ML17320A378

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 69 & 51 to Licenses DPR-58 & DPR-74,respectively

ML17320A378
Person / Time
Site:	Cook
Issue date:	02/07/1983
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML17320A377	List: ML17320A376 ML17320A378 ML17320A379 ML20069H861
References
NUDOCS 8302240345
Download: ML17320A378 (12)

Text

Ui4ITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COiMti1ISSION MlASHINGTON n c >h%RS SAFETY EVALUATION AHD Et!VIPONtIEt!TAL IMPACT APPRAISAL BY THE OFFICE OF

!IUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATIOH RELATED TO At<EtiDt'iEHT HO.- 69 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE HO.

DPR-58 AND Ai4Et<Dl4EHT NO.

51 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICEiNSE NO.

DPR-74 It<DIANA AHD t<ICHIGAft ELECTRIC CO!I?AHY DONALD C.

COOK HUCLEAR PLANT UiHIT NOS.

1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS.

50-315 AHD 50-316 1.0 iNTRODUCTiON To comply with Section V of Appendix i of 10 CPR Part 50, the indiana and Michigan Electric Company has filed with the Coimnission plans and proposed technical specifications develop d for the purpose of keeping releases of radioactive materials to unrestricted areas during normal operations, including expected operational occurrences, as low as is reasonably achievable.

The indiana and Michigan Electric Company filed this information with the Commission by letter dated September 17, 1982 which requested changes to the Technical Specifications appended to Facility Operating License Nos.

DPR-58 and DPR-74 for Donald C. Cook Plant Unit, Nos.

1 and 2.

The proposed technical specifications update those portions of the technical specifications addressing radioactive waste management and make them consistent with the current staff positions as expressed in NURZG-0472.

Tnese revised technical specifications would reasonably assure compliance, in radioactive waste management, with the provisions of 10 CFR Part 50.36a, as supplemented by Appendix i to 10 CFR Part 50, with 10 CFR Parts 20.105(c),

106(g),

and 405(c); with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria 60, 63, and 64; and with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.

8302240345 830207 PDR *DOCK 05000315 P

-PDR I

I pl

2.0 BACKGROUND

AND DISCUSSION

2. 1 Regulations 10 CZR Part $ 0, Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities', Section 50,36a,

'Wchnical Specifications on Effluents from Nuclear Power Reactors'>

provides that each license authorizing operation of a nuclear power reactor will include technical specifications that (1) require compliance with applicable provisions of Part 20.106, "Radioactivity in Effluents to Restricted Areas (2) require that op rating procedures developed for the control of effluents be established and followed; (3) recuire that equipment installed in the radioactive waste system be maintained and used; and (4) require the periodic submission of reports to the NRC specifying the quantity of each of the principal radionuclides released to unrestricted areas in liquid and gaseous effluents, any quantities of radioactive materials released that are significantly above design objectives, and such other information as may be required by the Commission to estimate maximum potential radiation dose to the public resulting from the effluent releases.

10 CFR Part 20, "Standards for Protection Against Radiation," paragraphs 20.l05(c), 20.106(g),

and 20.405(c), require that nuclear po~er plant and other licensees comply with 40 CPR Part 190,"

Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations" and submit reports to the NRC when the 40 CPR Part 190 limits have been or may be exceeded.

2.1 10 CPR Part 50, Appendix A - General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power

Plants, contains Criterion 60, Control of releases of radioactive materials to the environment; Criterion 63, Monitoring fuel and waste storage; and Criterion 64, Monitoring radioactivity releases.

Criterion 60 requires that the nuclear po~er unit design include means to control suitably the release of radioactive materials in gaseous and liquid effluents and to handle radioactive solid wastes p oduced during normal reactor operation, including anticipated operational occurrences.

Criterion 63 requires that appropriate systems be provided in radioactive waste systems and associated handling areas to detect conditions that may

J

result "in excessive radiation-levels and to initiate. appropriate safety actions.

Criterion 64 requires that means be provided for monitoring effluent discharge paths and the plant environs for radioactivity that may be released from normal operations, including anticipated operational occurrences and postulated accidents.

10 C."-R Part 50, Appendix 8, establishes quality assurance requirements for nuclear power plants.

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, Section IV, provides guides on technical specifications for limiting conditions for operation for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors licensed under 10 CPR Part 50.

