ML17320A500
| ML17320A500 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 04/25/1983 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17320A501 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8305040374 | |
| Download: ML17320A500 (4) | |
Text
~
gyes RECI Wp C
0
+*<<<<+
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFFTY EVALUATION BY THE'FF1'CF.'"'OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATIO'N RELATFD TO A>>FNII.'<ENT NO.
72 TO ABACI'LITY'OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-58 AND AMENDMENT NO.
54 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-74 II'IDIANAAND'MI'CHIQAN"FL'ECTRIC COMPANY
'ONALD C.
COOK NUCLEAR PLANT'UNIT ADIOS.
1 AND 2 DOCkET l'lOS. 50-315'AND'50-316 Introduction By letter dated April 14, 1983, Indiana and Michigan Electric Company requested Radiological Fffluent Technical Specification changes to Facility Operatinn License Nos.
DPR-58 and OPR-74, The subject chanues involve Sections '3.3=:3.10 and 3.11.2.5 of'the Technical Specifications for Unit Nos.
1 and 2.
,The licensee has proposed to.amend Section 3.3.3.10 o'
the Technical Specifications by changing Table 3.3-13, as follows; (a)
Provide for operation of the waste gas holdup system for up to 30 days (rather than the present 14 days) with less than two oxygen monitors operable, (b)
Include for clarity.the term "Unit Vent" in the heading to read "Unit Vent, Auxiliary Building Ventilation System","
since the Auxiliary Buil:ding Ventilation System is part of the Unit Vent System.
('c)
Clarify the ACTION regarding sam'pling and analysis when iodine sampler cartridqes and particulate samnlers are not operable to indicate only sampling and analyis of char coal samples and particulate
- samples, respectively, of the auxiliary building vent.,
Section 3.11.2.5 of the Technical Specifications provides requirements concerning'he concentrations of oxygen and.hydrogen in the waste gas holdup system.
The specification -is provided to ensure that the concen-tration of potentially explosive gas mixtures contained in the waste gas holdup system is maintained below the flammability limits of'ydrogen and oxygen.
Maintaining the concentration of hydrogen and oxygen below the flammability limit provides assurance that the release of radioactive materials will be controlled in conformance with the requirements of General Design Criterion 60 o~ Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50, 8305040374 830425 PDR *DOCK 050003l5 P
~
~
?
Evaluation The model Padiological Effluent Technical Specifications (RETS) described in NUPEG-0472 are based on systems that meet the requirements of the Standard Review Plan tSRP),
NUREG-0800, The Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant Explosive Gas Monitoring Systems does-not meet the requirements of SPR 11.3 of NUREG-0800 for dual hydrogen analyzers with..automatic control functions to preclude the formation or buildup of explosive hydrogen-oxygen mixtures.
Therefore, Technical Specification 3.,11I.2'.5 and the part of Technical Specification 3,3.'3.10 that addresses the Explosive Gas Monitoring System are designed to afford a degree of protection against a hydrogen-oxygen explosion similar to the provisions of the model RETS described in NUREG-0472.
I Technical Specification 3.11.2.5 provides that the concentration in the waste gas holdup system is to be limited.at all times to less than or equal to ?~ oxygen i~ the hydrogen in the. system is greater than or eoual to 4> by volume, and that if tHe concentration in the waste gas holdup system is outside this limit the concentration is to be reduced to within this limit within 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />.
If the concentration of either hydrogen or oxygen is kept below a concentration of"4f by volume, any gas mixture within the system wil1 be below theflymmability limit.
The proposed.
change to Technical Specification 3;11,2,5 would limit the concentration in the waste gas holdup system'o less than or equal to 3" oxygen by volume if the hydrogen in the system's greater'tban or equal to 4'.4 by volume.
This provides a margin between 3f. and 4/ oxygen by volume outside the flammability limit'.
.he proposed change to Technical Specification 3.11,2.5
'ould also provide that if the concentrati'on,in the waste gas holdup system i.s outside the limit, the concentr ationais, to be reduced to within the limit within 96 hours0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> rather than within 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />.
~
Technical Specificati'on 3,'3,3,10 provides, in part, that the waste gas holdup system may be operated for up to 14.days with less than two oxygen monitors
- operable, but that with no oxygen monitor,operable grab samples must be taken and analyzed every 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.
The, proposed change to Technical Specifi-cation would allow for o'peration of the. waste gas holdup system as described above for 30 days rather than for 14.day'.
With the proposed limit, as determined under the proposed amendment by operable hydrogen and oxygen monitors or with no operable hydrogen or oxygen monitor, the prescribed periodic sampling and analysis, adequate protection is afforded against a
hydrogen-oxygen explosion-..and assurance is provided that the release of radioactive materials will be controlled in conformance with the require-ments of General Design Criteria 60 of Appendix A to 10 CFP. Part 50.
The other proposed amendments to Section 3.3.3.10 are for clarification only.
~Summa u In view of the above considerations, we..have concluded that the-proposed amendment to Sections 3.3.3.1 0 and 3.11.2.5 of the Technical Specifications for Unit Nos.
1 and 2 are acceptable.
Environmental Consideration Me have determined that the amendments do not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant envirormental impact.
Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendments involve an action which is insignificant frcm the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR
$51.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environ-mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
Conclusion We have concluded, oasad Gn 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 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 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.
Oated:
April 25, 1983 Principal Contributor:
C. Nichols