ML17328A254
| ML17328A254 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 05/29/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17328A253 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9006130243 | |
| Download: ML17328A254 (2) | |
Text
~ +P,R RE'GG p
Cy
~ 4y
+
V p
++*++
UNITED STATES 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. 125 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-74 INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY DONALD C.
COOK NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT NOS.
1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS.
50-315 AND 50-316
- 1. 0 INTRODUCTION By letter dated December 29, 1989, the Indiana Michigan Power
- Company, the licensee for the Donald C.
Cook Plant, Units 1 and 2, requested an amendment to change the Technical Specifications (TS) in order to extend certain ice condenser surveillance intervals to 18 months.
The existing TS requires these ice condenser survei llances to be performed at 9-month intervals.
The proposed request would eliminate the mid-cycle outages which are required for these survei llances which cannot be performed at power.
The following evaluation concerns the staff's review of the proposed 18-month surveillance interval for inspection of frost and ice accumulation on the lower inlet support structures and turning vanes, and testing of the lower inlet doors including verification of the power spring torque setting.
- 2. 0 EVALUATION The ice condenser performs the mitigative function of limiting containment pressure buildup following a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) or high energy line break (HELB).
To ensure that the ice condenser will fulfill'its function, buildup of frost and ice in the flow passages for the steam resulting from these accidents must be limited.
The requested change increases the surveillance interval for an area within the ice condenser that is not very susceptible to frost and ice buildup based on operational experience.
The licensee provided the operational history of the current 9-month surveillance which shows that significant frost and ice buildup has not generally been found on the subject components and structures during the last 5 years.
Any evidence of excessive frost or ice buildup on the lower support structures and turning vanes was included in this history.
The primary purpose of the lower inlet doors surveillance is to determine that the doors are capable of opening properly when required during a LOCA or HELB.
This is accomplished via the proper spring torque setting.
The springs produce a small force to resist door opening during normal and accident 9006i30243 900529 PDR ADOCK 05000315 P
-2" operation.
The surveillance in question also requires that various measurements be made of the door spring torque in order to ensure that the required safety functions can be met.
The current D.
C.
Cook TS require that 50K of the doors be tested at 9 months, with the remaining 50K being tested at 18 months.
The testing interval for any door is 18 months.
The proposed amendment would require that 100X of the doors be tested each 18 months.
Thus the inspection interval for any door does not change.
- Hence, the staff finds the licensee's justification for the proposed change in the surveillance interval to be acceptable.
Based on the above review, the staff concludes that the licensee's request for an extended 18-month surveillance interval on the ice condenser will not likely result in excessive frost and ice buildup on lower support structures, turning vanes, and inlet doors.
In addition, the extension to 18 months for the surveillance interval will not increase the likelihood that lower inlet door spring torques will be outside their required ranges.
Therefore, the extended surveillance interval request is acceptable.
- 3. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION These amendments involve a change in a requirement with respect to 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.
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 these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, these amendments meet the eligibilitycriteria 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 amendment.
4.0 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, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission s regulations, and (3) 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:
%ay 29,, 1990 Principal Contributor:
S.
Sanders/SPLB