ML17328A405
| ML17328A405 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 08/06/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17328A404 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9008310079 | |
| Download: ML17328A405 (4) | |
Text
~p,g ncQy Mp0
(
I A
, 4 0
C O
~0
~w*w+
UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION VltASHINGTON,D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 144TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-58 AND AMENDMENT NO. 131TO 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 September 15, 1988, the Indiana Michigan Power Company (the licensee) proposed changes to the D.
C. Cook, Units 1
and 2 Technical Specifications (TS).
These changes would remove obsolete references to previously granted surveillance interval extensions from the TS.
These changes were proposed by the staff in order to improve the readability of the TS.
2.0 EVALUATION The proposed changes would remove only obsolete references to surveillance interval extensions.
The licensee does not propose any new extensions, nor any modifications to the previous extensions proposed.
However, the licensee does propose to change specific pages of the TS to reference the amendment numbers corresponding to the surveillance interval extensions.
These references are necessary because several surveillance interval "time clocks" were reset by these prior amendments, and the licensee wishes to retain documentation of these changes.
The proposed changes do not affect any pending surveillance interval extension; and as such, the deletion of obsolete surveillance interval extensions will not affect plant operational requirements in any way.
Therefore, these changes are completely of an administrative nature and have no effect on overall plant safety.
The staff finds that these proposed changes are acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMEN'tAL CONSIDERATION These amendments involve changes in requirements with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes in surveillance requirements.
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 P008gg0079 900806 PDR ADDCK 05000315 P
I
~
l l
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 We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that (1) there is reasonable,a'ssur'ance 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 rot be inimical to the common defense and
- security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date:
August 6, 1990 Principal Contributor:
R. Stransky, PD31
j t
> ~
i V