ML17334A887
| ML17334A887 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 06/24/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17321A702 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8507030131 | |
| Download: ML17334A887 (5) | |
Text
~y,g Rfgy Wp0
~
~'
~ ~
~~i o
~O
++y4%
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, O. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 84 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-58 INDIANA AND MICHIGAN ELECTIC COMPANY DONALD C.
COOK NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT NO.
1 DOCKET NO. 50-315 Introduction By letter dated March 1,
- 1985, the Indiana and Michigan Electric Compafly (the licensee) submitted a proposed Technical Specification change to permit operation with increased bypass flow around the Safety Injection Pumps.
The increased bypass is necessary to provide adequate heat relief for the pumps while operating in the bypass mode.
Evaluation In License Amendment Number 64 issued for the Donald C.
Cook Plant, Unit No. 2, on June 18,
- 1984, the NRC approved a similar change to the bypass flow.
In that review, the staff found that the analysis performed for Unit 1
was acceptable and that Units 1 and 2 were sufficiently alike that the analysis was also applicable to Unit 2.
On that basis, the Unit -2 amendment was approved.
In its March 1,
1985 letter, the licensee now proposes this change in bypass flow for Unit 1 with the commensurate change in a footnote to the Technical Specifications on Safety Injection (SI) pumps.
This footnote places a maximum limit on the flow rate permitted by the SI pumps.
The specific changes indicate
( 1) that combined loops 1, 2, 3 and 4
cold leg flow is to be less than or equal to 640 gpm and (2) that total flow, including miniflow, is not to exceed 700 gpm.
With this addition, the Technical Specifications stipulate both the minimum flow requirements to assure core coolabili ty (consistent with FSAR LOCA analyses) and the maximum flow requirements to assure containment integrity (consistent with the assumptions made in the design basis analyses for the containment building).
The staff finds. acceptable the licensee's request to upgrade its technical specifications to limit the flow of the safety injection pumps for Unit 1.
Q,'E Pw
/1 Environmental Consideration This amendment involves a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The staff has determined that the amendment involves 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 Sec 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.
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, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment wi 11 not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Oated:
June 24, 1985 Princi al Contributors:
J.
Guttman D. Wigginton
Exhibit E of Attachment 1
to AEP:NRC:0916Z.
Relevant Pages from the NRC Safety Evaluation Report for Amendment 82 to the D.
C.
Cook Unit 2 Technical Specifications
,P r,
E A 4 l~