ML17334B651
| ML17334B651 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 08/08/1997 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17334B650 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9708130460 | |
| Download: ML17334B651 (2) | |
Text
gyes REGS 0
C O
I 0
Cy gO
++*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON> D.C. 20555-0001 SAFETY EVALUATIONBY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 217 TO FACILITYOPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-58 AND AMENDMENTNO. 201 TO FACILITYOPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-74 INDIANAMICHIGANPOWER COMPANY DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-315 AND 50-316
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated December 20, 1996, the Indiana Michigan Power Company (the licensee) requested amendments to the Technical Specifications (TSs) appended to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74 for the Donald C, Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1
and 2. The proposed amendments would reduce the frequency and scope of reactor coolant pump flywheel inspections consistent with the staff's evaluation of WCAP-14535, "Topical Report on Reactor Coolant Pump Flywheel Inspection Elimination."
2.0 BACKGROUND
On January 24, 1996, Duquesne Light Company, the licensee for Beaver Valley 1 & 2, submitted Westinghouse report, WCAP-14535, "Topical Report on Reactor Coolant Pump Flywheel Inspection Elimination," for NRC review. This report, which provided an engineering analysis based on fracture mechanics, was intended to eliminate reactor coolant pump (RCP) flywheel inservice inspection (ISI) requirements.
By letter dated September 12, 1996, the staff responded with a safety evaluation (SE) which found WCAP-14535 acceptable for referencing in license applications with stated limitations.
Specifically, applicants need to confirm that their flywheels are made of SA 533 B material or must demonstrate that their material is bounded by the analysis for SA 533 B, and should commit to conduct a qualified in-place UT examination over the volume from the inner bore of the flywheel to the circle of one-half the outer radius or conduct a surface examination (magnetic particle testing and/or penetrant testing) of exposed surfaces defined by the volume of the disassembled flywheels once every 10 years.
3.0 EVALUATION As basis for the proposed amendment, the licensee referenced both WCAP-14535 and the staff's SE of that WCAP. Consistent with the limitations in the staff's SE, the licensee confirmed that their flywheels are composed of SA 533 B material.
The licensee has proposed to replace the current surveillance requirement, which references Regulatory Position C.4.b of Regulatory Guide 1.14, Revision 1, August 1975, with a requirement to inspect the flywheels "...by either qualified in-place UT examination over the volume from 9708%30460 970808 PDR ADOCK 05000315 P
PDR the inner bore of the flywheel to the circle of one-half the outer radius or a surface examination (magnetic particle testing and/or penetrant testing) of exposed surfaces defined by the volume of the disassembled flywheels once every 10 years."
This change is also consistent with the staff's SE.
As stated on page 2-3 of WCAP-14535, the licensee's flywheels are included in "group 5" and are, therefore, not affected by the limitations stated in the SE affecting groups 10, 14, 15, and 16.
Based on the staff's documented acceptance of WCAP-14535 as justification for a reduction in flywheel surveillance and the licensee's conformance with the limitations in that SE, the staff finds the proposed change in surveillance requirements acceptable.
4.0 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.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTALCONSIDERATION 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 a change to a surveillance requirement.
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 (62 FR 33126).
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.
6.0 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 Hickman Date:
August 8, 1997