ML17325A777
| ML17325A777 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 06/15/1988 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17325A776 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8806220043 | |
| Download: ML17325A777 (2) | |
Text
~p,q 4Eoy O~
Cy UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.
TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR"58 AND AMENDMENT NO.
TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-74 INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY DONALD C.
COOK NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS NOS.
1 AND 2 DOCKETS NOS.
50-315 AND 50"316 1.0
2.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated July 22, 1987, the Indiana Michigan Power Company (the licensee) requested amendments to the Technical Specifications (TSs) appended to Facility Operating Licenses Nos.
DPR-58 and DPR-74 for the Donald CD Cook Nuclear Plant, Units Nos.
1 and 2.
The proposed amendments would permit the licensee to perform the functional testing on safety-related snubbers at 24-month intervals instead of the required 18-month period with an initial sample size of 14K instead of the normally required 10K.
The proposed amendment would also cor rect an editorial oversight on visual inspections to include percent signs on the frequency span.
EVALUATION To verify the operability of safety-related
- snubbers, the current Cook 1 and 2
TSs require the functional testing on these snubbers every 18 months with an initial sample size of lOX of the total snubber population.
For every inoperable snubber discovered in all testings, a subsequent sample(s) shall be chosen and tested.
The 18-month period was selected to accommodate the most commonly adopted fuel cycle period at the time the TSs were written.
The size of the lOX initial sample was then determined to ensure that, at a minimum, the number of snubbers in the population will be tested every 15 years.
Operating practices dictate many plants to use fuel cycles other than the 18-month period.
Since the 18-month test frequency was arbitrarily selected for the convenience of plant operations, it can and should be varied to accommodate all fuel cycles other than the 18-month period.
The consideration that the total number of snubbers in the plant should be tested every 15 years should remain for this test plan.
The requested revision using an initial sample size of 14K fulfillsthis requirement.
revision to the TSs is acceptable.
q0
~@6'P 06~>0043 880625 PDR ADOCK 050O0315 PDR The requested TS revision to extend the time period between snubber functional testings to approximately 24 months with an initial sample of 14K of the total snubber population would continue to provide adequate verification of the operability of safety"related snubbers.
We therefore conclude that this proposed
The proposed correction of an editorial oversight involves the addition of percent signs which, during the issuance of previous. amendments, were inadvertently deleted from the + values of the visual inspection intervals of 4.7.8.a.
Without the percent signs, it is not clear whether the
+ values are
+ 25 months,
+ 25 days,'r
+ 25K.
Therefore, to avoid misinterpretation, the visual inspection intervals should be modified to again include the percent signs.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATlON These amendments involve a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and a change in a surveillance requirement.
Me have determined that the 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 Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, these amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 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.
- 4. 0 CONCLUSION Me 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 endargered by operation in the proposed
- manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date:
J une 15r 1988 Principal Contributor:
H.
Shaw