee) submitted proposed Technical Specification changes for the Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos.
1 and 2.
The changes clarify the snubber requirements, correct designations and classifications of snubbers, and correct several editorial errors.
Some changes are to make the Unit 1 and Unit 2 Technical Specifications consistent.
EVALUATION The visual inspection section of Technical Spegification 3/4.7.8 was proposed to be changed for both units to allow inspections in less time than the
-25% of the inspection period.
This was on the basis that thee may be times when the in-spection can be performed during an outage that has occurred in less time than-..
currently allowed by the -25K frequency provision.
It was the licensee's..position that strict adherence to the current Technical Soecification would require an additional subsequent outage to ins'pect snubbers with no clear increase in safety.
After further.discussions with the licensee, it was agreed that no change to Technical Specification was necessary and the inspections could be performed in less time than the -25%.
It is important that surveillance performed sooner than 255 before the stated interval cannot be used to lengthen the surveillance interval and the licensee has recognized this.
We find this change acceptable.
Specification 3/4.7.8 for both units has been corrected with an additional phrase on Unit 1 which was inadvertently omitted and a correction to a footnote on Unit 2 which corrects the footnote and is consistent with Unit 1 and the Standard Technical Specification.
A reference on Unit 2 was also corrected.
These changes correct errors in wording and do not change the intended requirements, plant operation, or safety.
We find these changes acceptable.
The licensee has proposed an additional phrase be added to the visual inspection provisions for both units to clarify which of two ports on the snubber should be used to determine adequate fluid in the snubber and operability.
The
.port nearest the valve operator was determined to be a line connection and unsuitable for visual examination without disassembly in place.
The licensee a70OSSO>7S 870407 PDR
@DOCK 050003i5 PDR
agreed to delete this part of their request and will consider any further like changes in a subsequent submittal.
We find this acceptable.
The licensee has proposed a number of other editorial corrections and in each case, the change is acceptable.
Table 3.7-4 of the Technical Specification is a listing of the safety related hydraulic snubbers.
The licensee has determined that some designations and locations are incorrect and has changed the table accordingly.
The table also lists the snubbers as accessible or inaccessible.
This latter designation is incorrect for a number of snubbers and the licensee has corrected the table accordingly.
We have reviewed these changes and the basis for the inaccessible
We find proposed revisions to the table for both units to be acceptable.
ENYIRONMENTAL 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 there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Comnission has previously, issued a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public cogent on such finding.
Accord-ingly, 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 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 Comission'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 Dated:
April 7, 1987
/f
~
I
'