ML17324A670
| ML17324A670 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 02/24/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17324A669 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8603050575 | |
| Download: ML17324A670 (5) | |
Text
t ggS RE@(p~
~
~4 P
Cy n0 I
C lO Cy
+~
gO
+a*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.
93 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO..DPR-58 AND AMENDMENT NO.
79 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 Back round By letter dated February 14, 1986, Indiana 5 Michigan Electric Company, the licensee for the Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2, submitted an application for amendment to their License Nos.
DPR-58 and DPR-74 which, in part, would remove the restriction on the movement of loads in excess of 2500 lbs over the spent fuel pool with the Auxiliary Building crane.
We have reviewed the existing D.
C.
Cook Technical Specification 3.97, as well as the proposed temporary change to this Technical Specification and the sup-porting basis.
Evaluation In the February 14, 1986, letter the licensee indicated that the Auxiliary Building crane is the primary crane for moving equipment into and out of the auxiliary building.
The trolley for this crane consists of two hooks, a main hook and an auxiliary hook, and the associated load blocks.
The load blocks weigh approximately 4.25 tons for the main hook and less than 1000 lbs for the auxiliary hook.
The current load limitation of 2500 lbs over the pool is exceeded by the weight of the load block of the main hook when either hook is in use since both hooks move in unison.
The licensee has stated that the main hook will be deenergized by pulling the electrical breakers and will not carry any load on the hook while the auxiliary hook is in use.
By deenergizing the main hook it becomes a passive, integral component of the Auxiliary Building Crane and need not be considered a heavy load.
Furthermore, simultaneous blocking of the main and auxiliary hooks would not be possible.
The deenergizing of the main hook will be controlled adminis-tratively and will be included in the fuel handling procedures.
Based on our review, the proposed change to D.
C.
Cook Technical Specification 3.9.7 is in accordance with our acceptance criteria in SRP 9. 1.5 for heavy load handling and is, therefore, acceptable.
T i
860305.0575 860224
., l PDR.ADOCK 05000315, P ',.'DR' Basis for Emer enc Technical S ecification Chan e
The licensee's submittal dated February 14, 1986, for the emergency Technical Specification change was made following discussions with the staff on the licensee's September 11, 1985, and January 29, 1986, proposal to modify their heavy load program.
These discussions held on February
- 12. 1986, concluded that a change to the Technical Specifications was appropriate and consistent with the Comission's heavy loads program which included provisions for a load drop analysis for load blocks and the basis for the existing Technical Spec-ification limiting the impact energy to spent fuel from dropped loads.
The licensee has not completed the load drop analysis for the main load block, therefore, it was inappropriate to conclude that the main load block met the impact energy considerations of the Technical Specification or that a Technical Specification interpretation was sufficient; The licensee s position that deenergizing the main hoist and unloading the main load block would create a passive component of the Auxiliary Building crane did have merit and sup-ported the licensee's request for a Technical Specification change for one year until a load block analysis could be performed and new Technical Spec-ifications proposed where appropriate.
Due to the timing of the staff's review and determination and the final dis-cussion with the licensee on February 12, 1986, the licensee's submittal on February 14, 1986, did not allow enough time for a pre-notice of proposed license amendment and finding of no significant hazards consideration in the Federal Re ister.
The change was needed at the facility to prevent schedule
~s sppage an p ant restart fo11owing the Unit 2 outage.
The crane is needed to begin fuel shuffling on or before February 28, 1986.
We have determined that the licensee has been responsive in the submittal of the proposed Tech-nical Specification change once the staff determined that a Technical Specification interpretation was inappropriate.
The licensee had informed the Commission of the heavy load since September 11, 1985, and the licensee's basis for the interpretation and the proposed Technical Specification change is the same.
Based on our review, we do not believe the licensee delayed their submittal to create an emergency situation and take advantage of the post notice situation.
Discussion with the State of Michi an On February 20, 1986, the proposed Technical Specification
- change, the conditions requiring an emergency amendment of.the licenses, and the staff's final no significant hazards consideration were discussed with the State of Michigan contact for licensing matters.
It was agreed that the analysis and evaluation to be completed by the licensee during the next year are appropriate and that the condition of the main hoist and load block would offer continued protection against load drops during this period.
The State of Michigan under-stands the Comission's actions and has no further coments.
Final No Si nificant Hazards Determination In our review of the proposed Technical Specification
- change, we have considered the state of the main hoist and its load block while the Auxiliary Building crane is over the spent fuel.
The licensee will deenergize the main hoist so that the hoist cannot operate the load block up or down.
Since the breakers will be pulled, electrical shorts cannot occur to inadvertently start the hoist.
The hook will be unloaded so that the hoist cable, capable of carrying great loads, will only carry the load block.
In this condition, the main hoist and its load block becomes a passive, integral component of the Auxiliary Building crane and need not be considered a heavy load.
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.
Environmental Consideration These amendments involve a change in the installation or use of the facilities'omponents located within the restricted areas as defined in 10 CFR 20.
- The, staff has determined that these 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 determined that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
Accord-ingly, these amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Sec 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environ-mental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in con-nection with the issuance of these amendments.
I II
~
~
5
~
gl (J
Conclusion Me have 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, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations, and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Princi al Contributors:
A. Singh D. Migginton Dated; February 24, 1986
i