ML17319B427
| ML17319B427 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 06/28/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17319B426 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8207150617 | |
| Download: ML17319B427 (2) | |
Text
'0
~
gD >
Cy REgy 'tp0
. p %~
)
00 "I
~O
- ~4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.
55 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-58 INDIANA AND'MI'CHIGAN'LECTRIC 'OMPANY
'DONALD'C.'OOK NUCL'EAR PLANT, 'UNIT NO.
1 DOCKET NO. 50-315 Introduction By telecon on June 7, 1982, as confirmed by letter of the same date, Indiana and Michigan Electric Company (the licensee) requested an emergency Technical Specification change to Facility Operating License No.
DPR-58 for the Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant Untt No. 1.
The amendment would grant a one-time 144 hours0.00167 days <br />0.04 hours <br />2.380952e-4 weeks <br />5.4792e-5 months <br /> inoperable status of one ECCS subsystem to expire no later than 1:00 p.m.
on June 10, 1982, instead of the 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> limitation of Technical Specification 3.5.2.
~Bk At 1:00 p.m.
on June 4, 1982, the one east centrifugal charging pump of Unit No.
1 was registering a htgh vibration.
Removal of the pump from service and subsequent inspection revealed the loss of metal from the stainless steel clad and the plain steel of the casing on both the suction and discharge sides of the pump.
The licensee requested that one ECCS subsystem remain inoperable for 144 hours0.00167 days <br />0.04 hours <br />2.380952e-4 weeks <br />5.4792e-5 months <br /> to permit repair of the loss of metal and allow sufficient time for assembly and realignment of the pump.
The request was reviewed and found acceptable.
Verbal approval was given at 12:50 p.m.
on June 7 and a letter of approval was telecopied on June 8, 1982.
This amendment is the formal following of the expedited action.
Evaluation The Technical Specifications for Unit 1 requires that this Unit be in HOT SHUTDOWN within the next 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> after one ECCS subsystem has been inoperable for 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.
The licensee requested that Unit 1 remain operational with one ECCS subsystem inoperable for 144 hours0.00167 days <br />0.04 hours <br />2.380952e-4 weeks <br />5.4792e-5 months <br /> to repair the charging pump.
The justification for permitting operation while having one ECCS subsystem inoperable is based on the following:
8207i50617 820628 PDR ADOCK 050003l5 P
PDR a.
The remaining 1 west centrifugal charging pump has a high probability for remaining operable during the 144 hours0.00167 days <br />0.04 hours <br />2.380952e-4 weeks <br />5.4792e-5 months <br />.
b.
A LOCA evaluation based on Westinghouse topical reports WCAP-9600 and WCAP-8970-P-A concludes that loss of the 1W pump would not prevent meeting the PCT limits specified in 10 CFR 50.46.
We have reviewed this request and concluded that it is reasonable and that this action does not introduce any significant increase in the probability of an accident or a new type of accident and operation in this mode is accept'able on a one-time only basis not to extend beyond June 10, 1982.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types nor total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact.
Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of enviornmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) because the amendment. does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not invol,ve a
significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed
- manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date:
June 28, 1982