ML17328A026
| ML17328A026 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 04/11/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17328A025 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8905110055 | |
| Download: ML17328A026 (3) | |
Text
~g RED P0 Cy
~c 0
C O
Op V/
~O
+**i(+
UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0.123 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-58 AND AMENDMENT N0.110 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-74 INDIANA MICHIGAN POMER COMPANY DONALD C.
COOK NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS NOS.
1 AND 2 DOCKETS NOS..50-315 AND 50-316 1.0 2.0
2.1 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated January 16, 1987, the Indiana Michigan Power Company (the licensee) requested an amendment to the Technical Specifications (TSs) appended to Facility Operating Licenses Nos.
DPR-58 and DPR-74 for the Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Units Nos.
- j. and 2.
The proposed amendment would change the surveillance requirements for the station batteries (including the N-train batteries) to allow the use of simulated loads for testing battery capacity.
This simulated load testing change was resubmitted, separately, in a letter dated April 29, 1988.
The change was resubmitted in order to ensure timely compliance with an INPO commitment and to* reduce outage time.
Additional changes to Technical Specifications in the April 29, 1988 letter include allowing simulated loads for testing the N-train batteries in addition to the station batteries.
This application was originally noticed on February 26, 1987 (52 FR 5857) and was renoticed on July 29, 1987 (52 FR 28380),
and December 30, 1987 (52 FR 49227).
The no significant hazards finding for station battery testing remains as in the original January 16, 1987 amendment application.
The basis for the no significant hazards finding is the fact that the testing of battery and inverter capacity with simulated loads is acceptable and equivalently conservative for all of the station batteries (including the N-train batteries).
The April 29, 1988 application for amendment does not change the finding of no significant hazards.
EVALUATION Ob ectives The objective of the surveillance of the D.
C. distribution system and its associated batteries and battery chargers is to ensure sufficient capacity and capability of the onsite D. C.
power system to meet its safety function.
Portions of the surveillance verify the ability of the batteries and associated chargers to provide sufficient power for maximum accident load profi 1 es.
8905ii0055 8904ii PDR ADOCK 050003i5 PDC
2.2 Station Batter Tester The staff believes that the use of the Battery Tester constitutes an equivalent method of testing battery and inverter capacity.
The TS changes reflect more closely to the Standard Westinghouse TS (STS)
(NUREG-0452, Rev. 4), which allow the use of simulated loads.
2.3 Technical S ecifications The proposed TS changes allow the use of simulated loads for all of the emergency battery loads.
Specifications 4.8. 2. 3. 2. d and 4.8. 2. 5. 2. d allow the use of either actual or simulated emergency loads during battery capacity testing..
Additionally the double asterisks and the associated footnote from Table 4.8-1A were deleted.
This footnote allowed the use of either actual or simulated loads for the inverters during battery testing.
This footnote is no longer necessary since specification 4.8.2.3.2.d has been changed to allow the use of either actual or simulated loads for all of the battery loads.
2.4 Conclusion The staff concludes that the use of simulated loads for battery and associated inverter capacity testing:
(1)
Provide a more controlled and relatively accurate maximum accident load profile; and (2)
Do not alter the objectives of the surveillance testing of station battery and associated charger capacities.
Therefore, the proposed TS changes are acceptable.
- 3. 0 ENVIRONNENTAL CONSIDERATION 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 to the surveillance requirements.
We 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 this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, this amendment meets 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 this amendment.
- 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 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 the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date:
April ll, 1989 Principal Contributor:
A. Gody