ML17331A040
| ML17331A040 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 11/13/1992 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17331A039 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9302220309 | |
| Download: ML17331A040 (3) | |
Text
~$ REgy P
'40 4y nO Ig
++*++
UNITED STATES CLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFET EVALUATION BY TH OF ICE OF NUC EAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.
0 ACILITY OPERATI G LICENSE NO. DPR-58
'D AMENDMEN N0.151 TO F
C TY OPERA ING ICENSE NO. DPR-74 NDIAN C
GAN P WE CO N
DONALD C.
COOK NUCLEAR PLANT UNI NOS.
1 AND 2 OCK OS 50-3 5
AND 50-316
- 1. 0 INTRODUCTION By letter dated February 15, 1991 as supplemented September 13, 1991, the Indiana Michigan Power Company (the licensee) requested amendments to the Technical Specifications (TS) appended to Facility Operating License Nos.
DPR-58 and DPR-74 for the Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos.
1 and 2.
The proposed amendments would make administrative changes to the TS for both units.
Four items in the proposed change were not purely administrative in nature.
The changes dealt with operability of the automatic trip logic, engineered safety featured system instrumentation, containment air lock, and the physical stops on the Auxiliary Building Crane.
These changes will be evaluated under a separate cover.
- 2. 0 EVALUATION The February 15, 1991 application contains 25 proposed administrative changes to the TS.
By letter dated September 13, 1991, the licensee provided additional information concerning the original application.
The proposed changes fall into two categories.
The first category of proposed changes include those changes that are strictly typographical in nature.
Note:
the number proceeding each of the following changes corresponds to the number on the proposal in the licensee's application.
a.
(2) Unit 2 TS 1.29 spelling error, "resine" should be "resin."
b.
(6) Unit 2 TS 3.2. 1 spelling error, "target ban" should be "target band."
930222030'II 'II2iii3 PDR ADOCK 050003i5 '(
P PDR
C.
d.
(7) Correct inconsistency in Unit 1 TS Table 3.3-5, "660 seconds" should be changed to "600 seconds" consistent with Unit 2 for the requirement to start the containment air recirculation system.
(10) Correct the cross referencing error in TS Table 3.3-6, Units 1
and 2.
TS 6.9.1.13 has been deleted and should no longer be referenced.
e.
(11) Correct typing error in Unit 1 TS Table 3.3-10 and Unit 2 Table 3.3-11 by listing the correct elevation of 573 for item a in the table.
9, h.
(13) Correct cross reference error in TS 3/4.4.11.3, Units 1 and 2.
For Unit 1, reference to 4.8.1.1.2b should be 4.8.1.1.2e.
For Unit 2, reference to 4.8. 1.1.2c should be 4.8.1.1.2e.
(20) Correct typographical error in TS 3/4.8.3, Unit 2 "Unit 2" should say "Unit 1."
(22)
Remove the asterisk after the word "system."
(23)
Change the term "site boundary" in TS 5.1.3 for both units to all capital letters.
The second category of proposed changes involve clarification or correction of terminology to correctly reflect as-built plant conditions and operations.
a
~
b.
C.
d.
e.
(3) Adds the word "average" to the limiting condition for operation in TS 2. 1. 1 to provide clarification.
(4) Change rated thermal power on TS page 2-2, Unit 1, "3414 HWT" to match licensed rated thermal power of "3250 HWT."
(5) Change functional unit 17.A in Table 2.2-1 from "Low Trip System Pressure" to "Low Fluid Oil Pressure" to reflect proper terminology.
(12) Change the name of the plant computer in Unit 1, TS Table 3.3-11 and Unit 2, TS Table 3.3-10 to reflect the installation of the new plant process computer.
(18) The terms 'inlet" and 'outlet're being corrected in Table 3.6-1 in both units TS to reflect the proper reference terminology used by operators.
(19) Add descriptive terms to differentiate between auxiliary feedwater pumps in TS 4.9.7.1 for both units.
The changes are either typographical in nature or provide administrative clarifications.
The proposed changes.enhance safety by improving the usability of the TS while assuring all the necessary requirements are maintained in the current TS.
These-corrections and enhancements will result in improved operator performance and reduce the probability of incorrect operator actions when using the TS.
Based on the evaluation, the staff finds the above proposed changes to the TS are acceptable.
Proposed changes (15), (17),
and (24) involving typographical errors have been acted on in previous amendments and, therefore, do not need to be evaluated in this amendment.
Items (8), (9), (14), (16),
and (21) are not administrative and deal with operability.
These proposed changes will be evaluated under a separate cover.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Michigan State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments.
The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONM NTAL CONSIDERAT N
The amendments change the requirements with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 or changes in surveillance requirements.
The staff has 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 the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding (56 FR 31435 and 56 FR 57697).
Accordingly, the 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 the amendments.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has 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.
Principal Contributor:
John Stang Date:
November 13, 1992