ML17331B360
| ML17331B360 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 04/22/1994 |
| From: | John Hickman Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17331B362 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9404270325 | |
| Download: ML17331B360 (5) | |
Text
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY D.C.
COOK UNIT NO.
2 DOCKET NO. 50-316 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO Stn>>TFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, III.D.2.(a) and III.D.3., related to Type B and C local leak rate testing of containment isolation valves, to the Indiana Michigan Power Company (the licensee),
for operation of the D.
C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, located in Berrien County, Michigan.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Pro osed Action The proposed action would grant a one-time schedular exemption from the requirements of Appendix J, paragraphs III.D.2.(a) and III.D.3 of 10 CFR Part 50 and approve an extension of the 2-year period between the performance of Type B and C leak rate test by 150 days.
Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50, paragraph III.D.2.(a), states, in part, "Type B tests, except tests for air locks, shall be performed during reactor shutdown for refueling, or other convenient intervals, but in no case at intervals greater than 2 years."
Paragraph III.D.3., states, "Type C tests shall be performed during each reactor shutdown for refueling but in no case at intervals greater than 2
years."
Taken together, these sections require Type B and C containment leakage tests to be performed at an interval not to e/ceed 2 years.
viom7os~s ~soi~zg PDR ADOCK 05000316 P
In a letter dated March 9,
- 1994, as supplemented April 13,
- 1994, the licensee'requested an exemption to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, to allow the time between the performance of the required Type B and C tests to exceed the 2-year maximum by up to 150 days.
The Need for the Pro osed Action The proposed exemption is needed because compliance with paragraphs III.D.2.(a) and III.D.3 of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, would result in a unit shutdown and additional personnel radiation exposure in order to comply with the required Type B and C test frequency.
The licensee last conducted the required Type B and C leak rate tests during a refueling outage in the spring of 1992.
These previous leak rate tests will reach the 2-year maximum test interval imposed by Appendix J starting on Hay 29, 1994.
The licensee's next refueling outage is scheduled to begin in August 1994.
The extended interval between refueling outages is a result of an equipment problem and scheduling to avoid coincident refueling outages on both units.
The exemption is requested to support the current outage schedule and to avoid the potential for an earlier reactor shutdown.
If a forced outage is imposed to perform testing it would present undue hardship and cost in the form of increased radiological exposure.
Furthermore, if a forced outage is imposed to perform the required testing, an additional plant shutdown and startup will be required.
This action is similar to that approved for several other facilities.
Environmental Im act of the Pro osed Action The proposed action includes exemptions from performing Type B and C tests for a maximum period of 150 days beyond the required Appendix J test intervals.
As stated in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, the purpose of the
primary containment leak rate testing requirements is to ensure that leakage rates are maintained within the Technical Specification requirements and to assure that proper maintenance and repair is performed throughout the service life of the containment boundary components.
The requested exemption is consistent with the intent of 10 CFR 50. 12(a),
in that it represents a one-time only schedular extension of short duration.
The required leak tests will still be performed to assess compliance with Technical Specification requirements, albeit later, and to assure that any required maintenance or repair is performed.
As noted in paragraphs III.D.2.(a) and III.D.3 of Appendix J, it was intended that the testing be performed during refueling outages or other convenient intervals.
Extending the Appendix J intervals by a small amount to reach the next refueling outage will not significantly impact the integrity of the containment boundary and, therefore, will not significantly impact the consequences of an accident or transient in the unlikely event of such an occurrence during the 150-day extended period.
Past Unit 2 local leak rate test data have demonstrated improving leak rate test results.
Although the As Found results for the 1989 and 1990 outages were 3.0 L, and 0.74 L,, respectively, which exceeded the maximum limit of 0.6 L the 1992 As Found was 0. 18 L,.
-The improved 1992 As Found
- result, which was a minor increase from the 1990 As Left of 0. 17 L followed several corrective actions by the licensee.
The improving trend for the Type B and C Sent,ing, wel:1 below the allowable limit, provides reasonable assurance that the probability of exceeding the offsite dose rates established in 10 CFR Part 100 will not be increased by extending the current Type B and C
testing for a maximum of 150 days.
Thus, radiological releases will not differ from those determined previously and the proposed exemption does not otherwise affect facility radiological effluent or occupational exposures.
The proposed exemption will not increase the probability or consequences of any reactor accidents.
The proposed exemption does not affect plant nonradiological effluents and has no other envi:ronmental impact.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no measurable radiological or nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed exemption.
Alternatives to the Pro osed Action Since the Commission concluded that there are no significant environmental effects that would result from the proposed action, any alternatives with equal or greater environmental impacts need not be evaluated.
The principal a1ternative would be to deny the requested exemption and amendment,;and to require rigid compliance with the requirements of paragraphs III,D.Z.(a) and III.D.3 of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50.
Such action would not enhance the protection of the environment and would result in unjustified burdens and costs for the licensee and greater occupational exposure to plant personnel.
Alternative Use of Resources This action does not involve the use of resources not previously considered in connection with the Commission's Final Environmental Statement for D.C Cook, Units I and 2, dated August 1973.
A encies and Persons Consulted The staff consulted with the State of Hichigan regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action.
The State had no comments.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed exemption.
Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, the staff concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
For further details with respect to this proposed
- action, see the licensee's application and request for exemption dated March 9 and April 13, 1994.
This document is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document
- Room, 2120 L Street, N.M., Washington, DC 20555, and at the local public document room located at the Maud Preston Palenske Memorial Library, 500 Market Street, St. Joseph, Michigan 49085.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of April 1994.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ohn B. Hickman, Acting Director Project Directorate III-1 Division of Reactor Projects - III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation