ML17319B543
| ML17319B543 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 09/15/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17319B544 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8210040418 | |
| Download: ML17319B543 (3) | |
Text
~
pe <fogy~
~
~C Vp O~
Op C
o I
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSlON WASHINGTON, O. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.
61 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-58 AND AMENDMENT NO. 44 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-74 INDIANA AND MICHIGAN ELECTRIC COMPANY DONALD C.
COOK NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT NOS. I AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-315 AND 50-316 By letters dated April 7, 1982 and July 12, 1982, the Indiana and Michigan Electric Company (the licensee) proposed changes to the Technical Specifications appended to Facility Operating License Hos.
DPR-58 and DPR-74 for the Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant Unit Nos.
I and 2.
The proposed changes are related to a revised LOCA analysis for Unit I and the implementation of Supplement 2 to the PDC-II power distribution control procedures for both units.
The appli-cability of these changes from a safety standpoint are discussed
- below, Attachment 3 to the letter dated April 7, 1982 is still under review.
Discussion and Evaluation The changes in ihe Technical Specifications for Unit Hos.
I and 2 that are proposed in the July 12, 1982 letter implement the power distribution control procedures described in Supplement 2 to Exxon Nuclear Company (EHC) Report XX-NF-77-57, "Exxon Nuclear Power Distribution Control for PWRS - Phase II."
The proposed changes to the Technical Specifications will allow operation of D.
C.
Cook Unit Nos.
I and 2 with ENC power distribution control procedures which utilize a + 3X target band in addition to the current target band of
+ 5%.
Staff review of Supplement 2 has been completed and based on the review, we conclude that the use of the procedures in Supplement 2 is acceptable for D.
C.
Cook Unit Nos.
I and 2.
Based on the discussion presented
- above, we conclude that the proposed changes to the Technical Specifications for the D.
C.
Cook Nuclear Plant Unit Nos.
I and 2 are acceptable.
The changes in the Technical Specifications for Unit Ho. I that are proposed in the April 7, 1982 letter are related to a revised Emergency Core Cooling (ECCS) analysis.
The basis for the Technical Specification changes for Unit No. I, and a discussion of the background of the revised ECCS analysis are given below.
8210040418 8209i5 PDR
- DOCK 05000315 p
On December 15 and 17, 1981, the Westinghouse Electric Company informed the NRC of a potentia1 problem regarding large break ECCS analyses for Westinghouse Plants.
The potential problem is related to the single failure of the emergency safeguards equipment assumed in the large break ECCS analysis.
The existing analysis for bot'h Unit Nos. I and 2 assumed the most limiting ECCS condition to be the assumed single failure of an entire train of engineered safeguards equipment.
As summarized below, it is more conservative to assume no failure in the emergency safeguards equipment.
The ECCS analysi.s for D.
C.
Cook Unit No. I was reexamined by ENC assuming a
conservatively high Residual Heat Removal (RHR) flow and comparing the results with the existing analysis which is for a single RHR pump in operation.
Exxon Nuclear Company (ENC), the fuel supplier for Unit No. I, has made a conservative estimate of the effect of maximum RHR,flow on the analysis and has determined the effect of the maximum RHR flow to be a 42'F increase in PCT.
Based on sensitivity studies previously performed by ENC for D.
C.
Cook Unit No. I which showed a relationship of PCT vs.
Fn of 15'F per 0.01 in Fq, it is concluded that the maximum peaking facto reduction from the current Technical Specification Limit to 2.04 would assure that 10 CFR 50.46 limits would not be exceeded with maximum RHR flow with the evaluation model which has been developed for previous D.
C.
Cook Unit No. I analyses.
Based on the information summarized
- above, we conclude that operation with a Fq limit of 2.04 is acceptable.
The changes in the Technical Specifications following from the revision of the ECCS analysis are all directly related to the change in total peaking factor to a value of 2.04.
The revised Specifications were'btained by the same methodology as that previously used and approved and we find its use acceptable for D.
C.
Cook Unit l.
Based on the discussions presented
- above, we conclude that the proposed changes to the Technical Specifications for the D.
C.
Cook Nuclear Plant Unit Nos.
I and 2
are acceptable.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendments do not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts not an increase in power level and wil1 not resuIt in any significant environmental impact.
Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendments invoIve an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4),
that an environmentaI impact statement or negative decIaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
Conclusion We have concIuded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (I) because the amendments do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, do not create the possibility of an accident of a type different from any evaluated previously, and do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, the amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance
~ 'l 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 the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated:
September 15, 1982 Principal Contributors:
R. Cilimberg M. Brooks N. Lauben
~ ~