ML17334B034

Application for Amends to Licenses DPR-58 & DPR-74,deleting 870228 Expiration Date Noted in Footnote to Tech Spec 3.9.7 Re Main Load Block of Auxiliary Bldg Crane.Footnote No Longer Needed Due to Completion of Load Block Drop Analysis

ML17334B034
Person / Time
Site:	Cook
Issue date:	01/13/1987
From:	Alexich M INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. (FORMERLY INDIANA & MICHIG
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML17334B035	List: ML17334B034 ML17334B036
References
AEP:NRC:0514S, AEP:NRC:514S, NUDOCS 8701200354
Download: ML17334B034 (7)

Text

REGULATORY -GRADATION DISTRIBUTION SY' (R IDS)

ACCESSION NBR 8701200354 DOC. DATE: 87/01/13 NOTARIZED: NO DOCKET ¹ FAC IL: 50-315 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant> Unit f. Indiana 5 05000315 50-3fh Donald C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant> Unit 2> Ind iana ~~~ 05000316 AUTH. NN'iE AUTHOR AFFILIATION ALEXICH> N. P. Indiana Zc Michigan Electric Co.

REC IP. NAI'tE RECIPIENT AFFILIATION 1 DENTON> H. R. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation> Director (post 851125

SUBJECT:

Application for amends to Licenses DPR-58 5 DPR-74> deleting 870228 expiration date noted in footnote to Tech Spec 3. 9. 7 re main load block of auxiliary bldg crane. Footnote 'no longer needed due to completion of load block drop analgsis.

DISTRIBUTION CODE: A001D COPIES RECEIVED: LTR ENCL SIZE:

TITLE: OR Submittal: General Distribution NOTES:

RECIPIENT COPIES RECIPIENT COPIES ID CODE/NAt'tE LTTR ENCL ID CODE/MANE LTTR ENCL PNR-A EB 1 1 PNR-A EICSB 2 2 PNR-A FOB 1 1 PNR-A PD4 LA 1 0 PNR-A PD4 PD Of 5 5 NIGGINGTON, D 1 1 PNR-A PSB 1 PNR-A RSB 1 1 INTER NAL: ADN/LFI')B 1 0 ELD/HDS3 NRR/DHF TSCB 1 1 NRR/ORAS 04 1 1 EXTERNAL'Qi%Q BRUSKE S 1 1 LPDR 03 2 2 NRC PDR 02 1 NSIC 05 1 1 TOTAL NUMBER OF COP IES REQUIRED: LTTR 23 ENCL 19

l

, II

INDIANA 8 MICHIGAN ELECTRIC COMPANY P,O. BOX 16631 COLUMBUS, OHIO 43216 January 13, 1987 AEP:NRC:0514S Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316 License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74 AUXILIARYBUILDING CRANE TRAVEL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE REQUEST Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

References:

(1) Our letter AEP:NRC:0514R, dated January 9, 1987 (2) Our letter AEP:NRC:05140, dated February 14, 1986 (3) NRC Safety Evaluation Report (SER) dated February 27, 1986

Dear Mr. Denton:

This letter and its attachments constitute an application for amendment to the Technical Specifications (T/Ss) for the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Unit Nos. 1 and 2. Specifically, we are proposing to modify T/S 3.9.7. The modification involves deletion of the expiration date of February 28, 1987 noted in the footnote to T/S 3.9.7 associated with the main load block of the auxiliary building crane. The reasons for the proposed changes and our analyses concerning significant hazards considerations are as noted below. The proposed revised T/S pages are contained in the attachment to this letter.

The footnote to T/S 3.9.7 was added to our T/Ss in Amendments 93 (Unit 1) and 79 (Unit 2). The footnote allowed us to operate the auxiliary building crane with the main load block over the pool provided the main hoist was n.! deenergized. The amendment is temporary, with an expiration'ate of February 28, 1987 pending the completion of a load block drop analysis. In our letter

~00 AEP:NRC:0514R, dated January 9, 1987, we submitted the load block drop 0 analysis performed by Exxon Nuclear Company for your review and approval.

'QPn Since our current T/S relief expires on February 28, 1987, we requested that

'O~

your review be performed on an expedited basis.

07m, 'OA We were informed by your staff on January 12, 1987 that the NRC staff

'O~ review of the load block drop analysis may not be completed by February 28, 1987, and we were asked to request a T/S change to delete the February 28, OIL 1987 date from the footnote of T/S 3.9.7. Deleting the expiration date from h.~

the footnote would mean that the provisions of deenergizing the main hoist and IXI'.g no load on the main hook remain effective. We are also requesting that upon NRC approval of the load block drop analysis submitted in Reference 1, the sub]ect footnote to T/S 3.9.7 be deleted. In the case that the footnote is (Qa deleted, we request that T/S 3.9.7 indicate that the load block of the auxiliary building crane is not considered a heavy load.

I 1

)1 N,

Mr, Harold R. Denton AEP:NRC:0514S The provisions noted in the footnote to T/S 3.9.7 were evaluated earlier per 10 CFR 50.92, as reported in our letter, Reference 2. The NRC SER (Reference 3) concluded in part:

"Failure of the main hoist in this condition is significantly reduced and would possibly require a failure of the entire crane system to have any effect on other systems or the spent fuel. The main hoist in the deenergized and unloaded condition would not significantly increase the consequences or probability of previously analyzed accidents involving the crane system nor would the crane condition create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously analyzed. Since the failure mechanisms of the main hoist and load block are significantly reduced, operation in the deenergized, unloaded mode over the spent fuel does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

Therefore, based on these considerations, the Commission has made a final determination that the amendment request involves a no significant hazards consideration."

The same provisions will continue to be in effect until such time as the NRC completes the review of the load drop analysis. Therefore the safety conclusions stated in the earlier SER (Reference 3) and Amendments 93 (Unit 1) and 79 (Unit 2) are equally valid and applicable beyond February 28, 1987.

We believe that the proposed extension of the provisions noted in the footnote to T/S 3.9.7. will not result in (1) a significant change in the types of effluents or a significant increase in the amounts of any effluent that may be released offsite, or (2) a significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.

These proposed changes have been reviewed by the Plant Nuclear Safety Review Committee (PNSRC) and will be reviewed by the Nuclear Safety and Design Review Committee (NSDRC) at their next regularly scheduled meeting.

In compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.91 (b)(1), copies of this letter and its attachments have been transmitted to Mr. R. C. Callen of the Michigan Public Service Commission and Mr. G. Bruchmann of the Michigan Department of Public Health.

It is our understanding that the check in the amount of $ 150.00 transmitted along with our submittal AEP:NRC:0514R, dated January 9, 1987 is applicable to this submittal as well.

4 k Mr. Harold R. Denton AEP:NRC:0514S This document has been prepared following Corporate procedures which incorporate a reasonable set of controls to insure its accuracy and completeness prior to signature by the undersigned.

Very truly yours, M. P. Al ich Vice Pr sident cc: John E. Dolan W. G. Smith, Jr. - Bridgman R. C. Callen G. Bruchmann G. Charnoff NRC Resident Inspector - Bridgman J. G. Keppler - Region III