ML17320A756

Application to Amend License DPR-58,revising Tech Spec 4.5.2.f to Increase Total Flow Limit to Four Branch Lines from 470 Gpm to 500 Gpm on Boron Injection Sys (Single Centrifugal Charging Pump)

ML17320A756
Person / Time
Site:	Cook
Issue date:	10/03/1983
From:	Alexich M INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. (FORMERLY INDIANA & MICHIG
To:	Harold Denton, Varga S NRC, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML17320A757	List: ML17320A756 ML17320A760
References
AEP:NRC:0849, AEP:NRC:849, NUDOCS 8310060006
Download: ML17320A756 (8)

Text

REGULATOR NFORMATION DISTRIBUTION TEM (RIDS)

ACCESSION NBR: 8310060006 DOC ~ DATE: 83/10/03 NOTARI'ZED: NO DOCKET FACIL:50~315 Donald O, Cook Nuclear Power Planti Unit 1i Indiana 8 05000315 AUTH, NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION ALEXICHgM~ P, Indiana 8 Michigan Electric Co.

RECIP.'NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION DENTONiH.R. . Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulationr Director VARGAiS,A, NRC No Detailed Affiliation Given

SUBJECT:

Application to amend License. DPR-58irevising Tech 'Spec 4.52.f to increase total flow limit to four branch lines from 070 gpm to 500 gpm on boron inJection sys (single centrifugal charging pump).

DISTRIBUTION CODE: A001S COPIES RECEIYED:LTR ENCL,j. SIZE:,

TITLE: Ray Milleri Inc: Related Correspondence (SSINS-5340)

NOTES:

RECIPIENT COPIES RECIPIENT COPIES ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL ID CODE/NAME LT'TR ENCL NRR ORB1 BC 01 7 7 INTERNAL: ELD/HDS3 0 NRR/DE/MTEB 1 1 NRR/DL D IR 1

1 1 NRR/DL/ORAB 1

0 TB 1 1 NRR/DS I/RAB 1 1 REG FILE 04 1 1 RGN3 1 1 EXTERNAL: ACRS 09 6 6 LPDR 03 1 NRC PDR 02 1 1 NSIC 05 1 1 NTIS 1 1 I

TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED: LTTR 25 ENCL 23

,i ll ~ <<s

), f '<<r<< l. f ] ~

>> )<<,I II> I II lI l 'I '<< 'I *II '

l II ) I fia

'I

~

'>00 ) >a f <<<<i,"C) r 4, f gII )> 'I t <<4'I'3 ~ )) 9 ) )<<)

gy s~ iver fife) "l ~ <<f<<~",J ~ ~ \

) ') t <<< f ~ f ll >e'

,<<~>>fW f I <<gf<< r rf '>>g I) "lgkl s f, f 0f I'II) '1)I ,)>>$ " ',<<>> <lg g>>>>,

i >>I

~ Il f I 1!w<<>>

I t 1>>il~ll )g"))i k I>> 0 f<<

f<<'OI l>>l<<'>> II<' l g gQ <<, ii') J ) i II 'il)>> >>>) ~ <<f II >> II Ilp i i i >><< lit II i II

"<<l

't X

, II l

INDIANA 8 M ICHIGAN ELECTRIC COMPANY P.O. BOX 16631 COLUMBUS, OHIO 43216 October 3, 1983 AEP:NRC:0849 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Unit No. 1 Docket No. 50-315 License No. DRP-58 PROPOSED CHANGE TO TECHNXCAL SPECIFICATION 4.5 '.f Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Mr. Steven A. Varga

Dear Mr. Denton:

This letter requests a change to the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Unit No. 1 Technical Specification (T/S) Surveillance Requirement 4.5.2.f. to increase the total flow limit to the four branch lines from 470 gpm to 500 gpm on the Boron Injection Syst: em (single centrifugal charging pump) .

T/S 4.5.2.f currently requires performance of ". . . a flow balance

, test during shutdown following completion of modifications to the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) subsystem that alter the subsystem flow characteristics." The footnote (*) to this T/S currently requires The actual flow in each (Boron Xnjection) BX line may deviate from the nominal so long as ~ . . the total flow to the four branch lines does not exceed 470 gpm."

The T/S Bases (B3/4.5.2) states, in part, "Surveillance requirements proper ECCS for...

flows will flow balance testing provide assurance that, be maintained in the event of a LOCAL Maintenance of proper flow resistance and pressure drop in the piping system to each injection point is necessary to: (1) prevent total pump flow from exceeding runout conditions when the system is in its minimum resistance configuration, (2) provide the proper split between injection points in accordance with the assumptions used in the ECCS-LOCA analyses, and (3) provide an acceptable level of total ECCS flow to all injection points equal to or above that assumed in the ECCS-LOCA analyses."

