ML17332A447
| ML17332A447 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 11/25/1994 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17332A446 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9412020185 | |
| Download: ML17332A447 (2) | |
Text
<P,8 REGS
~o Cy I
~o
.:c: i
+/
~O
++*++
~
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY, THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 171 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-74.,
INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY DONALD C.
COOK NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT NO.
2 DOCKET NO. 50-316
- 1. 0 INTRODUCTION By letter dated February 22, 1994, the Indiana Michigan Power Company (the licensee) requested an amendment to the Technical Specifications (TS) appended to Facility Operating License No.
DPR-74 for the Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 2.
The proposed amendment would revise pressure vessel heatup and cooldown curves and extend the applicability time from 12 effective, full power years (EFPYs) of operation to 15 EFPYs.
The proposed TS changes are based on the results of the D.C.
Cook Unit 2 surveillance capsule U which was removed after exposure of 8.65 EFPYs and for which the results are documented in the Westinghouse report WCAP-13515 (Ref. 1).
Our review is based on the acceptability of the estimated fast neutron (E>1.0 MeV) fluence on the inside surface of the pressure vessel.
- 2. 0 EVALUATION WCAP-13515 reports the evaluation of the fast neutron dosimetry measurements and the estimated values at the location of the surveillance capsule as well as for the extrapolated values for the inside surface of the pressure vessel.
The calculations for the processing of the dosimetry data as well as for the estimation of the fluence at the inside surface complied with staff recommendations for such calculations.
WCAP-13515 used the two-dimensional discrete ordinates DOT code (Ref.
- 2) with a Ss or"der of angular quadrature and a
P~ cross section approximation.
The SAILOR cross section library (Ref. 3) was used with a 47 group cross section set based on ENDF/B-IV.
The neutron sources were based on plant specific source estimates for the first 8 cycles and extrapolation to 16 and 32 EFPYs.
The method and the approximations described above comply with staff recommendations in Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2 and are acceptable.
The results provide the azimuthal fast neutron (E>1.0 MeV) fluence on the inside surface of the pressure vessel.
A comparison of the calculated versus the measured exposure at the surveillance capsule falls within 8 percent of the total value and provides confidence for the results of the measurements and calculations.
9exa020>85 9oxxas l
PDR ADOCK 050003ib P
- PDRL,
Based on the use of acceptable methodologies and the acceptable agreement between the calculated and measured results we find the proposed values of the fluence for 16 EFPYs acceptable for the estimation of the heatup and cooldown curves.
Therefore, based on the acceptable fluence predictions for 16 EFPYs, the extended applicability of the heatup and cooldown curves from 12 to 15 EFPYs is acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Michigan State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments.
The State official had no comments.
- 4. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION The amendment changes a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes to the surveillance requirements.
The staff has determined that the amendment involves 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 significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued a
proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding (59 FR 14891).
Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has 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, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
6.0 REFERENCES
1.
Fitzpatrick, E. E., Indiana Michigan Power Company, letter to T. Hurley, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, March 12, 1993 transmitting Westinghouse Report No.
WCAP-13515, "Analysis of Capsule U from the Indiana Michigan Power Company D.C.
Cook Unit 2 Reactor Vessel Radiation Surveillance Program,"
February 1993.
2.
- Soltesz, R. G., WANL-PR(LL)-034, Volume 5, "Nuclear Rocket Shielding Methods, Modification, Update and Input Data Preparation, Vol. 5 Two-Dimensional Discrete Ordinates Transport Technique,"
August 1972.
3.
DLC-76, "SAILOR, Coupled Self-Shielded, 47 Neutron 20 Gamma-Ray, P~ Cross Section Library for Light Water Reactors,"
ORNL RSIC Library Collection.
Principal Contributor:
L. Lois, SRXB/DSSA Date-Noveraber 25, 1994