ML17335A219
| ML17335A219 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 09/02/1998 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17335A218 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9809140027 | |
| Download: ML17335A219 (3) | |
Text
"yS REPp
~
+4
~o Cy Cl C,
O I
C lO0 Y/
~O
~+*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, O.C. 2055&0001 N
- 4 1.0 By letter dated February 22, 1996, 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 revise the TS to reference NRC Regulatory Guide 1.9, Revision 3, "Selection, Design, and Qualification of Diesel-Generator Units Used as Onsite Electric Power Systems at Nuclear Power Plants," rather than NRC Regulatory Guide 1.108, Revision 1, "Periodic Testing of Diesel Generator Units Used as Onsite Electric Power Systems at Nuclear Power Plants," for the determination of a valid diesel generator test.
2.0 Table 4.8-1 of the Cook TS provides the diesel generator test schedule.
The schedule provides a required test frequency based on the number offailures in the last 20 valid tests of the diesel generator.
Footnote "*"for the table currently states:
Criteria for determining number of failures and number of valid tests shall be in accordance with Regulatory Position C.2.e of Regulatory Guide 1.108, Revision 1, August 1977, where the number of tests and failures is determined on a per diesel generator basis.
For the purposes of this test schedule, only valid tests conducted after the OL issuance date shall be included in the computation of the "last 20 valid tests."
The licensee has proposed changing the regulatory guide reference in the footnote from "Regulatory, Position C.2.e of Regulatory Guide 1.108, Revision 1, August 1977," to "Regulatory Position C.2.1 of Regulatory Guide 1.9, Revision 3." The licensee states that the proposed revision is based on the fact that Regulatory Guide 1.9, Revision 3, has incorporated the pertinent guidance previously addressed in Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.108, and being a more recent document, it better reflects the NRC requirements regarding diesel generator testing.
9809i40027 980902 PDR ADCICK 050003i5 P
PDR The staff concurs with the licensee's rationale.
The final paragraph of Regulatory Guide 1.9, Revision 3, Section B, states:
This revision of Regulatory Guide 1.9 integrates into a single regulatory guide
pertinent guidance previously addressed in Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.9, Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.108, and Generic Letter 84-15, and it
- endorses, as appropriate, guidelines set forth in IEEE Std 387-1984.
Based on Regulatory Guide 1.9, Revision 3 being the latest guidance and a compilation of the pertinent guidance, the staff finds the proposed change to reference Regulatory Guide 1.9, Revision 3, for failure and test criteria acceptable.
3.0 In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Michigan State officialwas notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments.
The State official had no comments.
4.0 These amendments change the requirements with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 or change the 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 iriindividual 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 (61 FR 15990 ). 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 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 willbe conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments willnot be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: John B. Hickman Date: September 2, 1998
P 0
)
tj lf t~i 0'I w