2.2 Standard Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications HUREG-0472 provides radiological effluent technical specifications for pressurized water reactors which the staff finds to be an acceptable standard for licensing actions.

Further clarification of these acceptable methods is provided in NURM-0133, "Preparation of Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications for Nuclear Power Plants."

HURD~-0133 describes methods found acceptable to the sta f of the NRC for the calculation of certain key values required in the preparation of propos d radiological effluent technical specifications for light-water-cooled nuclear power plants.

HUREG-0133 also provides guidance to licensees in preparing requests for changes to existing radiological effluent technical specifications for opezating reactors.

It also describes current staff positions on the methodology for estimating radiation exposure due to.the release of radioactive materials in effluents and on the administrative control of radioactive waste treatment systems.

The above NUREG documents address all of the radiological effluent technical specifications needed to assure compliance with the guidance and requirements provided by the regulations previously cited.

However, alternative approaches to the pzeparation of radiological effluent

0

technical specifications and alternative radiological effluent technical specifications may be acceptable if the staff determines that the alternatives are in compliance with the regulations and with the intent of the regulatory guidance.

2.2 The standard radiological effluent technical specifications can be grouped under the following categories:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(<)

(5)

Instrumentation Radioactive effluents Radiological environmental monitoring Design features Administrative controls Each of the specifications under the first three categories are comprised of two parts:

the limiting condition for operation and the surveillance reauirements.

The limiting condition for operation provides a statement of the limiting condition, the times when it is applicable, and the actions to be taken in the event that the limiting condition is not met.

In general, the specifications established to assure compliance with 10 CZR Part 20 standards provide, in the event the limiting conditions of operation are exceeded, that without delay conditions are restored to within the limiting conditions.

Otherwise, the facility is reauired to effect approved shutdown procedures.

In general, the specifications established to assure compliance with 10 CPR Part 50 provide, in the event the limiting conditions of operation are exceeded, that within specified times corrective actions are to be taken, alternative means of operation are to be employed, and certain reports are to be submitted to the NRC describing these conditions and actions.

The specifications concerning design features and administrative controls contain no limiting conditions of operation or surveillance reauirements.

2.2 Table 1 indicates the standard radiological effluent technical specifications that are needed to assure compliance with the particular provisions of the regulations described in Section 1.0.

~ I I

I I

~

f

~

~

~

~

I

~

I I

I lI

~

~

I I

I IIO <

+40 4 4

OO 0 0 0 0

4 ~

I I

I I

I

~ I 'I II' t

I

~

4 0

4 0 0 0 0 e

~

4

~ 0 0

4 I

~

I

~

I I

I

~,

~

~

I 0 0 I

~

3 0

EVALUATION The enclosed report (~-C5506-89/90) was prepared for us by Franklin Research Center (FRC) as part of our technical assistance contract program.

Their report provides their technical evaluation of the compliance of the licensee's submittal with NRC provided criteria. 4e have reviewed the FRC TER-and agree with the finding and conclusions.

3.1 SAFETy CONCLUSIONS The proposed changes to the radiological effluent technical specifications for the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 have been evaluated,

reviewed, and found to be in compliance with the requirements of the NRC regulations and with the intent of NUREG-0133 and NUREG-0472 fulfillall the requirements of the regulations related to radiological effluent technical specifications..

I'he proposed changes will not remove or relax any existing requirement related to the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and do not involve a significant hazards consideration.

I The proposed changes will not remove or relax any existing recuirement needed to provide reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endanoered by operation in the proposed manner.

4

4. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONCLUSIONS On the basis 'of the foregoing analysis, it is concluded that there will be no environmental impact attributable to the proposed action other than has already been pre'dieted and described in the Commission's FES for Donald C.

Cook Nuclear Plant Units 1

and 2.

Having made this

-conclusion, the Commission has further concluded that no environmental impact statement for the proposed action need be prepared and that a

'egative declaration to this effect is appropriate.

5. 0 GERBIL CONCLUSION Me have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:

(1) because the amendments do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, do not create the possibility o>

an accident of a type different

>rom any evaluated previously, and do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, the a-endments do 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 the amendments will not be inimical to the common de ense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

February 7, 1983