8~~DOS

'j)Q3fpOb000b 08000315

'~

~

.,",.-PDR ADPCg

P ~ ~

h I

~ ~

I" >,

)f 1 1',I

~ ~

[, > IF

') a . ~ ~: ~

I rl P

~

l I I

~ ~ 1 I I ~ = ~

I

)Et>

= > II

,t I' ~,r,') )

>>'r f>E ) ~ I rr) f I,) I> ~")E, I

~ X'f ) ~

P f.>I ) ', )I> r'.. Erl r>F I

~

~ IE) f ~ ~ ~

~

I >)

'> 1') I >

Irr>'.

'>>f, 'P* ', ',, ) rltrth' ) fg J'Fh )').'">'. >> 'lf ) f r ft.," ti> "

')

E h ~ ~

.' 1' ) 'frt I'ft- ' >Et. p ..'f'1 f I'.)If )

I'>E lft>1) f f ~ h'I ' I I'>)

~,', ',

1 > E

>")'< E (f) '.)X 1)'t'I ""I! ) ) ) f '

>, tj) g ".

f )) rtf>

'lf >hrj

)

I j jj>, "I '>>>h) r f,'I

~t t'X'h> > x r f>II) lt ~ Fr, f

It 'f I fhf'I'>g.

I

) t >

P 1 ) "E>f

( I

~ "; )) 't.">>, .'.i

~

) '. f"', ' f >' ) )t

)r '., "',

>t) h f,

>r',

Itf

> ~

',, 'l>>").I

'>C 1 ~

f.) it fr, >.f>>>

I

)

)

Mr. Harold R. ton AEP:NRC:0849 On October 1, 1983, while performing the above surveillance requirements for flow balance testing on the centrifugal charging pumps, we found that one of the two pumps (i.e., the East pump) exceeded the maximum flow requirement. During the test, the system was set up to provide the proper flow split between injection points, and both pumps had an acceptable level of total flow to satisfy the minimum flow requirements. Further adjustment of the throttle valves in the piping configuration to allow the East pump to meet the maximum flow requirement will infringe upon the minimum flow requirement for the West pump ~

In order to alleviate this situation, it would therefore require physical rework and retesting of the East pump to lower its performance to the extent that maximum flow came within T/S. Such rework and retesting is estimated to delay the Unit 1 startup by two weeks or longer. Therefore, on the basis of the need for power and the plant being subjected to an unnecessarily long shutdown, we request a technical specification change to allow us to operate in our "as tested condition".

The actual technical specification change request is included as Attachment, 1 to this letter. The bjsis for that change is discussed in Attachment, 2.

Based on our review, we have concluded that this change would not result in an increase to the probability or consequences of a previously-analysed accident, does not, reduce a safety margin, and is clearly within all acceptable criteria with respect to the component.

Since our conclusions are consistent with that published under the examples cited on page 14870 of Vol. 48, No. 67 of the Federal Register, it is therefore our belief that our proposed change will not constitute Significant Hazards Considerations as defined in 10 CFR 50.92.

This proposed change to Technical Specification has been reviewed and approved by the Plant Nuclear Safety Review Committee and will be reviewed by the Nuclear Safety and Design Review Committee at its next meeting.

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(b)(1), a copy of this application for a license amendment is being transmitted to the appropriate official of the State of Michigan.

AEPSC interprets 10 CFR 170.22 as requiring that a Class III Amendment Fee be paid for the change. A check in the amount of $ 4000 will be transmitted to you in a future letter.

I ") J,.P ') I ' 'Dr -F ~ )

0 D A',

A

~ ) 't'.)

'I lt h Ir,l jVDII I, F PX4; )Fr Di AD

~ 'A I 1~ FV r g)- 1",

~

Q r)A gp 4')1 I I D 1

A

'D'I D

=.) I .) A

) 1

"YF

~

4 ~tg 11 4

~ I D F

V.A D .S )-D, 4 X )

4~ F F

'l I* e I-F F

) 'I I

~ hrttl I

',fjl( e.

I A I') k I r) ej hlV I I "',"  ! Il D

~ -I- W D f D DXJ 'P I

~ ll I

IV) '",Ff I

Mr. Harold R. ton AEP:NRC:0849 Due to this letter being written on short notice, our Corporate procedures have not been followed during its preparation. We will review the letter according to our Corporate procedures and will inform you if any modification is required.

Very truly yours M. . Al ich Vice President MPA/pb cc: John E. Dolan W. G. Smith, Jr. Bridgman R. C. Callen G. Charnoff E. R. Swanson, NRC Resident Inspector - Bridgman

J 8