ML17324A886
| ML17324A886 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 04/22/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17324A885 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8605090404 | |
| Download: ML17324A886 (4) | |
Text
< ~S REC(p P
~4 0
~'4~0 I
0 C
O "e
Cy
+n gO
++*++
t UNITEDSTATES 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.
94 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-58 AND AMENDMENT NO.
80 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-74 INDIANA AND MICHIGAN ELECTRIC COMPANY DONALD C.
COOK NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS.
1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS.
50-315 AND 50-316 1.0
2.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated January 21, 1986 the Indiana 8 Michigan Electric Company applied for amendments to the Technical Specifications (T/S) for the Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant Unit Nos.
1 and 2.
These amendments would make several minor changes to T/S related to radiation and effluent monitoring instrumentation.
These changes are addressed individually in the following paragraphs.
EVALUATION The first proposed change is to Table 3.3-3.
Instrument numbers of the radiation monitors are added to this table for clarity along with a footnote indicating this specification applies only during purge.
These changes constitute desirable clarifications and therefore are acceptable.
In Table 3.3-4 the trip setpoints are replaced by a reference to the appropriate values listed in Table 3.3-6.
In addition, instrument numbers are given.
These changes also are acceptable clarifications.
Tables 3.3-6 and 4.3-3 are revised to a format intended to facilitate use during operations.
The measurement ranges have been omitted for these tables and presented in the Bases
- section, along with the setpoint alarm/
trip criteria.
The alarm/trip setpoints are separated into two columns to more clearly and accurately describe the functions of the setpoints.
Specific values are given for the setpoints where applicable.
In both tables the noble gas effluent monitors have been included by reference to the appropriate T/S.
Action Statement 19 was renumbered as Action 21 to eliminate confusion with Action 19 for 'Table 3.3-3.
In Table 3.3-6 a
footnote was added to indicate which setpoints for the radiation monitor-ing system (RMS) monitors apply only during purge.
A footnote was also added to several RMS monitors to indicate that a channel check for this instrumentation should include a source check as defined in T/S 1.27.
Apart from the setpoint values which are addressed in the following paragraph, these changes are acceptable clarifications and format modifications.
ebp gQOC 5p~p" p5o ge g ebp~pgi5 pg8
The proposed setpoints are:
Containment area.monitor:
54 mR/hr noble gas monitor:
- 4. 4x 10 uCi /cc particulate monitor:
2.52 uCi The noble gas concentration was chosen to correspond to the T/S limit on noble gas dose rate.
If the noble gas concentration setpoint is not exceeded, site boundary dose rate, calculated using the dose conversion factors of Regulatgry Guide
- 1. 109 and a meteorological dispersion factor of 8.44x10 s/m3, will not exceed 500 mrem/yr.
The other two setpoints correspond to the noble gas setpoints based
'n operating experience at Cook.
These setpoints meet the criteria for both normal operations and accidents so they are acceptable.
In Table 3.3-12 item 2. 1 was changed to show that one monitor is required per train for the service water system effluent line and instrument numbers were added for clarity.
In Table 3.3-13 the instrument numbers were added to certain RMS monitors for clarity.
Also, the triple-asterisk footnote was deleted.
This footnote incorrectly indicated that the purge is automatically terminated on high containment activity signal from these instruments.
Note 1 was changed to clarify that other requirements are for non-purging only.
In addition, in Table 4.3-9 instrument numbers were added to the monitors for clarity.
These clarifications and corrections are acceptable.
Sections
- 6. 12. 1 and 6. 12.2 for Unit 1 are changed to be consistent with the Unit 2 T/S and similar to the Westinghouse Standard T/S (NUREG-0452, Revision 4).
In Table 3. 12. 1, Item 3.c.,
New Buffalo was deleted from the drinking water sample locations.
St.
Joseph serves as the control station; therefore, the New Buffalo station is not required.
In addition, the Lake Township sample location is in the same direction as the New Buffalo station, thus New Buffalo provides only redundant information.
Several changes were made to correct spelling, grammar and capitalization on pages 3/4 12-3, 83/4 3-1, B3/4 11-1, B3/4 11-2 and 6-21 for both units.
In addition footnote 2 to Table 3.3-13 was changed to'clarify the reference made to Item 3 on the table.
These changes and corrections are acceptable.
In Table 4. 11.2 the words "charcoal filter" are replaced with "Iodine Adsorbing/Media."
A statement was added to the Bases section to clarify that this iodine adsorbing/media is to be silver zeolite.
This change reflects current plant practices and industry standards.
The NRC staff considers the use of silver zeolite to be an improvement so this change is acceptable.
The changes proposed by the licensee are improvements and corrections to the Technical Specifications.
The staff has reviewed these proposed changes and concludes that they 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.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
These amendments involve a change in the installation or use of the facil-ities'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 signif-icant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significhnt hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, 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 environmental impact statement or environ-mental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the federal Re ister (51 FR 6824) on February 26,
- 1986, and consuited with tlie state o
ic agan.
No public comments were received, and the state of Michigan did not have any comments.
We 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 'ith the Commission's regulations, and the issuance of these amendments will t be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health an afety of the public.
Princi al Contributors:
D. Wigginton, PWR¹4 C. Willis Dated. APril 22, 1986
~f4 ggi~